Dee Dee Warren
November 27th 2003, 07:54 PM
The Father and Son in the Gospel of John
by Jaltus (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=7)
John is the gospel that is used more often and for more reasons than the Synoptics 1. What most people do not realize, however, is how the gospel is tightly woven together in terms of themes. One of the major themes within the book is the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. The author quickly shows that Jesus is God (1:1, 8:58, etc). He also shows that the Father sent Jesus (3:17 among others). This relationship is intertwined with many other major motifs in the gospel, but this study will try to stay with the relationship between God the Father and God the Son as shown in the words of Jesus. Since Jesus Himself is the truth (14:6), it is through His words that this paper will seek to understand how the Father and Son are so much the same and yet are distinct. While John, as the narrator, makes comments about the relationship, restricting this study in scope will enable deeper studies to be made of the relevant passages. This study will first scan the topic canonically, then conclude topically.
John 3:11-21
The first item in dealing with this passage is whether or not the quotation from Jesus goes through verse 21 or not. While there can be a decent argument made for ending the quotation after 152, the arguments for the quotation extending take into account the thematic structure and grammatical structure of the section, 3 which is more convincing. Building on this assumption, the words themselves will be seen as a motivating factor behind this choice.
The remarks made in 3:11-20 are prefaced by 11-12, where Jesus says that one can only speak of what one actually knows. Clearly, then, Jesus is claiming a personal, specific knowledge of “heavenly things” (3:12). Leaving aside the difficulties inherent in 3:13, 4 3:14-15 are a clear allusion to the crucifixion and resurrection5. Thus, the death and resurrection are heavenly things, issues only to be understood by those who are privy to such knowledge.
Built upon this understanding, one of the most well-known verses in the Bible comes. 3:16-17 clearly show that salvation comes from Jesus and the cross, 6 but they also show that all of this comes from the Father. 7 17 plainly states that the Father sent the Son. 8 Here is the first explicit mention of subordination. While ambassadors often have the full power of the one they are standing in for, they are not equal in authority to the one who sent them. The importance of the passage is that “…God’s purpose in the mission of Jesus was to bring salvation to [the world].” 9 Jesus came to fulfill God’s purpose, He did not come in Himself nor of Himself, but in the Father and of the Father. There is a clear logical connection between 15 and 16 (outwV gar), so the sending of 16-17 also links to 14-15. The Father sent the Son to die on the cross. 10 The Son did not send the Father, so the Son is the agent of the Father. 18 makes a claim that readily ties into many Old Testament themes, specifically that it is the name of God’s Son that saves. The idea of God’s name is important and covers a wide range of the Old Testament. 11 The importance of the name of the Son is being closely paralleled to the importance of the name of the Father in the Old Testament, as happens in the New Testament (see Philippians 2:10, Acts 4:12, and others). 3:21 then shows how closely linked God and truth are. Since Jesus is the figure of truth in John (note 14:6 especially), it is being shown that living in or by the truth equates to living in or by God. Schnackenburg says, “Under the light, that is, when the person and words of the revealer show everything in its true colours, it will be clearly seen that these works are ‘true’, that they are in conformity with God’s nature.” 12
John 5:19-30
This section is the beginning of one of the longer discourses in John. 5:19 introduces the speech of Jesus, connecting it to an occasion when the Jews were concentrating on killing Him for breaking the Sabbath and for claiming to be equal with God. 13 This defense of Himself is much like the synoptic defenses in that Jesus is defending Himself from being a lawbreaker. However, it is also much different in that the defense He offers draws on a dispute within the Rabbinic tradition of whether God rests on the Sabbath Himself. The question is that if God were to rest on the Sabbath, would not creation itself come crashing down? The Father needs to be continually upholding the universe since without Him nothing can happen. Therefore, it was decided that God is above the Sabbath law.14
If God is above Sabbath law, then it only makes sense if Jesus is also, since He is God. In order to show this, He again lays out how dependant the Son is on the Father. 5:19 is a key verse, showing subordination on the one hand, but equality on the other. That the Son is under the Father is shown through the Son being able to do nothing by Himself. “The unity that exists between the Father and the Son is so great that the Son does what the Father does and, what is more, does it ‘likewise’. This does not mean that the Son acts after or alongside the Father in the same or a similar way, but that the activity of the Father and the Son takes place at the same time and that they act as one.” 15 That there is equality in power can be seen by the statement that, “whatever the Father does, the Son also does.” This claim of subordination and equality is a strange one for the Jewish worldview. Jesus is not claiming to be a rival God, but rather the same God. Christ is not a different or lesser God, but rather the One God, totally dependant on the Father in heaven. 16
This strange balance between dependence and independence explained in 5:19 can be seen in the two major illustrations that follow. In 21, the Father gives life to all things, which makes a direct correlation to the background of the Sabbath controversy already alluded to. In the same manner, the Son has the power to give life to whom He chooses. This shows equality of power. 22 illustrates the divestment of authority from Father to Son, namely the Son is given the authority to judge, authority that derives from the Father (as can be seen through the use of alla thn krisin pasan dedwken tw uiw). The authority is “given” or “appointed” to the Son. Schnackenburg relates this as, “The Son carries out the function that is God’s alone, namely giving life in all its depth and fullness and in this way makes God’s concern for man visible. He is therefore God’s unique, ultimate, historical and eschatological revelation to the world. His coming into history has made it possible for man to move from the sphere of death into that of life and to achieve his true existence, the life he was intended to lead.” 17 21 and 22 form an antithetical parallel, with equality being parallel to disparity and power parallel to office. The reason for this antithesis is laid out in 23, specifically that the Son will be as honored as the Father, the ambassador as honored as the sending king. 18
Verse 24 gives an important statement (as can be seen through the prefacing of amhn amhn) in terms of the book, but it actually serves as the breakpoint of this discourse. There is a parallel set up within this speech such that 19-24 are reflected by 25-30. 19 Thus the treatment of 19-24 covers the main points brought up by this part of the discourse. Carson sums up the argument in the following manner, “Jesus is not equal with God as another God or as a competing God: the functional subordination of the Son to the Father, the utter dependence of the Son upon the Father, are about to be explicated. So once again there is irony: the Jews take umbrage at Jesus’ implicit claim to deity, having rightly detected the drift of Jesus’ argument; but their understanding of Jesus’ equality with God needs serious modification, for Christians will not accept di-theism or tri-theism any more than Jews themselves. The ensuing verses may therefore be seen, in part, as a defense of a distinctly Christian form of monotheism (cf. Lightfoot, p. 141), as much as an explication of the nature of Jesus’ equality with his Father.” 20
John 5:31-47
The subject here takes a turn from where it had been in the previous half of the discourse. Jesus is now setting out to base His testimony about Himself on the Father. 34 is the turning point in the discussion of witnesses in that Jesus states that human testimony is not good enough. For the message that He proclaimed, the only witness that matters is the divine witness. The testimony of the Father is shown in two ways. 21
The first way that the testimony of the Father is revealed is through the works that Jesus Himself was doing and had done (5:36). All the miracles that Jesus had performed, all the healings, all the wondrous teachings, each of those occurrences are a part of the Father’s testimony. 22 It has already been shown that all Jesus does is from the Father, now all that Jesus has done testifies to that fact. As Brown puts it, “…Jesus miracles are brought forth as testimony. These, too, represent the witness of the Father, for they were given to the Son by the Father.” 23
The second way that the testimony of the Father is revealed is through Scripture itself (5:39). A thorough reading of the Old Testament can only show the truth of Jesus’ claims. Since the scripture comes from the Father, it is therefore more testimony from the Father about who the Son is. “For the evangelist, it is not only that individual sayings of Scripture are fulfilled in Jesus (12:38, 13:18, 15:25, 17:12, 19:24, 36), but the whole of Scripture is directed towards him and speaks of him (cf. 12:41).” 24 Scripture is a vivid portrait of who Jesus is, even before Jesus is on earth! This is a witness that the Jewish leaders should have recognized as pointing to Jesus since they study it so thoroughly (as seen through the use of eraunate, which means “to study rigorously” here). Both the Scriptures and Jesus’ works show that the Father is a witness to Christ, for without the Father’s witness, neither of these two elements would fit.
