John 5

John 5:16

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

16And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. CommentaryThe Jewish leaders had developed an overly legalistic interpretation of Sabbath law. While God had set aside the Sabbath and proscribed regular work on this day, as Jesus reminded his critics elsewhere, the Law allowed a man to rescue an animal on the Sabbath, so it certainly allowed for the healing of a disabled man (Luke 14:5). The Jews had earlier accused the man whom Jesus healed of breaking the Sabbath because he was carrying his pallet. Now, they begin to persecute Jesus. Jesus’ response is direct and uncompromising. Not only are the leaders incorrect in their view of God’s Son, they also are improperly representing God, portraying Him as a cruel tyrant, rather than the loving and gracious Father who loves the world so much that He sends His Only Son to die for it. Grammatical AnalysisPersecute (ediôkon). Inchoative imperfect, “began to persecute” and kept it up (RWP <>).

John 5:17

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

17But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I myself am working.” CommentaryContemporary Jewish thought accepted that God “worked” on the Sabbath, preserving and upholding the Universe with His Power. Four leading Rabbi’s discussed this issue near the end of the first Century (Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba) and concluded that although God works constantly, He cannot rightly be accused of “breaking” the Sabbath, since the Universe is His domain, and He elevates nothing - not even the Law - above Himself (Exodus Rabbah 30:9; Genesis Rabbah 11:10). Thus, God alone can rightly “work” on the Sabbath, as Jesus acknowledges in the first part of his answer.

However, to claim that He too was “working” on the Sabbath was to claim a prerogative belonging to God alone. That He should equate his working with that of the Father would have been enough to shock the Jews, but Jesus goes even further, calling the Father “My Father.” Both statements implied an equality with the Father, as the Jews readily recognized. Importantly, Jesus did not defend Himself by saying that the Jewish interpretation of Sabbath law was incorrect (as well He might have - healing can hardly be considered the “work” normally done during the week, from which God decreed all should rest). Instead, He says that whatever allows the Father to “work” on the Sabbath also applies to Him - whether because the Universe is His domain, or because He is above the Law. Grammatical AnalysisThe verb behind ‘answered’ (apekrinato) is in the aorist middle - in John, found only here and in v. 19 (the aorist deponent passive apekrithé, might be expected). Abbott argues that this verbal form has legal overtones: Jesus responds to their charge, he offers his defense. The fact that the middle voice of this verb is so regularly attested in legal documentation (Moulton and Milligan, pp. 64-56) may provide some support for this view (Carson <>, p. 247).

John 5:18

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

18For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but was also calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. CommentaryThis passage contains John’s explanation of what the title “The Son of God” meant in 1st Century Judaism. Notice that John is not quoting the Jews - he is explaining what “calling God his own Father” meant in that context. “The Jews” do not see the underlying unity between the two issues: they speak in terms of “not only, but also.” But they do understand where the radical break between them and Jesus is located. In their own words: he not only makes (the law of) the sabbath non-binding, thus “breaking” it, but also, by calling God his Father, makes “himself equal with God” - for them the most direct kind of blasphemy. Jesus’ reply, which begins in v. 19, is a response to both charges (Ridderbos <>, p. 191). To be equal with God suggested, they thought, two gods and therefore polytheism. To make oneself “equal with God” was a claim of arrogant independence. In the Talmud four persons were branded as haughty because they made themselves equal to God: pagan rulers Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and the Jewish King Joash (BKC <>). Grammatical Analysisalla kai patera idion elegen ton qeon ison eauton poiwn tw qew ALLA KAI PATERA IDION ELEGEN TON THEON, ISON EAUTON POIÔN TÔi THEÔi but also Father [his] own said , equal [to] himself making to The phrase ISON …TÔi THEÔi is appositional to PATERA IDION ktl., and is thus a definition or clarification. John is defining PATERA IDION (“His own Father”), saying it meant “making Himself equal with God.” ISON · Pertaining to that which is equal, either in number, size, quality, or characteristics - ’equal, equivalent, same’ (Louw & Nida <>). Similarly, BAGD <>. · To claim for oneself the nature, rank, authority, which belong to God, John 5:18 (Thayer <>). This text illustrates a couple of semantic issues. The complement comes first and is anarthrous <>; the object comes second and is articular <>. The same rule applies for distinguishing subject from predicate nom[inative] <> apply here.

If one simply followed word order, the meaning would be “he was calling his own father God”! Further, the complement is thrown forward for emphasis and to render it definite…. The wording here is a concise theological statement (Wallace <>, pp. 185 - 186). Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses Objection: Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the equation of “His own Father” and “equal with God” is based on the misconceptions of the hypocritical religious leaders. The religious leaders had many misconceptions about Jesus, surely they cannot be trusted on this crucial point. Response: Why is John clarifying “His own Father” in the first place? John knows that his readers may not understand why the Jews sought to kill Jesus. If he thinks his readers may be confused about this point, it doesn’t seem credible that he would not also state that the Jews were mistaken - John makes it clear elsewhere when the Jews were mistaken (cf., John 2:21). Why not here?

Further, Witnesses posit that John’s audience would readily understand John 1:1c <> as declaring that Jesus was “a god.” If so, the idea of angels being “sons of God” must have been widely understood to mean that angels are “gods.” Further, if these first century “biblical monotheists” were comfortable with the idea of functional godhood as taught by the OT scriptures, and if Jesus actually appeals to this concept in John 10 (as Witnesses suggest), then the idea that men could be “gods” was also widely acknowledged and accepted. So, if Jesus referred to God as His Father, wouldn’t the Jews have more readily understood Him to mean that He was an angel or a functional god? Perhaps the Jews were so out of touch with the OT, that they had come to some sort of hyper-monotheistic understanding of God that precluded angelic or functional godhood - but then, surely John would have known this, and would not have assumed that passages like John 1:1c and John 20:28 would be “clearly” understood to reference Christ as a secondary “god.” In other words, there is a logical inconsistency between arguing on the one hand that the Jews would misconstrue Jesus’ words in this verse to mean equality with God, but - on the other hand - arguing the Jews would understand other verses which call Jesus THEOS (“God”) to mean a secondary god or angelic being.

