6:38 I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 6:39 Now this is the will of the one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. 6:40 For this is the will of my Father—for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(See also Jn 4:34)

Our Lord’s statement here raises questions pertaining to the debate about the Eternal Submission of the Son.  Does his being the ‘Son’ who is ‘sent’ imply an eternal submission to the ‘Father’ who ‘sent’?  And if it is the Father’s will that Christ should ‘raise them all up at the last day’, does this suggest that this submission extends until (at least) the last day?

Calvin applies this saying, along with a number of others, to Christ’s incarnate state:

‘He is called “the servant of the Father” [Isa. 42:1, and other passages]; he is said to have “increased in age and wisdom … with God and men” [Luke 2:52], and not to “seek his own glory” [John 8:50]; “not to know the Last Day” [Mark 13:32; cf. Matt. 24:36]; not to “speak by himself” [John 14:10], and not to “do his own will” [John 6:38 p.]; he is said to have been “seen and handled” [Luke 24:39]. All these refer solely to Christ’s humanity.’ (Institutes, 2,XIV, 2)

Replying in the negative, Kevin Giles appeals to the Jewish ‘Shaliach‘ concept, whereby the one sent has the same authority as the one who sends.

For Giles, then,

‘This means that the sending terminology in John is best understood as underscoring the unity between the Father and the Son in their work (Jn 5:17–18; 10:29–30), and as explaining how the words of the Son are the words of the Father (Jn 3:34; 12:50; 14:10–11). The human language of sending distinguishes the persons—the Father is the one who sends, the Son the one who is sent—but the emphasis falls on the authority of the Son as expressing the authority of the Father.’

(Jesus and Father, quoted by Routley, Jonathan J. Eternal Submission: A Biblical and Theological Examination (p. 34).)

But, as Routley observes, this insistence goes against the grain of the terminology of ‘sending’ in John’s Gospel.

Christopher Cowen enlarges on this thought:

‘Whether or not the Jewish concept of agency (shaliach) forms the background for the sending of the Son, the Gospel’s language of sending and the accompanying actions of the one sent seem to imply that the Son is subordinate to his Father who sent him. A comparison to others who were “sent,” in which John uses the same terminology, reveals their obvious subordination to their sender(s): John the Baptist who was sent by God (Jn 1:6, 33), the priests and Levites who were sent by the Jews/Pharisees to question John (Jn 1:19, 22, 24), and the officers who were sent by the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus (Jn 7:32; cf. 7:45). So, it seems only natural to see Jesus’ relationship to his sender in the same way.’

Our Lord is expressing a clear sense of purpose here.  Routley argues that this must have been an eternal purpose:

‘This purpose must have been determined by the Son prior to his incarnation while he was still in heaven, which then led to or caused his coming down. Jesus came down from heaven for the purpose of doing his Father’s will, and that intention was determined in eternity.’ (Op. cit., p37)

Routley makes a number of ponts from this saying of our Lord:

‘The very terms “Father” and “Son” imply not only a relationship of origin, but also a filial relationship of authority and obedience.’

‘Because the Father sends the Son from heaven, the Father possesses authority and the Son demonstrates submission to that authority. In referring to himself as the one sent, Jesus reveals the ordered relational positions of both the Father who has authority to send and the Son who willingly obeys.’

‘Why did Jesus come down from heaven? What was his purpose? The answer given in the text is not to do his own will, but the will of the Father. The words, “For I have come down from heaven (ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ),” indicate that this is the purpose of the Son in his coming. This purpose must have been determined by the Son prior to his incarnation while he was still in heaven, which then led to or caused his coming down. Jesus came down from heaven for the purpose of doing his Father’s will, and that intention was determined in eternity.’

Jesus’ execution of the Father’s will extends into the future.  In verse 39 Jesus says: “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.”:

‘This shows that Jesus, in submitting to and obeying the Father’s will, continues to do his Father’s will after his death and resurrection. The “last day” of this verse has a clear eschatological connection. Jesus’ obedience and submission to the Father continues all the way down to the eschatological end, but opponents of ESS want to argue that the Son ceases to be obedient in the “form of a servant” at his resurrection and ascension. John 6:38 firmly refutes this misconception. The Son does not cease to be obedient and submissive at the resurrection but continues to do his Father’s will in his glorified condition, as we are told here, until the last day.

For Bruce Ware, this saying is one of a number that indicate that:

‘Jesus’ obedience to the Father occurred prior to his incarnation, and this prior obedience accounts for the very incarnation itself.’ (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

In Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective Ware notes:

‘If the Father sends his Son into the world (John 3:17) and if the Father creates and reveals and redeems through his Son (Heb 1:1–3), then these names refer not to some ad hoc arrangement for the incarnation but to an eternal relationship in which the Father is the eternal Father of the Son, and the Son is the eternal Son of the Father.’

The Father-Son relationship entails, among other things, a rightful authority:

‘God as Father is rightfully deserving of his children’s honor, respect, and obedience. To fail to see this is to miss one of the primary reasons God chose the name Father to name himself. If the Father is the eternal Father of the Son, and if the Son is the eternal Son of the Father, this marks their relationship as one in which an inherent and eternal authority and submission structure exists. The Son qua eternal Son heeds the voice and command and will of his eternal Father.’

‘…Those who deny any eternal submission of the Son to the Father simply have no grounding for answering the question why it was the Son and not the Father or Spirit who was sent to become incarnate. And even more basic is the question why the eternal names for Father and Son would be exactly these names.’

In egalitarian thinking, any one of the persons of the Trinity could have become incarnate:

‘Yet we have scriptural revelation that clearly says that the Son came down out of heaven to do the will of his Father. This sending is not ad hoc. In eternity, the Father commissioned the Son who then willingly laid aside the glory he had with the Father to come and purchase our pardon and renewal. Such glory is diminished if there is no eternal Father-Son relation on the basis of which the Father wills to send, the Son submits and comes, and the Spirit willingly empowers.’

So also Grudem, in the course of a discussion about the one will of God and three expressions of that one will:

‘Within the one unified will of God, we must say that there have been three distinctive expressions of that will by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how we can do justice to statements such as John 6:38: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” The “I” in this verse cannot be the human nature of Christ, for the human nature of Christ did not “come down from heaven,” but rather the divine nature of the Son did this. And yet he distinguishes “my own will” from “the will of him who sent me,” which must imply that there are different expressions of the unified will of God among the three persons of the Trinity.’ (Systematic Theology, 2nd ed.)

Routley thinks that this saying shows that our Lord continues to be submissive to his Father’s will after (as well as during and before) the time of his earthly life:

‘This shows that Jesus, in submitting to and obeying the Father’s will, continues to do his Father’s will after his death and resurrection. The “last day” of this verse has a clear eschatological connection. Jesus’ obedience and submission to the Father continues all the way down to the eschatological end, but opponents of ESS want to argue that the Son ceases to be obedient in the “form of a servant” at his resurrection and ascension.  John 6:38 firmly refutes this misconception. The Son does not cease to be obedient and submissive at the resurrection but continues to do his Father’s will in his glorified condition, as we are told here, until the last day.’ (Op. cit., p37f)