John 8:28-29
This passage is toward the end of another debate about testimony on Jesus’ behalf. With the background of the Feast of Tabernacles, 25 this is another earth-shattering statement made at the same time as 7:37-39 and 8:12. Within this pericope is a stark egw eimi claim26 and more indications of subordination.
The egw eimi claim stands out from some of the previous ones because there is no modifier. Carson rightly points out that, “…we should read a full stop after ‘I am’. In the next words, nothing in the Greek text corresponds to NIV’s ‘that’. Rather, Jesus goes on to say, ‘And I do nothing on my own…’” 27 The importance of the “I am” claim is that it is a clear indication that Jesus is claiming to be God. 28 This can be seen through the Old Testament background of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:11-13. 29 Thus a claim of equality with and identification with the Father is explicitly made.
While being the “I am,” Jesus is also relying on and is being sent by the Father. Nothing that Jesus does is truly independent, for everything He does is reliant on the Father. Bruce says, “Even now, the ever-present awareness of this vindication gave him confidence; more than that, he had the assurance of the Father’s constant presence and approval. In all that he did, the Father was with him…”30 The Son only speaks the words that the Father gives Him, much like the promised Holy Spirit will do for believers (John 16:13). Jesus is also the one sent by the Father, again showing the Father as the reigning monarch and the Christ as His agent. Once again this passage teaches both sides of the issue, equality and subordination.
John 8:42-47
This section begins with the same idea of the Son being sent by the Father. It also includes another small bit of information, namely that the Son did not come on His own. 31 The sense of sending is therefore even more important now. The importance of this section, however, is not tied up in the sending itself, but rather in the importance of “love” and being “from God.”
The issue of love deals with both loving God and belonging to God. In order to truly belong to God, one must love Him. In order to show true love for Him, they must love all that comes from Him. Since Jesus comes from God, they must love Jesus in order to truly belong to God. 32
The importance of Jesus being from God is a matter of much debate. The Nicene Creed calls Jesus “God of God,” clearly referring to this passage, but is that what John is trying to say? While many argue that this is an absolute statement about the relationship within the godhead, 33 it is more likely that this deals only with the incarnation, as the context deals with Jesus’ mission (note especially the kai hkw, meaning His physical presence on earth). 34 Therefore this passage shows that Jesus belongs to God, so in order to be able to understand what He is saying, His listeners also need to (in some sense) belong to God.
John 10:14-18
This is a well-known passage, often called the good shepherd discourse, that brings home many difficult concepts in the relationship between the Father and Son. The first is the intimacy within the godhead. The second is that the authority of the Son is genuine, but that it derives from the Father’s authority.
The image of the shepherd knowing the sheep is one that is often used to understand how well Jesus knows His flock, namely the church. However, this is also the illustration used to show how well the Father and Son know each other. Carson says, “This mutual recognition, or better, mutual knowledge, is clearly experiential, and is analogous to the mutual knowledge of the Father and Son (v. 15). That the shepherd knows his sheep, and the sheep know their shepherd, is presupposed by vv. 3-4; this mutual knowledge is precisely what ensures that they follow their shepherd, and only him.” 35 That experiential knowledge is meant here can be seen by 10:3-5. Knowing the voice of the shepherd is how the sheep recognize him and know to stay away from a robber. It is this same experiential knowledge that so closely binds the Son to the Father. 36
Jesus has the authority to give up His life, and then to take it up again. Obviously it is the crucifixion and resurrection that elicit this comment, but it does cause some problems. The New Testament repeatedly refers to the Father being the one who resurrects Jesus (note Galatians 1:1, etc), but 18-19 explicitly mention Jesus as being the one who raises Himself. Brown says, “We note that in both vss. 17 and 18 it is Jesus who take up his life again…but since in Johannine thought the Father and the Son possess the same power (x 28-30), it really makes little difference whether the resurrection is attributed to the action of the Father or of the Son. This is a profound theological insight on which later Trinitarian theology would capitalize.” 37 There is an overlap of power, then, and authority, though clearly both originate with the Father. Carson expands upon this, saying, “Nevertheless, though the Father and Son are at one, it is the oneness of command and obedience: This command I received from my Father…The theme of Jesus’ obedience is already well established; the language of command is common from here on in John (and in 1Jn. and 2Jn. as well), whether the commands of the Father to the Son…or of the Son to his disciples…”38 There is a blending taking place, that Jesus holds power and authority in and of Himself, but at the same time it all comes expressly from the Father.
John 10:25-38
Jesus once again appeals to the miracles He has already done as an established witness of Who He is and from Whom He comes. 10:25 picks up both on this theme and on the theme of the Father's name. There is another twofold expression of the relationship between the Father and the Son, this time dealing with a deeper sense of unity and a difference in function that ends up stressing the unity side as well.
The absolute unity can be seen in the frank statement (10:30), “I and the Father are one.” This is a difficult statement that produces many differing interpretations. The most important view is one which Brown states, “The Protestant commentator Bengel, following Augustine, sums up the orthodox position: ‘Through the word “are” Sabellius is refuted: through the word “one” so is Arius.’” 39 The next step is to see if there is more than just a unity of purpose involved. Carson sums up a lengthy treatment of the dispute with, “In short, although the words I and the Father are one do not affirm complete identity, in the context of this book they certainly suggest more than Jesus’ will was one with the will of his Father, at least in the weak sense that a human being may at times regulate his own will and deed by the will of God. If instead Jesus’ will is exhaustively one with his Father’s will, some kind of metaphysical unity is presupposed, even if not articulated.” 40
The difference in function can be seen through such statements as “My Father…is greater than all,” and “…the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world.” These both stress the exalted position of the Father and the lesser stature of the Son, at least at first glance. However, the connecting statements begin to break down the large disparity in these declarations. In defense of His words, Jesus again appeals to His miracles, but calls them “what my Father does.” This is a clear link to the unity of Father and Son. 41 To make the link more explicit, Jesus says that in believing the miracles, they will (10:38), “…understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Carson explains, “There is between the Father and the Son what theologians call a ‘mutual co-inheritance’: each is ‘in’ the other. This mutual co-inheritance is the grounding of the teaching of 5:19ff.” 42 The lines are starting to blur in terms of what is subordination and what is unity.