John 5:19

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

19Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.” CommentaryJesus, knowing the hearts of his accusers and therefore precisely what they were accusing him of, answers them with two remarkable statements. First, he declares that He can do nothing “of himself” (that is, on his own initiative, independent of the Father), but only what He sees His Father doing. Second, He says that whatever the Father does, He also does. If the translation “in like manner” is correct (see Grammatical Analysis, below), the second statement becomes even more remarkable - for He not only does whatever the Father does, He does these things exactly as the Father does them. In accusing Jesus of “making Himself equal with God,” the Jews were bringing into focus the essential nature of Christ and His relationship with His Father. We may ask how Jesus could have answered, had His true Nature been represented by a particular Christological <> view: 1.

If He is equal with the Father in every way, including His Person, he can assert this equality (modalism <>); 2. If He is not equal with the Father in any way, he can deny his equality (WT christology; arianism <>; unitarianism, etc.); 3.

If He is essentially equal with the Father, but also distinct from and in submission to the Father, He can affirm each of these truths (trinitarianism <>). Jesus speaks of “seeing the Father,” which does not suggest that Father and Son are equal in the sense of being the same Person. We may thus reject answer #1. While some may argue that Christ being unable to act “of Himself” suggests that he cannot be equal with God, this is not the case (see Response under Jehovah’s Witnesses, below), though it does suggest a submission to the Father’s authority. Further, saying that the Son does whatever the Father does suggests a functional, if not essential, equality between Father and Son. Thus, we must not only reject answer #2, but must consider answer #3 the most likely, particularly considering that Jesus has also just equated Himself with the Father in terms of “working” on the Sabbath in the previous verse.

Furthermore there should be no misunderstanding with regard to the thrust of the statement “the Son can do nothing of his own accord but only…” These words have often been understood as an expression of Jesus’ modesty and sense of subordination to the Father by means of which he is said to have defended Himself against the accusation of “the Jews” that he made Himself equal with God. Jesus does not reject equality with God, however, but the idea that he made himself equal to God. “Of his own accord” means apart from the Father, on his own authority.

Over against this vss. 19 and 20 place all the emphasis on Jesus’ fellowship and unity with the Father (Ridderbos <>, pp. 192-193). The Greek text of verses 19-23 is structured around four gar (‘for’ or ‘because’) statements. The first introduces the last clause of v. 19. The thought runs like this: It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and co-extensive with all that the Father does. ‘Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action with the Father’ (Westcott, The Gospel According to John, 1. p. 189). It follows that separate, self-determined action would be a denial of his sonship. But if this last clause of v. 19 takes the impossibility of the Son operating independently and grounds it in the perfection of Jesus’ sonship, it also constitutes another oblique claim to deity; for the only one who could conceivably do whatever the Father does must be as great as the Father, as divine as the Father (Carson <>, p. 251). Grammatical Analysisa gar an ekeinoV poih tauta kaiouioV omoiwV poiei hA GAR AN EKEINOS POIΚ TAUTA KAI hO hUIOS hOMOIΤS POIEI For whatever things this One does, The Son likewise does. AN · Whatever he does…John 5:19 (BAGD <>). There is no dispute that Christ says that He does whatever the Father does. hOMOIΤS · Likewise, equally, in the same way (Thayer <>). · In like manner" (Vine <>). but contra: · Sometimes the idea of similarity fades into the background to such a degree that hOMOIΤS means also…this the Son also does J 5:19 (BAGD <>). · hOMOIΤS does not mean ‘in the same manner’ (imitation) but ‘also,’ ’likewise,’ ‘in agreement with’ (Ridderbos <>, p. 193, n. 23). · John 5:19…hOMOIΤS should not be translated ‘in like manner’ (RV) but ’likewise’ (AV). (Moulton and Milligan <>). While the translation “in like manner” would provide an even greater claim to equality with God, it must be noted that even if the more recent lexical evidence is accepted, Jesus is still saying the does whatever the Father does, though perhaps not specifying how. Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses Objection: The Watchtower has written: “But who said Jesus was making himself equal with God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): ‘To this accusation Jesus replied…the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing’ - JB. By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal with God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could ‘do nothing by himself?’ (SYBT <>, p. 24). Response: The WT says that because He’s not equal with God, he “could not act on his own initiative.” But this makes no sense.

Can those who are not equal with God act on their own initiative? I certainly can, and I suspect you can, too.

All men have free will. All men can act on their own initiative. It’s called “sin” when we do things by our own will that are not in accord with God’s will. We can choose to follow His will or not. But Jesus says not simply that he chooses not to do things outside the will of the Father, but that He can’t. Think through the implications of that statement for a minute. If Jesus truly cannot act on His own initiative, and He is a creature, then He is no more than a slave to God’s will. Does the WT teach that all those that are “not equal with God” cannot act on their own initiative?

Or just the Son? Jesus’ words throughout this passage do not hint that He is a slave, but that He and the Father share a perfect love for one another. In a real sense, if Jesus is a creature that cannot act on his own initiative, Jesus has no free will. Yet, Jesus says later in this passage that he “gives life to whom He wills” (v. 21), certainly implying He has free will to act on His own initiative. Now, can a person who is “equal” with God act on his own initiative? He can, but only so long as his will perfectly matches that of God.

If he ever acted apart from God’s will, he would - by definition - no longer be “equal with God.” But Jesus says that he cannot act apart from God’s will. Thus, when He says that he “can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees his Father doing,” He proclaims that His will, though free, is never apart from God’s will, and thus asserts a fundamental - and eternal - equality with God.

The WT is right in one sense - the Jews were indeed mistaken, but not in the way the WT teaches. They thought Jesus was setting Himself up in rivalry to the Father - as a second God. But Jesus answers that far from being in competition with the Father, the Son is perfectly in harmony with the Father, and the two act together to redeem and judge fallen mankind - hardly the thing to say if you’re trying to deny equality with God! Finally, since the Watchtower’s New World Translation renders hOMOIΤS in this verse “in like manner,” we must ask how it is that Jesus is denying equality with God when He states that not only does He do whatever the Father does, but He does these things exactly as the Father does them?

John 5:20

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

20"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel.”

