God...independent because he's interdependent?

Can we say that the reason God is independent is that he is interdependent? In the ultimate sense we cannot say that God needs himself since he already has himself i.e. can you need what you already fully possess?

However, when God embraced the creation through his incarnation and personally participated in its pain, suffering and loss as the flesh and blood Son of man, in some sense, he experienced some kind of loss/separation within the triune being of God i.e. what Christ formally fully had, ¹he set aside for a time, experiencing ²"loss" of what he formally fully ³possessed throughout eternity past? 

Joh 17:5  And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

(AMP)  And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed.

The above passage indicates during the incarnation, Christ was not participating in the full glory he had experienced from all eternity past - though this ultimately was restored. 

For a discussion on whether God "needs" us click here. 

For a further discussion of the incarnation click here. 
_________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

¹Philippians 2 speaks of Christ setting aside something of his eternal attributes. Even today it appears Christ still exists in a localized physical (but glorified) body. This is a change from his previous experience of total omnipresence - though we could argue that some  theophanies in the OT were Christ appearing as a man for short periods of time.

This raises the question of whether "God ever changes." God never changes in the essence of his being - He is same yesterday, today and forever - but is it possible he can change in the economy of his actions? The incarnation, life, death, and resurrection seem to indicate so. Though we may not be dogmatic on this or fully comprehend it, or do we need to necessarily, this passage indicates something unique occurred along this line.

²I put "loss" in quotes because ultimately this may have been gain and not loss in a similar way we gain a greater and fuller appreciation of God's unfettered presence through our loss of it i.e. as the saying goes, absence makes the heart grow fonder. Is this what it means for God to have the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. good in contrast to evil? Though Christ's suffering of evil occurred at a point in history, the knowledge of this was ever-present with God since God knows all things and is not bound to time. We are told at the outset, this was a quality of God's character before man's rebellion and the allure of gaining this quality was how humanity was enticed away from God.  

³i.e. omnipresence at a minimum? Though he initially set aside far more than this - e.g. he also set aside total omnipotence and omniscience during the incarnation, to name two of His other major attributes.

Christ's participation in the incarnation was not only for us but for himself - and the Godhead through him. By experiencing a self-imposed emptying (loss) he became experientially (more fully?) aware of His dependence on the Father in a way he hadn't before, gaining first-hand experience and a greater appreciation of what he had in the fellowship/ communion/union with the Father by and through the Spirit. Like us, Christ gained an appreciation for the good he formally had, i.e. his relationship with His Father, by losing something of it for a time.  This may be the reason for the joy He experienced in anticipation of returning to the Father. 

"...looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

Heb 12:2 ESV

Did God participate in and experience the evil of suffering for the same reason he allows us to; to create a greater appreciation for the presence of the Father by experiencing his absence?



In the truest and most important sense, there is no "before" in God i.e. God IS, so there is no past, present, or future for Him; everything is present to God. This may explain why it says God knew good and evil prior to the rebellion of Adam in the garden. The experience of the incarnation, along with all its suffering, was in one sense present tense for God while in another sense carried and acted out in time by the incarnate of Christ (but by choice, not necessity i.e. there was nothing lacking in God that required God to act in time, e.g. to create. God didn't create to fulfill something lacking in himself).

Why explore things that are only inferred in scripture and not stated explicitly? Because some explicit statements and teachings in scripture appear to contradict other explicit statements. For example, there is no evil in God yet God knows good and evil. Christ is fully man yet fully God. God is one in essence yet three distinct persons. What do we do with these paradoxes and seeming contradictions? We should not ignore them because we can not fully make sense of them but attempt to see how they might work and fit together and what, if any, benefit can be gained in doing so. If it helps us to better know and honor God it is a worthy pursuit, is it not?

Some may feel this inquiry is fruitless. I would suggest the opposite. 

If you wish to further explore the value of paradox, click here.

If you wish to further explore God using evil for good, click here.