John 14:6-14
This passage includes a famous self-proclamation by Jesus, but it also has some insight into how Jesus relates to the Father. Jesus makes the explicit claim that seeing Him is seeing the Father, something that has not been so plainly spoken until now. Some of the same elements are drawn into the discussion again, but it is the new theme which makes this pericope stand out.
The first new thing to stick out is the explicit mention in 14:6 that Jesus is the only way to approach the Father. 43 There are no other paths to reach God. This is an exclusive claim, blocking any attempt to experientially or mentally “know” (ginwskete) the Father. 44 Jesus is not claiming to be the door which people walk through in order to see the Father, rather He is the entire path to get there. 45 Since Jesus is the path in a holistic sense, all other avenues are false. Anything that takes away from knowing (and loving) Christ takes away from knowing the Father. 46
The second new theme, or rather old theme explicitly laid out for the first time, is that Jesus is, at least in some sense, the earthly manifestation of the Father. In 14:8 Philip shows that the Twelve do not understand what Jesus meant by 14:6-7. Jesus’ reply delves deeper into the mystery of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus says (14:9), “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” This statement (o ewrakwV eme ewraken ton patera) clearly lays out a type of equality between Father and Son that has only been hinted at before. 47 The sensory language here (ewrakwV, ewraken) makes the statement understandable to the Twelve. In order to delineate exactly how seeing Him is seeing the Father, Jesus uses an explanation that He has touched on before, namely the mystical union of the Father and Son. Carson aptly explains this as, “…articulated elsewhere in a statement such as ‘I and the Father are one’ (10:30). This does not obliterate all distinctions between them: the words and works of Jesus are given to him by the Father (5:19ff.; 8:28; 12:49), though the reverse cannot be said. Indeed, it is precisely this degree of unity that ensures Jesus reveals God to us…”48 This union is more fully stated by (14:10), “it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” Just as the hope of Paul (and all Christians) is to have Christ living through him, it is the Son’s reality that the Father is living through Him. 49 14:13-14 give more insight into the relationship between the Father and Son by using the relationship between the Son and the church. The reason requests are granted is, “because the Christian is in union with Jesus and Jesus is in union with the Father, there can be no doubt that the Christian’s requests will be granted. This context of union with Jesus also suggests that the requests of the Christian are now no longer thought of as requests concerning the petty things of life – they are requests of such a nature that when they are granted the Father is glorified in the Son (13). They are requests pertinent to the Christian life and to the continuation of the work by which Jesus glorified the Father during his ministry (xvii 4).” 50 This section of John clearly shows that there is more than just a mystical unity between Father and Son, but the mystical unity is still there. The Father is glorified through the Son and all the Son does, for it is the Father who has appointed both the works and the Son to do them. 51
The major discourses of Christ which touch on His relationship to the Father have now been covered. Through them an idea of how this relationship works has slowly been crafted. In the next portion a topical and systematic approach will be taken in order to draw together the many themes touched upon previously. Many of the themes that have played a prominent role will now be pushed into the background as some of the topics only brushed against will be brought out in order to establish a more full understanding of the picture that John is trying to paint.
Jesus As Revelation and Revealer
Throughout the treatment of these longer discourses, Jesus has been telling His listeners time and again that He is the Father’s representative here on earth. This is made manifest in two different ways, namely with Jesus as the revelation and Jesus as the revealer. Jesus is Himself the revelation, in that it is His life and death that show the glory of God (see 8:28 especially). “The Son has glorified the Father on earth and, by completing his work on earth, he takes this glorification of the Father into the ‘hour’ of the event of the cross and to the climax that embraces all things.” 52 On the cross, Jesus becomes the full revelation of the work that the Father has for Him to do. In that moment, the work is accomplished and Christ is “lifted up” such that all can see Him. Jesus is also the revealer. The only way to see the Father is to see the Son, so it is the Son who reveals the Father (14:7, 10). The major revelation comes at the cross itself, but it is the Son who chooses the cross (10:17-18). Jesus is the revelation of God, He is the image of the Father active on the earth. 53 Jesus is the revealer of God, for it is exclusively through Him that the Father can be known. 54
Jesus as the “Sent One”
Time and again, Jesus declares that He is the one sent by the Father into the world. This standard theme in the book of John appears in a variety of contexts, but always carries at least one of two basic ideas. The word “sent” appears fifty-five times in the gospel of John (NIV), with four times referring to John the Baptist, one time referring to a message being sent to Jesus, eight times dealing with the religious leaders of the day, and forty-two times occurring in the words of Christ. 55 The first idea deals with Jesus being equal with the Father. This comes from Jesus having been given authority or power from the Father to accomplish the Father’s will. 56 “The one who sent me” is a common name for the Father from the mouth of the Son, 57 and clearly the one who is sent cannot be greater than the one who sends. 58 Thus, Jesus is sent having the Father’s power and authority, but they are gifts from Him. Jesus being the “Sent One” shows His relationship to the Father in that the Father is the one who sends Him, and the Son obeys the Father. The Son has authority and power, but they are from the Father. At the same time, this authority and power are equal (or at least functionally different) than what the Father has.
Conclusion
The relationship between the Father and Son is most expressly written about in the gospel of John. The fourth gospel shows Jesus as repeatedly referring to the Father and how the Son interacts with the Father. There is a sense of equality with the Father, as seen in many of the above passages. At the same time, there is also a strong sense of the Son being under the Father. Clearly there is some sort of nuancing that needs to be undertaken in order to comprehend the issues being discussed.
The aspect of equality most often comes up in terms of power and authority. John 5:19-30 describes Jesus talking about how He should not be considered as a lawbreaker for healing on the Sabbath. The key to this defense is that if God can work on the Sabbath, than Christ can work on the Sabbath since He is God. [sup]59 Referring to 5:22, Schnackenburg says, “In this verse, then, Jesus claims this sovereign right, which belongs properly to God alone, fully for himself and in such a way that it is the Father who judges through him. The judgment that is entrusted to the Son is emphasized here to demonstrate that the Son’s sovereign power is equal to that of God himself.” 60 The Son is also the revelation itself. While the glory is to be given to the Father, the Son shares in that glory. The stark egw eimi claims littered throughout the book are also indications of the equality of Father and Son. Jesus is not claiming to be a different God, nor is He claiming to be a lesser God. Instead, Christ is using the divine name to show that He is God. The idea of unity in purpose that is prevalent throughout the book61 does not fully cover the range that this simple two-word phrase covers. 62 There is a strong sense of equality in power and authority.
While Jesus is equal to the Father, there are also passages detailing the Son being under the Father. The understanding of Jesus being sent by God exhibits that the office of the Father is greater than that of the Son. The greater sends the lesser, not vice versa. It is the Son who was sent to die. 63 It is the Son who is the revealer of the Father, not the Father coming to earth to show the Son to the world. Jesus is the way, the path that leads to God. He points away from this earthly plane and toward the heavenly realm. Jesus is also totally reliant upon the Father. This total subservience in purpose and mission show that the Father is above the Son in station. The Son is subordinate to the Father with respect to function.