CommentaryJesus tells us that the reason that He does only what the Father shows Him - and everything the Father shows Him - is because the Father loves the Son. The Son submits to the Father in perfect love, being unable therefore to act independently of the Father, and the Father reciprocates this perfect love by showing the Son “all things” that He is doing. There is nothing that the Father does that He does not show the Son, and so we may trust that Jesus “explains” or “exegetes” the Father perfectly and completely (cf. John 1:18). God’s revelation in His Son is perfect because the Son does “whatever” the Father shows Him, and the Father shows Him “all things He Himself is doing.” Jesus’ implicit claim to Deity is here quite striking, as is the statement that the Father will show the Son even greater works than the healings the Jews have already witnessed - that is, the works of judgment and raising the dead, which Jesus speaks of in the coming verses. Jesus says not only does He know everything the Father is doing, but that He knows what the Father will do.

While it is certainly possible that the Father disclosed His future works to the Son, Jesus makes no such qualification here, as we might expect, had Jesus wished to convince his audience that He was not, in fact, “equal with God.” It seems, instead, that the Son knows what the Father will do by virtue of the unity of their shared Will - yet another implicit and stunning claim to Deity. The very obedience and dependence that characterize Jesus’ utter subordination to the Father are themselves so perfect that all Jesus does is what the Father wills and does, so it is nothing less than the revelation of God. Small wonder that Jesus will later declare, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9; cf., Carson, pp. 146-162). In the immediate context, this means that Jesus’ implicitly claimed ’equality with God’ (vv. 17-18), as real as it is, must never be taken to mean (as the Jews apparently assumed) that God himself was compromised (if the claim were given any credence) or demeaned (assuming it were false). Far from it: the claim was true, but God was thereby revealed" (Carson <>, p. 252). Grammatical Analysiskai panta deiknusin autw`a autoV poiei KAI PANTA AUTÔi hA AUTOS POIEI and all things shows him that which he does. PANTA · All things, everything. In the absolute sense (BAGD <>). Similarly, Louw & Nida <> and Thayer <>. Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: Some Witnesses have argued that PANTA here and in other verses does not mean “all” in an absolute sense (cf., John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). response: While PANTA may be used in a hyperbolic sense in some verses, the word means “all” in the absolute sense, as the lexicons indicate. The burden of proof is on those who would argue against this meaning. There is nothing in the context, nor elsewhere in Scripture, that suggests that Jesus is using hyperbole here. Indeed, since Jesus says the basis of the Father showing Him “all things” is the Father’s love for the Son, it would dilute the Divine Love if PANTA meant anything other than “all things” absolutely.

John 5:21

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. CommentaryJesus elaborates on His previous statements that He acts in perfect harmony with the Father - doing only what He sees His Father doing and whatever He sees His Father doing. And, the Father who loves the Son perfectly, shows the Son everything that He does. Here, Jesus asserts that the prerogatives of resurrection and giving life - which the Jews knew belonged to God alone (cf., 2 Kings 5:7) - are His as well. Just as the Father will “bring back to life” those whom He will, so too the Son gives life to “whom He wishes.” This statement, far from contradicting his previous assertion that He does nothing “of Himself” (v. 19), is a further indication of the unity of will enjoyed between Father and Son. Claiming the prerogatives of God and His unified will with God, is a further explanation of exactly how the Son is equal with God. Not as a rival God, one who acts independently or in competition, but as the fully Divine Son, who submits to the Father’s Will; who perfectly loves and is loved; who reveals the Father to us so exquisitely that we can say that when we have seen Christ, we have seen the Father. whom he will-not only doing the same divine act, but doing it as the result of his own will, even as the Father does it. This statement is of immense importance in relation to the miracles of Christ, distinguishing them from similar miracles of prophets and apostles, who as human instruments were employed to perform supernatural actions, while Christ did all as the Father’s commissioned Servant indeed, but in the exercise of his own absolute right of action (JFB <>). Grammatical Analysiswsper garo pathr …outwV kaio`uioV hÔSPER GAR hO PATÊR … hOUTÔS KAI hO hUIOS … For just as the Father … so also the Son … hÔSPER · (just) as (BAGD <>). · Strengthened by PER… “even as” (Vine <>). · Even as, as (Moulton & Milligan <>). · PER…brings out the force of hOS…“Just as,” “even as” (Thayer <>). Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: Some Witnesses have argued that while verses like this one demonstrate that Jesus functioned as God while on earth, this does not mean that the Son is equal with the Father in terms of His Nature. Even some Trinitarian commentators see a distinction between a “functional Christology <>” and an “ontological Christology <>,” indeed even Calvin can be read this way. Response: It must be noted that while this verse and the surrounding context speak specifically of Christ doing the “work” of the Father, elsewhere we are told that the Son does share the Divine Nature of the Father (cf., John 1:1; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3). Thus, the whole counsel of Scripture declares both functional and ontological equality of Father and Son. It has been correctly noted, for example by de Jonge, that in order to bring out the distinctive and unique character of Jesus’ discourse and actions John had to go back to the origin of him who spoke and acted thus; and therefore it does not make sense to play “action” off against “being,” “function” against “nature.” …. It is the Word of this God, who in the beginning created life and light, that the Evangelist speaks when in his prologue he mainly traces the “meaning” of Jesus’ words and works to his origin and “nature.” It is also the nature of the incarnate Word that forms the basis for the pronouncements in ch. 5, which are pivotal for the entire Gospel, to the effect that “the Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees his Father doing” because “the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing” (Ridderbos <>, pp. 194-95).

John 5:22

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

22For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, CommentaryJesus expands His Divine prerogatives further by coupling His ability to give life to whom He will with the ultimate judgment to come. These two “works” constitute the “greater works” mentioned in verse 20. The Father does not judge because He has given all judgment to His beloved Son, and the Son gives life to whom He will because the Father has entrusted Him with judgment on the last day. The Jews knew that only God was “judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25); for Jesus to claim that He had been given this Divine prerogative, in the context of defending Himself against the charge of blasphemy, would be odd indeed, if Jesus intended to deny his equality with the Father. James warned us about speaking evil of or judging a brother. He pointed out that anyone who does judge steps out of his role as a subject of the Law and, in effect, claims authority over it. “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy” (James 4:12).