As the passages progressed, there were two main themes that continually appeared in each. The Son is equal to the Father in power and authority. The Son is subordinate to the Father in terms of rank or function. The more passages that were covered, the smaller the difference between these two ideas became. The “I am” passages show an equality that goes beyond just power and authority, they show an actual unity, something greater than a mystical unity. The way that the Son is totally dependant upon the Father, doing only the things that the Father has set before Him shows the two as being inextricably linked. Clearly the Son is not the Father, for the differentiation is obvious in that the Son had an earthly form. The Son is God, however, unless Christ is Himself a liar. Therefore it is clear that the gospel of John portrays the Son as willingly below the Father in function, but equal to the Father in power and authority.
footnotes:
1 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 21. My thoughts tend to parallel Carson’s as to the current usage of the gospel in that it is used for everything from introducing the Bible to people, to being comforting scripture to those on their death-beds.
2 R. V. Tasker, John (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 69. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 89. Bruce accepts the quotation as ending after 3:15, though he does not make an argument. Tasker accepts the same ending and makes the argument about the change in titles for the Father and that the verbiage fits more with the narration style of the author.
3 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (ABC; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 136, 149. The argument stems from the clear thematic continuity of the section as well as grammatical parallels.
4 Carson, John, 199-201. He gives a clear indication of the problems inherent in the translation and exegesis of the passage, specifically the ei mh conjunction. Brown (John (i-xii), 145) also points out the link to Proverbs 30:3-4 as a possible background text for this utterance.
5 This can be seen through the use of uywsen in 3:14.
6 Brown, John (i-xii), 147.
7 Ibid.
8 While o qeoV is used in the passage, it seems evident that it is limited to the Father here since the Son is explicitly mentioned.
9 Carson, John, 207.
10 Brown, ibid.
11 Note the importance in Genesis 11:4, 12:8, Exodus 3:15, Leviticus 18:21, Ezekiel 43:7, Daniel 9:15, Zechariah 13:3 and Malachi 1:6 among many others.
12 Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John (Vol. 1; NYC: Crossroad, 1982), 408.
13 517-18 will be dealt with later on in the section on stand-alone verses.
14 A better and fuller discussion is offered both in Brown, John (i-xii), 216-217 and in Carson, John, 247-249.
15 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 103.
16 Bruce, John, 128.
17 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 99.
18 Carson, John, 254-55, rightly notes that an ambassador is never as honored as the person who sends him, so this is where the analogy is deficient.
19 Ibid., 250. Brown, John (i-xii), 219, argues that it is only slightly parallel, with a stress on eschatological themes.
20 Ibid., 250. This is actually an introduction to the section, under his comments on 5:18, but fit well as a summary.
21 Contra Carson, John, 262, who takes the concept of Scripture as too far removed to be part of this referent, though he does not totally rule it out as a possibility. Brown, John (i-xii), 227-28, actually lists the Father as a separate source from Scripture and Jesus’ works, but that seems highly unlikely considering the nature of 38-39.
22 Tasker, John, 91.
23 Brown, John (i-xii), 227. He also points out the parallel to the Synoptics in that Jesus told John the Baptist’s disciples to look at His works to see that He is indeed the coming one John prophesied.
24 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 125. Schnackenburg points out repeatedly that John is vigorously defending and explaining the idea that all of the old Testament points at Jesus and anticipates Jesus.
25 If 7:53-8:11 is understood as an assertion into the text, then 8:12ff. occur at the feast mentioned in 7:2.
26 Much could be said about these claims, especially those without modifiers, but this query is outside the scope of the current study, though some comments will be made later.
27 Carson, John, 345, contra Tasker, John, 116 who adds words to the statement.
28 Ibid., 342-344, and Brown, John (i-xii)33-538. Carson talks about this passage in particular whereas Brown has a survey of all the uses in John. Schnackenburg also has an excursus on the “I am” sayings, though it is dated.
29 Though the usage varies in these two passages, the divine aspect cannot be missed, and thus the “I am” usage is clearly a claim to divinity.
30 Bruce, John, 196.
31 The commentators do not tend to single this phrase out as anything special, but it is a deviation from previous “sending” passages.
32 Brown, John (i-xii), 365-366. This section by Brown suggested this logical path to follow, and even explicitly mentions a few of the steps to be taken to make the connection between love and belonging.
33 Note the case that Bruce makes in John, 200-201, though he himself is uncertain.
34 Brown, John (i-xii), 357.
35 Carson, John, 387.
36 Ibid., though Carson does not delve into this topic in the same way. Instead, he assumes the relationship between the Father and the Son in order to make his point about Christ and the church rather than explaining the bond in the godhead.
37 Brown, John (i-xii), 399.
38 Carson, John, 389.
39 Brown, John (i-xii), 403. This follows an explicit laying out of the heretical interpretations and how they were combated.
40 Carson, John, 395. This follows a wonderful summation of all the major difficulties with this passage, covering 394-395. He has five main points that deal with the issues surrounding the passage, and he deals fairly with each.
41 For a full explanation of this, see Brown, John (i-xii), 411.
42 Carson, John, 400. He goes on to show that there is also in some way a derivative unity between Christ and believers.
43 Traditionally in Jewish thought, the temple was the closest point on earth to God. Jesus, by making this statement, is in some sense claiming to be the new temple. To fully delve into this topic, however, is well beyond the scope of this paper.
44 Carson, John, 491-492. Carson goes on to show that this claim makes Christianity an exclusive religion.
45 Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 630.
46 Carson, John, 491-492, makes it very clear that the disciples did not understand the importance of this claim.
47 Generally the other statements of equality were much more spiritually laden, mystical, and ethereal. This claim is much more concrete, dealing with sensory language that puts understanding at a more attainable level. Unfortunately, the importance of sensory language in John is another topic too extensive to be covered in a paper of this size.
48 Carson, John, 494.
49 See ibid. in order to see this idea threshed out even farther.
50 Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 636.
51 See Carson, John, 495-496 for a more in-depth explanation of this concept.
52 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 3, 50.
53 See Carson, John, 250-251. “In this sense the relationship between the Father and the Son is not reciprocal. It is inconceivable that John could say that the Father does only what he sees the Son doing.” Carson goes on with a more detailed look at what this means, carrying out some of the implications that could be drawn from recognizing and understanding this aspect of the relationship between the Father and the Son.
54 Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 630-631. Brown carries the discussion through in light of the claim in 14:6.
55 This was found through a simple search using Bibleworks 4.0.
56 See the discussion by Bruce, John, 130.
57 Carson, John, 228-229.
58 See Brown, John (i-xii), 504-505. Also look at 12:49 for an explanation from the mouth of Christ.
59 Thus the Jews wishing to kill Him, as seen in 5:18.
60 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 107.
61 See above discussions under 8:28-29, 42-47, 10:14-18, and 14:6-14.
62 See the discussion under 8:28-29, along with footnote 28.
63 See the discussion under 3:11-21.
300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.
by Jaltus (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=7)
John is the gospel that is used more often and for more reasons than the Synoptics 1. What most people do not realize, however, is how the gospel is tightly woven together in terms of themes. One of the major themes within the book is the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. The author quickly shows that Jesus is God (1:1, 8:58, etc). He also shows that the Father sent Jesus (3:17 among others). This relationship is intertwined with many other major motifs in the gospel, but this study will try to stay with the relationship between God the Father and God the Son as shown in the words of Jesus. Since Jesus Himself is the truth (14:6), it is through His words that this paper will seek to understand how the Father and Son are so much the same and yet are distinct. While John, as the narrator, makes comments about the relationship, restricting this study in scope will enable deeper studies to be made of the relevant passages. This study will first scan the topic canonically, then conclude topically.
John 3:11-21
The first item in dealing with this passage is whether or not the quotation from Jesus goes through verse 21 or not. While there can be a decent argument made for ending the quotation after 152, the arguments for the quotation extending take into account the thematic structure and grammatical structure of the section, 3 which is more convincing. Building on this assumption, the words themselves will be seen as a motivating factor behind this choice.
The remarks made in 3:11-20 are prefaced by 11-12, where Jesus says that one can only speak of what one actually knows. Clearly, then, Jesus is claiming a personal, specific knowledge of “heavenly things” (3:12). Leaving aside the difficulties inherent in 3:13, 4 3:14-15 are a clear allusion to the crucifixion and resurrection5. Thus, the death and resurrection are heavenly things, issues only to be understood by those who are privy to such knowledge.
Built upon this understanding, one of the most well-known verses in the Bible comes. 3:16-17 clearly show that salvation comes from Jesus and the cross, 6 but they also show that all of this comes from the Father. 7 17 plainly states that the Father sent the Son. 8 Here is the first explicit mention of subordination. While ambassadors often have the full power of the one they are standing in for, they are not equal in authority to the one who sent them. The importance of the passage is that “…God’s purpose in the mission of Jesus was to bring salvation to [the world].” 9 Jesus came to fulfill God’s purpose, He did not come in Himself nor of Himself, but in the Father and of the Father. There is a clear logical connection between 15 and 16 (outwV gar), so the sending of 16-17 also links to 14-15. The Father sent the Son to die on the cross. 10 The Son did not send the Father, so the Son is the agent of the Father. 18 makes a claim that readily ties into many Old Testament themes, specifically that it is the name of God’s Son that saves. The idea of God’s name is important and covers a wide range of the Old Testament. 11 The importance of the name of the Son is being closely paralleled to the importance of the name of the Father in the Old Testament, as happens in the New Testament (see Philippians 2:10, Acts 4:12, and others). 3:21 then shows how closely linked God and truth are. Since Jesus is the figure of truth in John (note 14:6 especially), it is being shown that living in or by the truth equates to living in or by God. Schnackenburg says, “Under the light, that is, when the person and words of the revealer show everything in its true colours, it will be clearly seen that these works are ‘true’, that they are in conformity with God’s nature.” 12
John 5:19-30
This section is the beginning of one of the longer discourses in John. 5:19 introduces the speech of Jesus, connecting it to an occasion when the Jews were concentrating on killing Him for breaking the Sabbath and for claiming to be equal with God. 13 This defense of Himself is much like the synoptic defenses in that Jesus is defending Himself from being a lawbreaker. However, it is also much different in that the defense He offers draws on a dispute within the Rabbinic tradition of whether God rests on the Sabbath Himself. The question is that if God were to rest on the Sabbath, would not creation itself come crashing down? The Father needs to be continually upholding the universe since without Him nothing can happen. Therefore, it was decided that God is above the Sabbath law.14
If God is above Sabbath law, then it only makes sense if Jesus is also, since He is God. In order to show this, He again lays out how dependant the Son is on the Father. 5:19 is a key verse, showing subordination on the one hand, but equality on the other. That the Son is under the Father is shown through the Son being able to do nothing by Himself. “The unity that exists between the Father and the Son is so great that the Son does what the Father does and, what is more, does it ‘likewise’. This does not mean that the Son acts after or alongside the Father in the same or a similar way, but that the activity of the Father and the Son takes place at the same time and that they act as one.” 15 That there is equality in power can be seen by the statement that, “whatever the Father does, the Son also does.” This claim of subordination and equality is a strange one for the Jewish worldview. Jesus is not claiming to be a rival God, but rather the same God. Christ is not a different or lesser God, but rather the One God, totally dependant on the Father in heaven. 16
This strange balance between dependence and independence explained in 5:19 can be seen in the two major illustrations that follow. In 21, the Father gives life to all things, which makes a direct correlation to the background of the Sabbath controversy already alluded to. In the same manner, the Son has the power to give life to whom He chooses. This shows equality of power. 22 illustrates the divestment of authority from Father to Son, namely the Son is given the authority to judge, authority that derives from the Father (as can be seen through the use of alla thn krisin pasan dedwken tw uiw). The authority is “given” or “appointed” to the Son. Schnackenburg relates this as, “The Son carries out the function that is God’s alone, namely giving life in all its depth and fullness and in this way makes God’s concern for man visible. He is therefore God’s unique, ultimate, historical and eschatological revelation to the world. His coming into history has made it possible for man to move from the sphere of death into that of life and to achieve his true existence, the life he was intended to lead.” 17 21 and 22 form an antithetical parallel, with equality being parallel to disparity and power parallel to office. The reason for this antithesis is laid out in 23, specifically that the Son will be as honored as the Father, the ambassador as honored as the sending king. 18
Verse 24 gives an important statement (as can be seen through the prefacing of amhn amhn) in terms of the book, but it actually serves as the breakpoint of this discourse. There is a parallel set up within this speech such that 19-24 are reflected by 25-30. 19 Thus the treatment of 19-24 covers the main points brought up by this part of the discourse. Carson sums up the argument in the following manner, “Jesus is not equal with God as another God or as a competing God: the functional subordination of the Son to the Father, the utter dependence of the Son upon the Father, are about to be explicated. So once again there is irony: the Jews take umbrage at Jesus’ implicit claim to deity, having rightly detected the drift of Jesus’ argument; but their understanding of Jesus’ equality with God needs serious modification, for Christians will not accept di-theism or tri-theism any more than Jews themselves. The ensuing verses may therefore be seen, in part, as a defense of a distinctly Christian form of monotheism (cf. Lightfoot, p. 141), as much as an explication of the nature of Jesus’ equality with his Father.” 20
John 5:31-47
The subject here takes a turn from where it had been in the previous half of the discourse. Jesus is now setting out to base His testimony about Himself on the Father. 34 is the turning point in the discussion of witnesses in that Jesus states that human testimony is not good enough. For the message that He proclaimed, the only witness that matters is the divine witness. The testimony of the Father is shown in two ways. 21
The first way that the testimony of the Father is revealed is through the works that Jesus Himself was doing and had done (5:36). All the miracles that Jesus had performed, all the healings, all the wondrous teachings, each of those occurrences are a part of the Father’s testimony. 22 It has already been shown that all Jesus does is from the Father, now all that Jesus has done testifies to that fact. As Brown puts it, “…Jesus miracles are brought forth as testimony. These, too, represent the witness of the Father, for they were given to the Son by the Father.” 23
The second way that the testimony of the Father is revealed is through Scripture itself (5:39). A thorough reading of the Old Testament can only show the truth of Jesus’ claims. Since the scripture comes from the Father, it is therefore more testimony from the Father about who the Son is. “For the evangelist, it is not only that individual sayings of Scripture are fulfilled in Jesus (12:38, 13:18, 15:25, 17:12, 19:24, 36), but the whole of Scripture is directed towards him and speaks of him (cf. 12:41).” 24 Scripture is a vivid portrait of who Jesus is, even before Jesus is on earth! This is a witness that the Jewish leaders should have recognized as pointing to Jesus since they study it so thoroughly (as seen through the use of eraunate, which means “to study rigorously” here). Both the Scriptures and Jesus’ works show that the Father is a witness to Christ, for without the Father’s witness, neither of these two elements would fit.