So when Jesus stated that the Father “has entrusted all judgment to the Son,” He was again claiming deity. Only God, who gave the Law, is above it. Jesus must be honored as God, and submitted to in all things. “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him,” is Jesus’ inescapable conclusion (TC <>). Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: Witnesses argue that since the Son receives authority from the Father to execute judgment, the Son cannot be Almighty God - for Almighty God does not receive authority from another. Rather, the Son is an angelic being whom God gives authority to judge; God judges through the Son, just as He judged Pharaoh through Moses, and as the “gods” (i.e., human judges) in Psalms 82 judged on God’s behalf in Israel. Response: God proclaims that He is coming to judge the earth (1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalms 96:13, 98:9). While Witnesses may believe that the Father is coming to the earth with the Son in the last days, it is clear from this verse that only the Son will execute judgment (“not even the Father judges anyone”). It must be stressed that nowhere does this passage teach that the Father judges through the Son, but rather that the Son’s will perfectly matches the Father’s and therefore the Son’s judgment is just (v. 30). God used Moses to execute judgment on Pharaoh (that is, to punish him), not to judge him.

Human judges were termed ‘gods’ in Psalms 82 because they represented God in a narrowly defined role. However, the context makes clear that the ‘gods’ are themselves subject to God’s ultimate judgment - whereas this verse says the Father will not judge anyone, for He has committed all judgment to the Son.

The Father is not acting through an intermediary - He commits judgment to His Son, whom He knows will judge just as He would, for they are One. A sound exegesis takes this verse at face value and does not require reading into it an intermediary role for the Son that is nowhere here mentioned. With a proper understanding of the true Nature of God’s Son, the plain meaning harmonizes perfectly with the OT passages cited above. God will come to judge the earth in the Person of His Divine Son. Trinitarians believe that within the Godhead there are distinctions of role. The Father sends; the Son and the Spirit are sent.

We also recognize that the Son submits to the Father’s authority in perfect love, and the Father reciprocates by showing the Son “all things that He does.” The Father commits judgment to the Son, and the Son will execute it in complete harmony with the Father’s will. Thus, the fact that the Father gives authority to the Son does not present a problem for Trinitarians.

Everyone - righteous and unrighteous alike - will be brought before God the Word. For the Father has committed all judgment to Him….He, in administering the righteous judgment of the Father to everyone, assigns to each person what is righteous according to his works (Hippolytus, c. 205 a.d.).

John 5:23

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

23so that all will honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. CommentaryJesus now reveals the reason that all judgment has been given to Him: So that all will honor the Son just as they do the Father. This statement must have taken the Jews’ breath away. No prophet or angel had ever uttered such words. It seems inconceivable that any creature could ever do so. Even a powerful angelic being or a lesser, created “god,” sent to earth to represent the Father would never say that judgment had been given to him so that all would honor him equally with the Father. Honor him, perhaps, but certainly not to the same degree as that rendered to the Almighty God who created him.

To claim equality of honor with the Father - indeed, to claim equality with the Father in any area whatsoever - is a tacit claim to equality with God. It would be so in any context, but it is particularly cogent in one in which Jesus is answering the Jews’ accusations of blasphemy (verse 18).

The claim that the Father has placed all judgment in the hands of the Son because the Father wishes all to honor the Son just as they honor Him places the Son well outside the role of a mere representative or functionary. While ambassadors in ancient times were received as though they were the king they represented, they were not accorded equal honor, and certainly would have never claimed it for themselves. The honor given the Son, however, does not detract from that given the Father. The implication here is that honoring the Son also honors the Father - for while “every knee will bow” at the name of Jesus, it will be to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-11). The loving unity of Father and Son, which Jesus has been explaining throughout this passage, points to the fundamental truth that the One God has revealed Himself completely in the person of His one and only Son, and this complete revelation is only possible because the Father and the Son are essentially One. Thus, by giving all judgment to the Son, the Father wishes that all would honor the Son as they do Him - for the Father knows that His glory - which He will not share with another (Isaiah 42:8) - is not compromised when shared with His Divine Son.

This statement is followed by one even more breathtaking: “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Jesus is making reverence of the Father dependent upon reverencing Him. Those who would weaken the first half of this verse are still confronted by the second.

For regardless of how one might wish to understand “honor” or “even as,” Jesus says here that those who do not honor Him fail to honor the Father. We may consider whether one who honors the Father, but does not honor Abraham, or Moses, or even one of God’s angels, could reasonably be said to fail to honor the Father. In a theistic universe, such a statement belongs to one who is himself to be addressed as God (cf. 20:28) or to stark insanity. The one who utters such things is to be dismissed with pity or scorn, or worshipped as Lord. If with much current scholarship we retreat to seeing in such material less the claims of the Son than the beliefs and witness of the Evangelist and his church, the same options confront us. Either John is supremely deluded and must be dismissed as a fool, or his witness is true and Jesus is to be ascribed the honors due to God alone.

There is no rational middle ground (Carson <>, p. 255). But all things now, and at the final judgment, are committed to the Son, purposely that all men might honour the Son, as they honour the Father; and every one who does not thus honour the Son, whatever he may think or pretend, does not honour the Father who sent him (Henry <>). Grammatical Analysisina panteV timwsi tonuion kathwV timwsi ton paterao me timwn tonuion ou tima ton patera ton pemfanta auton. hINA PANTES TIMΤSI TON hUION KATHΤS TIMΤSI TON PATERA hO ME TIMΤN TON hUION OU TIMA TON PATERA TON AUTON. So that all shall honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The [one] honoring the Son honors not the Father the [one] having sent Him. TIMΤSI · Honor, value (Vine <>). · To honor, to have in honor, to revere, to venerate (Thayer <>). · To honor, revere someone (BAGD <>). KATHΤS · According as, just as, even as (Thayer <>). · Indicating comparison, just as (BAGD <>). · Just as, in comparison to … KATHWS hHGAPHSEN ME hO PATHR ’the same way the Father loved me’ John 15.9 (Louw & Nida <>).