John 8:28-29
This passage is toward the end of another debate about testimony on Jesus’ behalf. With the background of the Feast of Tabernacles, 25 this is another earth-shattering statement made at the same time as 7:37-39 and 8:12. Within this pericope is a stark egw eimi claim26 and more indications of subordination.
The egw eimi claim stands out from some of the previous ones because there is no modifier. Carson rightly points out that, “…we should read a full stop after ‘I am’. In the next words, nothing in the Greek text corresponds to NIV’s ‘that’. Rather, Jesus goes on to say, ‘And I do nothing on my own…’” 27 The importance of the “I am” claim is that it is a clear indication that Jesus is claiming to be God. 28 This can be seen through the Old Testament background of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:11-13. 29 Thus a claim of equality with and identification with the Father is explicitly made.
While being the “I am,” Jesus is also relying on and is being sent by the Father. Nothing that Jesus does is truly independent, for everything He does is reliant on the Father. Bruce says, “Even now, the ever-present awareness of this vindication gave him confidence; more than that, he had the assurance of the Father’s constant presence and approval. In all that he did, the Father was with him…”30 The Son only speaks the words that the Father gives Him, much like the promised Holy Spirit will do for believers (John 16:13). Jesus is also the one sent by the Father, again showing the Father as the reigning monarch and the Christ as His agent. Once again this passage teaches both sides of the issue, equality and subordination.
John 8:42-47
This section begins with the same idea of the Son being sent by the Father. It also includes another small bit of information, namely that the Son did not come on His own. 31 The sense of sending is therefore even more important now. The importance of this section, however, is not tied up in the sending itself, but rather in the importance of “love” and being “from God.”
The issue of love deals with both loving God and belonging to God. In order to truly belong to God, one must love Him. In order to show true love for Him, they must love all that comes from Him. Since Jesus comes from God, they must love Jesus in order to truly belong to God. 32
The importance of Jesus being from God is a matter of much debate. The Nicene Creed calls Jesus “God of God,” clearly referring to this passage, but is that what John is trying to say? While many argue that this is an absolute statement about the relationship within the godhead, 33 it is more likely that this deals only with the incarnation, as the context deals with Jesus’ mission (note especially the kai hkw, meaning His physical presence on earth). 34 Therefore this passage shows that Jesus belongs to God, so in order to be able to understand what He is saying, His listeners also need to (in some sense) belong to God.
John 10:14-18
This is a well-known passage, often called the good shepherd discourse, that brings home many difficult concepts in the relationship between the Father and Son. The first is the intimacy within the godhead. The second is that the authority of the Son is genuine, but that it derives from the Father’s authority.
The image of the shepherd knowing the sheep is one that is often used to understand how well Jesus knows His flock, namely the church. However, this is also the illustration used to show how well the Father and Son know each other. Carson says, “This mutual recognition, or better, mutual knowledge, is clearly experiential, and is analogous to the mutual knowledge of the Father and Son (v. 15). That the shepherd knows his sheep, and the sheep know their shepherd, is presupposed by vv. 3-4; this mutual knowledge is precisely what ensures that they follow their shepherd, and only him.” 35 That experiential knowledge is meant here can be seen by 10:3-5. Knowing the voice of the shepherd is how the sheep recognize him and know to stay away from a robber. It is this same experiential knowledge that so closely binds the Son to the Father. 36
Jesus has the authority to give up His life, and then to take it up again. Obviously it is the crucifixion and resurrection that elicit this comment, but it does cause some problems. The New Testament repeatedly refers to the Father being the one who resurrects Jesus (note Galatians 1:1, etc), but 18-19 explicitly mention Jesus as being the one who raises Himself. Brown says, “We note that in both vss. 17 and 18 it is Jesus who take up his life again…but since in Johannine thought the Father and the Son possess the same power (x 28-30), it really makes little difference whether the resurrection is attributed to the action of the Father or of the Son. This is a profound theological insight on which later Trinitarian theology would capitalize.” 37 There is an overlap of power, then, and authority, though clearly both originate with the Father. Carson expands upon this, saying, “Nevertheless, though the Father and Son are at one, it is the oneness of command and obedience: This command I received from my Father…The theme of Jesus’ obedience is already well established; the language of command is common from here on in John (and in 1Jn. and 2Jn. as well), whether the commands of the Father to the Son…or of the Son to his disciples…”38 There is a blending taking place, that Jesus holds power and authority in and of Himself, but at the same time it all comes expressly from the Father.
John 10:25-38
Jesus once again appeals to the miracles He has already done as an established witness of Who He is and from Whom He comes. 10:25 picks up both on this theme and on the theme of the Father's name. There is another twofold expression of the relationship between the Father and the Son, this time dealing with a deeper sense of unity and a difference in function that ends up stressing the unity side as well.
The absolute unity can be seen in the frank statement (10:30), “I and the Father are one.” This is a difficult statement that produces many differing interpretations. The most important view is one which Brown states, “The Protestant commentator Bengel, following Augustine, sums up the orthodox position: ‘Through the word “are” Sabellius is refuted: through the word “one” so is Arius.’” 39 The next step is to see if there is more than just a unity of purpose involved. Carson sums up a lengthy treatment of the dispute with, “In short, although the words I and the Father are one do not affirm complete identity, in the context of this book they certainly suggest more than Jesus’ will was one with the will of his Father, at least in the weak sense that a human being may at times regulate his own will and deed by the will of God. If instead Jesus’ will is exhaustively one with his Father’s will, some kind of metaphysical unity is presupposed, even if not articulated.” 40
The difference in function can be seen through such statements as “My Father…is greater than all,” and “…the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world.” These both stress the exalted position of the Father and the lesser stature of the Son, at least at first glance. However, the connecting statements begin to break down the large disparity in these declarations. In defense of His words, Jesus again appeals to His miracles, but calls them “what my Father does.” This is a clear link to the unity of Father and Son. 41 To make the link more explicit, Jesus says that in believing the miracles, they will (10:38), “…understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Carson explains, “There is between the Father and the Son what theologians call a ‘mutual co-inheritance’: each is ‘in’ the other. This mutual co-inheritance is the grounding of the teaching of 5:19ff.” 42 The lines are starting to blur in terms of what is subordination and what is unity.