KATHΤS may have the meaning simply “as,” when not followed by an explicit or implied hOUTΤS. Thayer and BAGD both recognize am implied hOUTΤS in this verse, therefore taking the meanings indicated above. Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: An independent Jehovah’s Witness website called The Trinity Exposed Website (TEW) wrote the following comments about this verse. This website has since been removed, most likely in response to Watchtower guidelines regarding the Internet. However, this argument is still current among some Witness apologists. Beginning of TEW John 5:23: Some say that this verse implies that Jesus is Jehovah because we are instructed to “honor” the Son “just as” we honor the Father. Is this true? Because we are to honor the Son “just as” we honor the Father, does this make Jesus Jehovah? Some will say YES!! They even take it a step further.

They say that the Greek word here rendered “just as” means “to the exact degree, perfectly the same.” Is this true? Let’s take a look. First let it be said, that it does not say to “worship the Son just as we worship the Father.” Yet , still some imagine it means this. The reality is though, that it says to “honor” the Son. What does this mean? The Greek word translated “honor” is “timao.” It means to “hold in estimation, respect, honour, to revere.” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Moulton pg. 405, Strong’s Greek Dictionary pg. 72) It is also used at Matthew 15:4 of the way you should view your parents: “For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ Christians certainly are not to “worship” their parents are they?

Next, the Greek word translated “just as” is “kathos.” Just what does this word mean? Does it mean to the “exact degree?” No.

This word means “according as, in the manner that.” ( Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words pg. 385; The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 1978, by Moulton pg. 208) Notice it does not say to the same exact degree. We see proof that “kathos” literally cannot mean “to the same exact degree” in 1 John 2:6 where it appears: “He that says he remains in union with him is under obligation himself also to go on walking just as that one walked.” This verse is telling us that Christians need to walk just as Christ, the perfect man walked. Now the question is: “Can anyone walk “exactly as, to the exact degree” that Jesus walked? Are we perfect? Better still, if Jesus is God, how can we walk “exactly to the same degree” as God? We cannot!

Clearly then, to honor the son just as we honor the Father does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah. End of TEW John 5:23 (copied September, 1999).

Response: The first point raised, regarding TIMAW, is something of a red-herring. I am unaware of any commentator of note who renders TIMAW “worship,” or suggests that this verse teaches us to worship the Son just as we worship the Father (though other verses point us in that direction). Most, however, rightly associate giving honor equally to the Father and Son as valuing, esteeming, or adoring the Father and Son equally, and thus Jesus is answering his accusers with yet another tacit claim to equality with God, though - once again - in such as way as to demonstrate His unity with the Father. The inseparability of the adoration of the Father from that of the Son prohibits any notion that ’next to’ and ‘besides’ God as Father, the Son as ‘a second party’ must be honored as God. For by giving all things into the hands of the Son, the Father does not retreat to a position behind the Son, but posits himself as present in the Son. God is not two, but one (Ridderbos <>, p. 197).

The definitions of TIMAW provided by TEW are essentially correct, though TIMAW can carry the connotation of “valuing someone” (cf., Matthew 27:9; so Vine, Moulton & Milligan <>, Thayer, and BAGD). Thus, in addition to honoring, esteeming, and reverencing the Son, it may also be that we are to value the Son just as we value the Father.

The key to interpreting the text, however, is in the term KATHWS, for if it does not mean “just as, to the same degree as,” then even if TIMAW meant worship, it could still be argued that the Son is not equal with the Father. On the other hand, if KATHWS does mean “just as, to the same degree as,” then Jesus telling us to reverence the Son just as we reverence the Father is yet another proclamation of His essential equality with God. Introducing Matthew 15:4 at this point really does nothing more that take attention away from the immediate context, for while we are indeed told to “honor” our parents, we are not told to do so “just as” we honor the Father. Our parents do not “work” on the Sabbath, see everything their Father in Heaven is doing, do whatever the Father does, give life to whom they will, or claim all judgment has been given into their hands. While TEW’s point regarding Christians not worshipping their parents demonstrates that TIMAW does not literally mean “worship,” it fails to address the difference in reverence and honor the Bible teaches us to render to our parents and that which we render to God. We must reverence God above all others, as the Jews understood and believed; which is why Jesus’ call to honor the Son just as the Father would have struck them as yet another claim to Deity.

The lexical evidence for KATHWS meaning “just as” has been presented in the Grammatical Analysis, above. TEW’s citation of Vine <> is incomplete, as Vine also lists “even as” under KATHWS.

Further the Watchtower’s own New World Translation renders KATHWS as “just as” in both John 5:23 and 1 John 2:6. Regarding TEW’s comments on 1 John 2:6, Dave Sherrill writes: Our inability to attain perfection does not circumvent or short-circuit our obligation before God to strive for it. In such a situation, our sin magnifies our need for, and the glory of, our Savior. We need a Savior who can save us from our own “righteousnesses”, tainted as they are by sin, as much as from our sin. Such a Savior is one we can truly honor “just as we honor the Father.” Jesus Christ is such a Savior. He is the only Savior (Dave Sherrill, John 5:23, <>).

Throughout his first epistle, John exhorts us to live as Christ did. John writes that if we are in Christ we will not continue to sin (3:6-7), we will keep His commandments (5:2), and that “love is perfected in us” (4:17).

Though we will never be completely like Christ, God promises us that He will complete the work He started in us (Philippians 1:6) and conform us to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29), so that we may - someday in Glory - live without sin, be perfect in love, and walk “just as” He walked.” Thus, KATHWS in 1 John 2:6 means precisely the same thing it does in this verse: “Just as, even as.” Thayer and BAGD list both 1 John 2:6 and John 5:23 as examples of this meaning. In an another book written by the Fourth Evangelist, we have a scene in which every creature renders the Father equal honor with the Son, and the context points clearly to that honor being a part of worship: And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor [TIMH] and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped (Revelation 5:13-14). We may note that in this passage, the Father and Son are distinguished from “every created thing” (PAN KTISMA - “that which is created [by God], creature [created by God] … every creature in heaven Rv 5:13” [BAGD <>]). If every creature ‘created by God’ honors the Father and the Son, the Son cannot be ‘created by God,’ as the Watchtower teaches. Finally, the Watchtower itself teaches that both the Father and the Son should receive the “greatest honor:” By reason of his being Creator, Jehovah God is worthy of the greatest honor from all his intelligent creatures. (Revelation 4:11) …. Whereas Jehovah God and his Son merit the greatest honor, there are relationships among humans that also call for honor (Insight <> 1, pp. 1135-36).

Thus, it seems that the independent apologist who authored TEW’s entry on this verse (as well as anyone who continues to advance the interpretation presented there) is somewhat out of step with the teaching of his Organization on this subject. However, we may ask whether Witnesses who follow the Watchtower’s teaching (rather than an independent apologist) do in fact honor the Son equally with the Father, and if they do, how they reconcile giving the greatest honor to Jehovah God and to one of his creatures, given that the Watchtower says that Jehovah God is deserving of the greatest honor because He is the Creator.

John 5:24

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

24"Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

CommentaryNo less grand or sobering than what Jesus has already said, is the proclamation that not only does Jesus give life “to whom He wills,” but that the life He gives is eternal life, and it begins for the believer immediately upon hearing Jesus’ words and believing the Father who has sent Him. “Hears” in this context means “accepts as true; believes.” Jesus speaks the words that the Father gives Him (8:26) and does the works the Father shows Him (verse 19); therefore, those who believe the Son believe the Father, and those who honor the Son honor the Father. The Son mediates the Father to us in all things, not least of which is His active role in salvation. That He is an active participant, and not merely a passive “conduit” through which the Father acts in the world, is seen by Jesus’ statement that He gives life “to whom He wills” and that He, not the Father, is the ultimate Judge of humanity. Of course, since His will perfectly matches the will of the Father, the Son and the Father act as One (along with the “Spirit of Truth” who convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment [14:17; 16:8]) to bring regeneration, justification, and salvation to the believer, and just judgment to the unbeliever. As John elsewhere makes clear: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. (1 John 5:12).

One of the striking features of this verse is the present tense “has” (see Grammatical Analysis, below). Salvation begins for the believer at the moment of belief.

The believer receives eternal life and is not judged because he hears and believes. He has passed from spiritual death to spiritual life through no ‘works’ of his own, but through the will of Christ alone. The believer is assured of her salvation, for she at the moment of belief, no longer comes under God’s wrath and condemnation, but has at once and completely passed from spiritual death to eternal life. The Son is the arbiter of destiny. The determination of this destiny is immediate: “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned.” Eternal life becomes the possession of the believer at the moment of acceptance; the future judgment will only confirm what has already taken place. The assurance of salvation does not begin at death or at a future judgment. “He has crossed over” is in the perfect tense, which indicates an accomplished transit and a settled state (EBC <>).

Since Jesus has the unity and divine prerogatives mentioned in verses 19-23, to trust His message and His Father is to have in the present time eternal life (cf. 3:36). No judgment will come in the future (he will not be condemned [cf. 3:18; Rom. 6:13; 8:1] because he has already passed from one realm-death-into another-life [cf.

Eph. 2:1, 5]). Only once elsewhere (in 1 John 3:14) is the phrase “passed from death to life” used (BKC <>). Grammatical Analysisecei zwhn aiwnion…alla metabebhken ek tou qanatou eiV thn zwhn ECHEI ZΤHN AIWNION…ALLA METABEBΚKEN EK TOU EIS TΚN ZΤΚN Has life eternal…but has crossed over out of death into [the] life. ECHEI is the present indicative active form of the verb ECHW, “to have, to hold, to possess” (Friberg <>). The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is speaking. The active voice indicates that the action is being accomplished by the subject of the sentence - in this case, “he who hears…and believes…” Thus, hearing and believing bring eternal life immediately, thereby avoiding judgment and spiritual death. Hath eternal life (echei zτeτn aiτnion). Has now this spiritual life which is endless.

See 3:36. In verses 24, 25 Jesus speaks of spiritual life and spiritual death. In this passage (verses 21-29) Jesus speaks now of physical life and death, now of spiritual, and one must notice carefully the quick transition (RWP <>). is the perfect indicative active form of , “to leave, move, go, cross over” (Friberg). The indicative mood heightens the temporal aspect of the present tense verb. Context will dictate whether the completeness of action or the finished results are emphasized. In this verse, either or both connotations are possible. Other Veiws ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: The Watchtower writes: [Jesus] is the appointed Judge into whose hands all judgment is committed, so that he judiciously administers his ransom benefits to individuals among mankind according to their worthiness to live under his kinship (John 5:22-27) (Aid <>, p. 924). The Watchtower thus reads this verse and the surrounding context in such as way as to suggest that membership in Christ’s Kingdom is based - at least in part - on the “worthiness” of the believer. The Watchtower teaches a complex eschatology, in which two classes of believers receive different resurrections. The so-called “Anointed class” of believers receive the “first” or “earlier” resurrection; they have a “heavenly call,” and thus receive spiritual bodies for their new lives in Heaven with Christ. The “Anointed” are restricted to 144,000 believers. The remaining group of believers - the “other sheep” (which includes virtually all Witnesses alive today) - will be part of the second resurrection.

They will receive physical bodies for their new lives in an Earthly Paradise. There, they will labor for Christ and the Anointed during Christ’s millennial reign, following which, if they are obedient, they may receive eternal life (see Aid, pp. 1393 ff.).

Thus, the Watchtower teaches that only those “other sheep” who demonstrate their “worthiness” during the Millennium to live under Christ’s kingship will receive eternal life. In fairness, the Watchtower does not base its teaching on this passage alone. However, it appeals to this passage to help explain it: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed (literally, word for word, “the (ones) having heard”) will live.” (vs. 25, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures). This indicates that he was speaking, not merely to someone audibly hearing his voice, but, rather, of the ones “having heard,” namely, those who, after hearing, accept as true what they hear. The terms “hear” and “listen” are used very frequently in the Bible with the meaning of “give heed” or “obey” . Those who prove to be obedient will live. (Compare the use of the same Greek term (akouo), “To hear or to listen” as John 6:60; 8:43; 47; 10:3, 27.) They are judged, not on what they did before hearing his voice, but what they did after hearing it. (IBID, p. 1397).