John 14:6-14
This passage includes a famous self-proclamation by Jesus, but it also has some insight into how Jesus relates to the Father. Jesus makes the explicit claim that seeing Him is seeing the Father, something that has not been so plainly spoken until now. Some of the same elements are drawn into the discussion again, but it is the new theme which makes this pericope stand out.
The first new thing to stick out is the explicit mention in 14:6 that Jesus is the only way to approach the Father. 43 There are no other paths to reach God. This is an exclusive claim, blocking any attempt to experientially or mentally “know” (ginwskete) the Father. 44 Jesus is not claiming to be the door which people walk through in order to see the Father, rather He is the entire path to get there. 45 Since Jesus is the path in a holistic sense, all other avenues are false. Anything that takes away from knowing (and loving) Christ takes away from knowing the Father. 46
The second new theme, or rather old theme explicitly laid out for the first time, is that Jesus is, at least in some sense, the earthly manifestation of the Father. In 14:8 Philip shows that the Twelve do not understand what Jesus meant by 14:6-7. Jesus’ reply delves deeper into the mystery of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus says (14:9), “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” This statement (o ewrakwV eme ewraken ton patera) clearly lays out a type of equality between Father and Son that has only been hinted at before. 47 The sensory language here (ewrakwV, ewraken) makes the statement understandable to the Twelve. In order to delineate exactly how seeing Him is seeing the Father, Jesus uses an explanation that He has touched on before, namely the mystical union of the Father and Son. Carson aptly explains this as, “…articulated elsewhere in a statement such as ‘I and the Father are one’ (10:30). This does not obliterate all distinctions between them: the words and works of Jesus are given to him by the Father (5:19ff.; 8:28; 12:49), though the reverse cannot be said. Indeed, it is precisely this degree of unity that ensures Jesus reveals God to us…”48 This union is more fully stated by (14:10), “it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” Just as the hope of Paul (and all Christians) is to have Christ living through him, it is the Son’s reality that the Father is living through Him. 49 14:13-14 give more insight into the relationship between the Father and Son by using the relationship between the Son and the church. The reason requests are granted is, “because the Christian is in union with Jesus and Jesus is in union with the Father, there can be no doubt that the Christian’s requests will be granted. This context of union with Jesus also suggests that the requests of the Christian are now no longer thought of as requests concerning the petty things of life – they are requests of such a nature that when they are granted the Father is glorified in the Son (13). They are requests pertinent to the Christian life and to the continuation of the work by which Jesus glorified the Father during his ministry (xvii 4).” 50 This section of John clearly shows that there is more than just a mystical unity between Father and Son, but the mystical unity is still there. The Father is glorified through the Son and all the Son does, for it is the Father who has appointed both the works and the Son to do them. 51
The major discourses of Christ which touch on His relationship to the Father have now been covered. Through them an idea of how this relationship works has slowly been crafted. In the next portion a topical and systematic approach will be taken in order to draw together the many themes touched upon previously. Many of the themes that have played a prominent role will now be pushed into the background as some of the topics only brushed against will be brought out in order to establish a more full understanding of the picture that John is trying to paint.
Jesus As Revelation and Revealer
Throughout the treatment of these longer discourses, Jesus has been telling His listeners time and again that He is the Father’s representative here on earth. This is made manifest in two different ways, namely with Jesus as the revelation and Jesus as the revealer. Jesus is Himself the revelation, in that it is His life and death that show the glory of God (see 8:28 especially). “The Son has glorified the Father on earth and, by completing his work on earth, he takes this glorification of the Father into the ‘hour’ of the event of the cross and to the climax that embraces all things.” 52 On the cross, Jesus becomes the full revelation of the work that the Father has for Him to do. In that moment, the work is accomplished and Christ is “lifted up” such that all can see Him. Jesus is also the revealer. The only way to see the Father is to see the Son, so it is the Son who reveals the Father (14:7, 10). The major revelation comes at the cross itself, but it is the Son who chooses the cross (10:17-18). Jesus is the revelation of God, He is the image of the Father active on the earth. 53 Jesus is the revealer of God, for it is exclusively through Him that the Father can be known. 54
Jesus as the “Sent One”
Time and again, Jesus declares that He is the one sent by the Father into the world. This standard theme in the book of John appears in a variety of contexts, but always carries at least one of two basic ideas. The word “sent” appears fifty-five times in the gospel of John (NIV), with four times referring to John the Baptist, one time referring to a message being sent to Jesus, eight times dealing with the religious leaders of the day, and forty-two times occurring in the words of Christ. 55 The first idea deals with Jesus being equal with the Father. This comes from Jesus having been given authority or power from the Father to accomplish the Father’s will. 56 “The one who sent me” is a common name for the Father from the mouth of the Son, 57 and clearly the one who is sent cannot be greater than the one who sends. 58 Thus, Jesus is sent having the Father’s power and authority, but they are gifts from Him. Jesus being the “Sent One” shows His relationship to the Father in that the Father is the one who sends Him, and the Son obeys the Father. The Son has authority and power, but they are from the Father. At the same time, this authority and power are equal (or at least functionally different) than what the Father has.
Conclusion
The relationship between the Father and Son is most expressly written about in the gospel of John. The fourth gospel shows Jesus as repeatedly referring to the Father and how the Son interacts with the Father. There is a sense of equality with the Father, as seen in many of the above passages. At the same time, there is also a strong sense of the Son being under the Father. Clearly there is some sort of nuancing that needs to be undertaken in order to comprehend the issues being discussed.
The aspect of equality most often comes up in terms of power and authority. John 5:19-30 describes Jesus talking about how He should not be considered as a lawbreaker for healing on the Sabbath. The key to this defense is that if God can work on the Sabbath, than Christ can work on the Sabbath since He is God. [sup]59 Referring to 5:22, Schnackenburg says, “In this verse, then, Jesus claims this sovereign right, which belongs properly to God alone, fully for himself and in such a way that it is the Father who judges through him. The judgment that is entrusted to the Son is emphasized here to demonstrate that the Son’s sovereign power is equal to that of God himself.” 60 The Son is also the revelation itself. While the glory is to be given to the Father, the Son shares in that glory. The stark egw eimi claims littered throughout the book are also indications of the equality of Father and Son. Jesus is not claiming to be a different God, nor is He claiming to be a lesser God. Instead, Christ is using the divine name to show that He is God. The idea of unity in purpose that is prevalent throughout the book61 does not fully cover the range that this simple two-word phrase covers. 62 There is a strong sense of equality in power and authority.
While Jesus is equal to the Father, there are also passages detailing the Son being under the Father. The understanding of Jesus being sent by God exhibits that the office of the Father is greater than that of the Son. The greater sends the lesser, not vice versa. It is the Son who was sent to die. 63 It is the Son who is the revealer of the Father, not the Father coming to earth to show the Son to the world. Jesus is the way, the path that leads to God. He points away from this earthly plane and toward the heavenly realm. Jesus is also totally reliant upon the Father. This total subservience in purpose and mission show that the Father is above the Son in station. The Son is subordinate to the Father with respect to function.