Response: Though AKOUW can have the connotation “to obey,” and it is certainly incumbent upon believers to be doers, not merely hearers of His word (cf., James 1:22), the context here and in the verses the Watchtower cites stresses “belief.” Indeed, in each, a form of the word “believe” occurs in the immediate context, while the word “obey” does not. Thus, the primary emphasis is upon hearing and believing - though obedience will follow any true conversion to belief in God and His Son.

The Watchtower emphasizes obedience, here, to support its teaching that those who return to life in the second resurrection must demonstrate their obedience during the Millennial reign of Christ to achieve eternal life. However, the point must be stressed that there in nothing in this passage - nor indeed elsewhere in Scripture - that explicitly states that some believers will be resurrected to a heavenly call, while others must “prove to be obedient.” Further, the Watchtower says that those who “hear” Christ’s words will be “judged, not on what they did before hearing his voice, but what they did after hearing it.” For Witnesses, the deeds they do after hearing Christ’s words entail not only what they do in this life, but also what they may do following their resurrection, but prior to the ultimate judgment in which Christ will determine who has proven “obedient.” Since it has just defined “judgment” as “a judgment of condemnation” (IBID), the Watchtower means that some of those who “hear” Christ’s Words and believe in His Father, but do not “prove to be obedient,” will be denied eternal life. In explaining its view of “passing over from death to life,” the Watchtower writes: “[God] has raised them up out of spiritual death and gave them hope of eternal life (1 Pet. 4:3-6)” (IBID, p. 1399, emphasis added). This teaching is simply not supported in this verse, for here, Jesus assures us that if we “hear” and “believe,” we will gain eternal life and will not “come into judgment.” There is no mention of “hope,” here, but of assurance - and a wonderful assurance it is! This verse promises believers that they have already passed over from death to life - and while this means in one sense a spiritual rebirth in our present life, the context also requires eternal life to be in view as well. While the Watchtower may point to other passages that use the phrase “hope of eternal life,” (cf., Titus 3:7), it does not occur in this context, nor in 1 Peter 4:3-6.

The word “hope” in the context of the resurrection and eternal life means more than saying, “I hope it doesn’t rain tomorrow.” Christian hope is faith in the promises of God - as believers, we “hope in our Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1:3); we “hope in the promise” (Acts 26:6); we “hope for righteousness” even as we “await righteousness” (Galatians 5:5). The Apostle Paul tells us that our hope is grounded in the Gospel (Colossian 1:23).

Thus, by faith, we “hope” in the promises of God, and by God’s great power and grace, we have assurance that He will keep his promises to us - not least of which, is the true “hope” of eternal life, which comes by faith in Christ’s words and in the Father who sent Him. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He save us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7). We are saved and made heirs of eternal life, not by deeds or any righteousness of our own (for we have none!), but only through God’s mercy. Is obedience a “deed?” Does it impute to us righteousness? Only God is righteous, and by believing in our righteous Savior, our sins are placed upon Him, and He places His righteousness on us - not that we become righteous in our own right, but God sees us as righteous, because we are covered by Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. Our hope is grounded in the Gospel, which contains the assuring words of Christ - “he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”

John 5:25

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

25"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

CommentaryJesus emphasizes and makes concrete the statements He has just made in verse 24. Jesus calls the dead to life, and His voice can be no other than the voice of God: “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live” (Isaiah 55:3). The same voice who shall call the physically dead to life on the Last Day now calls the spiritually dead to spiritual life. The phrase “an hour is coming and now is” points to both future and present action - those who heard His words passed immediately into eternal spiritual life, and this promise extends to us, who “hear” His voice 2000 years removed, from the pen of the Fourth Evangelist, carried along, as he was, by the Spirit of Truth. The phrase “and has now come” may refer to the present era that will terminate in the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, or it may refer to the power Jesus had to raise the dead during his lifetime, as in the case of Lazarus.

There is another sense in which our Lord’s words are true. As the source of life, he was promising to those who were spiritually dead, like the woman at the well, a new and eternal life if they would listen to his voice (EBC <>).

John 5:26

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 5

26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

CommentaryJesus explains that the reason He is able to call forth the dead into eternal life is because (GAR, “for”) He is self-existent, just as the Father is. The phrase “life in Himself” is unlikely a reference to the Incarnation, for John refers to the pre-incarnate Logos as having life “in Him” (1:4). If it referred only to the Incarnation, it would not seem to provide a reasonable explanation of how the Son is able to give life to those physically and spiritually dead. Since the Father is said to have “life in Himself,” and the Bible teaches that YHWH is self-existent, depending on no one or nothing for life, it seems reasonable that self-existence is Jesus intended meaning here. One who is self-existent can only be God, and only God can give life “to whom He wills.” The “just as…even so” construction - once again - equates the Son to the Father. Jesus is not denying His equality with the Father here, as some would argue (see Other Views Considered, below), but rather explaining exactly how the Son is equal to the Father.

The Son did not make Himself equal to God, as the Jews assumed, but rather the Son has “life in Himself” because of the Father. Thus, the intimate, loving, and submissive relationship of the Son to the Father is highlighted.

The Son does not derive existence from the Father in the same way that we do - for we do not have “life in ourselves.” Rather, the Son is essentially equal with the Father in terms of the life that is in them - and uniquely so - yet the Son also receives this status from the Father. It is unaccountable in the context of answering the Jews’ accusation that Jesus would say “just so…even as,” unless He wished to establish equality in regards to “life in Himself” with His Father. Earlier in this passage, Jesus says that He does whatever the Father does; He now declares that He possesses life in the same way the Father possesses it. The impartation of life-in-himself to the Son must be an act belonging to eternity, of a piece with the eternal Father/Son relationship, which is itself of a piece with the relationship between the Word and God, a relationship that existed “in the beginning (1:1). That is why the Son himself can be proclaimed as ’the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us (1 John 1:2)…. In the immediate context, it is this eternal impartation of life-in-himself to the Son that ground his authority and power to call the dead to life by his powerful word (Carson <>, p. 257).

The expression “to have life in oneself” is not intended as a general description of the divine “being” but as a reference to the fact that, just as the Father as Creator and Consummator possesses life, he as given that life possession to the Son, not merely as the executor of incidental assignments but in the absolute sense of sharing in the Father’s power (Ridderbos <>, p. 198). We do not have inherent life within us.