As the passages progressed, there were two main themes that continually appeared in each. The Son is equal to the Father in power and authority. The Son is subordinate to the Father in terms of rank or function. The more passages that were covered, the smaller the difference between these two ideas became. The “I am” passages show an equality that goes beyond just power and authority, they show an actual unity, something greater than a mystical unity. The way that the Son is totally dependant upon the Father, doing only the things that the Father has set before Him shows the two as being inextricably linked. Clearly the Son is not the Father, for the differentiation is obvious in that the Son had an earthly form. The Son is God, however, unless Christ is Himself a liar. Therefore it is clear that the gospel of John portrays the Son as willingly below the Father in function, but equal to the Father in power and authority.
footnotes:
1 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 21. My thoughts tend to parallel Carson’s as to the current usage of the gospel in that it is used for everything from introducing the Bible to people, to being comforting scripture to those on their death-beds.
2 R. V. Tasker, John (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 69. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 89. Bruce accepts the quotation as ending after 3:15, though he does not make an argument. Tasker accepts the same ending and makes the argument about the change in titles for the Father and that the verbiage fits more with the narration style of the author.
3 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (ABC; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 136, 149. The argument stems from the clear thematic continuity of the section as well as grammatical parallels.
4 Carson, John, 199-201. He gives a clear indication of the problems inherent in the translation and exegesis of the passage, specifically the ei mh conjunction. Brown (John (i-xii), 145) also points out the link to Proverbs 30:3-4 as a possible background text for this utterance.
5 This can be seen through the use of uywsen in 3:14.
6 Brown, John (i-xii), 147.
7 Ibid.
8 While o qeoV is used in the passage, it seems evident that it is limited to the Father here since the Son is explicitly mentioned.
9 Carson, John, 207.
10 Brown, ibid.
11 Note the importance in Genesis 11:4, 12:8, Exodus 3:15, Leviticus 18:21, Ezekiel 43:7, Daniel 9:15, Zechariah 13:3 and Malachi 1:6 among many others.
12 Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John (Vol. 1; NYC: Crossroad, 1982), 408.
13 517-18 will be dealt with later on in the section on stand-alone verses.
14 A better and fuller discussion is offered both in Brown, John (i-xii), 216-217 and in Carson, John, 247-249.
15 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 103.
16 Bruce, John, 128.
17 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 99.
18 Carson, John, 254-55, rightly notes that an ambassador is never as honored as the person who sends him, so this is where the analogy is deficient.
19 Ibid., 250. Brown, John (i-xii), 219, argues that it is only slightly parallel, with a stress on eschatological themes.
20 Ibid., 250. This is actually an introduction to the section, under his comments on 5:18, but fit well as a summary.
21 Contra Carson, John, 262, who takes the concept of Scripture as too far removed to be part of this referent, though he does not totally rule it out as a possibility. Brown, John (i-xii), 227-28, actually lists the Father as a separate source from Scripture and Jesus’ works, but that seems highly unlikely considering the nature of 38-39.
22 Tasker, John, 91.
23 Brown, John (i-xii), 227. He also points out the parallel to the Synoptics in that Jesus told John the Baptist’s disciples to look at His works to see that He is indeed the coming one John prophesied.
24 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 125. Schnackenburg points out repeatedly that John is vigorously defending and explaining the idea that all of the old Testament points at Jesus and anticipates Jesus.
25 If 7:53-8:11 is understood as an assertion into the text, then 8:12ff. occur at the feast mentioned in 7:2.
26 Much could be said about these claims, especially those without modifiers, but this query is outside the scope of the current study, though some comments will be made later.
27 Carson, John, 345, contra Tasker, John, 116 who adds words to the statement.
28 Ibid., 342-344, and Brown, John (i-xii)33-538. Carson talks about this passage in particular whereas Brown has a survey of all the uses in John. Schnackenburg also has an excursus on the “I am” sayings, though it is dated.
29 Though the usage varies in these two passages, the divine aspect cannot be missed, and thus the “I am” usage is clearly a claim to divinity.
30 Bruce, John, 196.
31 The commentators do not tend to single this phrase out as anything special, but it is a deviation from previous “sending” passages.
32 Brown, John (i-xii), 365-366. This section by Brown suggested this logical path to follow, and even explicitly mentions a few of the steps to be taken to make the connection between love and belonging.
33 Note the case that Bruce makes in John, 200-201, though he himself is uncertain.
34 Brown, John (i-xii), 357.
35 Carson, John, 387.
36 Ibid., though Carson does not delve into this topic in the same way. Instead, he assumes the relationship between the Father and the Son in order to make his point about Christ and the church rather than explaining the bond in the godhead.
37 Brown, John (i-xii), 399.
38 Carson, John, 389.
39 Brown, John (i-xii), 403. This follows an explicit laying out of the heretical interpretations and how they were combated.
40 Carson, John, 395. This follows a wonderful summation of all the major difficulties with this passage, covering 394-395. He has five main points that deal with the issues surrounding the passage, and he deals fairly with each.
41 For a full explanation of this, see Brown, John (i-xii), 411.
42 Carson, John, 400. He goes on to show that there is also in some way a derivative unity between Christ and believers.
43 Traditionally in Jewish thought, the temple was the closest point on earth to God. Jesus, by making this statement, is in some sense claiming to be the new temple. To fully delve into this topic, however, is well beyond the scope of this paper.
44 Carson, John, 491-492. Carson goes on to show that this claim makes Christianity an exclusive religion.
45 Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 630.
46 Carson, John, 491-492, makes it very clear that the disciples did not understand the importance of this claim.
47 Generally the other statements of equality were much more spiritually laden, mystical, and ethereal. This claim is much more concrete, dealing with sensory language that puts understanding at a more attainable level. Unfortunately, the importance of sensory language in John is another topic too extensive to be covered in a paper of this size.
48 Carson, John, 494.
49 See ibid. in order to see this idea threshed out even farther.
50 Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 636.
51 See Carson, John, 495-496 for a more in-depth explanation of this concept.
52 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 3, 50.
53 See Carson, John, 250-251. “In this sense the relationship between the Father and the Son is not reciprocal. It is inconceivable that John could say that the Father does only what he sees the Son doing.” Carson goes on with a more detailed look at what this means, carrying out some of the implications that could be drawn from recognizing and understanding this aspect of the relationship between the Father and the Son.
54 Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 630-631. Brown carries the discussion through in light of the claim in 14:6.
55 This was found through a simple search using Bibleworks 4.0.
56 See the discussion by Bruce, John, 130.
57 Carson, John, 228-229.
58 See Brown, John (i-xii), 504-505. Also look at 12:49 for an explanation from the mouth of Christ.
59 Thus the Jews wishing to kill Him, as seen in 5:18.
60 Schnackenburg, John, Vol. 2, 107.
61 See above discussions under 8:28-29, 42-47, 10:14-18, and 14:6-14.
62 See the discussion under 8:28-29, along with footnote 28.
63 See the discussion under 3:11-21.
300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.