Our life is derived from others. In the physical sense, our life is given to us by our parents. However, even that transaction is shrouded in deep mystery. Again Jesus claimed deity by saying he was not dependent on another for life just as the Father derived his life from no one. Jesus possesses inherent life, the power to create and the power to renew life that has been extinguished (EBC <>). Grammatical Analysiszwhn en`eautw ZΤΚN EN hEAUTΤi life in himself EN hEAUTΤi · Have something in oneself (BAGD <>). hΤSPER..hOUTΤS · (just) as … so (BAGD) EDΤKEN is the aorist indicative form of DIDΤMI in the active voice. The aorist indicative expresses non-continuous action and does not specify when the action occurs. In himself (en heautτi). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3). For “gave” (edτken, timeless aorist active indicative) see also 3:35; 17:2, 24. The particles “as” (hτsper) and “so” (houtτs) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott) (RWP <>). Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: Since the Son says the Father “gave” Him life, the Son must derive His existence from the Father. Therefore, He cannot be Almighty God, but must be a creature. response: It is important to note the precise wording of this verse. It does not say that the Father gave the Son life, but rather that He gave the Son “to have life in Himself.” The phrase “life in himself” (ZWHN EN hEAUTWi) is similar “life in yourselves” in 6:53 (ZWHN EN hEAUTOIS): …unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life (John 6:53-54). In both verses, Jesus is describing His ability to grant eternal life to those who believe in Him, and it is clear in John 6:53 that Jesus cannot mean life derived from one’s Father, for the Jews certainly had that. In John 6:53, lacking “life in oneself” is contrasted with eternal life, which the Son grants to all believers.

Therefore, “life in oneself” means “eternal life” or “spiritual life.” Witnesses may agree on this point, but argue that the Son’s eternal or spiritual life is nonetheless given by the Father. But, unlike John 6:53, this verse defines the kind of eternal life the Son has by saying it is “just as” the eternal life the Father has.

What kind of eternal, spiritual life does the Father have? Uncreated, self-existent life. The simplest meaning of the phrase is completely appropriate here. The Father has life in Himself - that is, His existence is derived from no one or nothing. One of the attributes of true Deity is self-existence, as the Watchtower itself teaches: “[Jehovah] is uncreated, without beginning” (Aid <>, p. 889). If the Son has the attributes of true Deity, regardless of how He came by them, He must be true Deity. More importantly, we must consider the context of this passage. Jesus is explaining how it is that He has the power to give life to those who are dead - it is because he has life in Himself, just as the Father does.

If Jesus merely wanted to say that He had been given power to grant life by the Father, He could have said so without associating that power with the way in which the Father has “life in Himself.” objection: Almighty God does not depend upon another for life, even “life in Himself,” whatever that term may mean. The Father gave “life in Himself” to the Son - one cannot avoid the implication that the Son, therefore, derives His existence from one who is Superior to himself. response: It must first be noted that Trinitarians acknowledge that the Father is “superior” to the Son in terms of rank and authority, though not in terms of nature. Further, many Trinitarians see the Father as the “source” of the Son’s Deity. This concept can be traced to the writings of the early fathers of the church, who spoke of the Son as a ray of light; the Father as the source of the light. Both are light - the same substance, the same God - yet distinct from one another, the Son depending on the Father as His “source” (see, for example, Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, 63). C.

S. Lewis in Mere Christianity uses the analogy of a book resting atop another.

The book on top derives its position from the book beneath it, and if the book beneath it were suddenly removed, the book on top would fall. The Father grants the Son His position, and the Son depends on the Father - indeed, as we have seen earlier, He does only what He sees the Father doing, and the Father shows Him everything that He does (verses 19-20). Here, Jesus declares that “life in Himself” comes from the Father, and by receiving it, Jesus has “life in Himself,” just as the Father does. Witnesses argue that the Son received “life in Himself” from the Father at some point in the past. They believe that the “giving” in this verse occurred at some point in time, with the results continuing into the present. There is a tense in Greek that would reflect his idea quite nicely: the present perfect.

But John didn’t choose to use that tense. Instead, he used the aorist indicative, which is significant in that it purposely avoids attaching a time reference to the verb.

It is therefore not possible to prove that the Son received “life in Himself” at some point in time from this verse. Indeed, since he could have done so but chose not to, we must ask what John’s purpose was in choosing to express himself as he did. John tells us that the Logos existed in an intimate relationship with the Father “in the beginning” (1:1) and that “in Him was life” (1:4). So, the pre-Incarnate Logos already had “life in Him” in “the beginning.” If John intended “the beginning” to mean the absolute beginning of God’s creation, He would be teaching that not only was the Logos already existing before all creation, He also had already been given “life in Himself.” This would harmonize well with the “giving” in this verse as being part of the intimate relationship of Father and Son, which has existed from all eternity (see Carson, above). Just as it is not possible to point to a time when the Son did not exist (since He existed before time began), it is also not possible to point to a time when the Son did not have “life in Himself.” Witnesses contest the meaning of “the beginning” in John 1:1 as the absolute beginning of creation, though this argument is difficult to sustain in light of the immediate context (v. 1:3), the parallel to Genesis 1, and Paul’s teaching in Colossians 1:15. Scripture nowhere defines a multi-stage “beginning,” as required by Watchtower theology.

Furthermore, the Watchtower itself defines the “beginning” in John 1:1 as “the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works” (Insight <>, 2, p. 52). Of course, Witnesses are quite correct to point out that Almighty God does not receive “life in Himself” from another.

If the Son receives life in Himself from another being, then there are two Gods with “life in themselves,” who are self-existent. Trinitarians, however, believe Scripture teaches us that Father and Son are One God. The Son receives self-existence from His Father with whom He is one. The essential unity of Father and Son - the fact that they are one God - is not mitigated by the Son acknowledging that without the Father, the Son could not exist. Nor could the Father be the Father without the Son. Had Jesus said he had “life in Himself” just as the Father, and said no more, He would have acknowledged - at least in part - what the Jews were accusing Him of: Namely, of claiming to be a second God beside the Father. Saying, instead, that He has received the Divine attribute of self-existence from the Father ensures that we will never see Him as a rival to the Father, yet we will also understand that He is essentially equal with the Father - having “life in Himself” just as does the Father.