FATHER AND SON IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL: JOHANNINE SUBORDINATION REVISITED, THE

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2006 by Cowan, Christopher

Thematic tension is a concept by no means foreign to the Fourth Gospel. The apparent presence of contending themes such as divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, and future and realized eschatology has been a frequent topic of discussion in Johannine scholarship.1 It would not necessarily be surprising, then, to find similar tension in the Gospel's presentation of the relationship between God and Jesus, or, using the predominant Johannine terminology, between the "Father" and the "Son."2

Yet, this equality of divine nature between Father and Son is held in tension with John's depiction in numerous texts of a hierarchal relationship between the two, in which the Son is perfectly obedient to his Father. While the former aspect of the relationship has often been contested, the latter seems to have been readily observed by most interpreters. Recently, however, some scholars have questioned the legitimacy of seeing the Son in a subordinate role to the Father in the Fourth Gospel, or they have offered alternative interpretations so that the concept no longer applies. One is led to wonder, then, whether the majority of Johannine scholarship has misread the Gospel. Do assertions of Jesus' unilateral obedience to and dependence on the Father and assumptions of a patriarchal hierarchy misunderstand the fourth evangelist's intent?

This article offers a reexamination of the Fourth Gospel in light of these recent suggestions. I will attempt to demonstrate the existence of the Son's subordination to the Father as a major theme in John by addressing three interrelated Johannine concepts: (1) the Son as "sent" from the Father; (2) the Son's apparent unilateral dependence on and obedience to the Father; and (3) John's recurrent use of "Father" and "Son" terminology for God and Jesus. The discussion of each concept will include a brief presentation of the Johannine data and how it contributes to the overall picture of the Son's subordination to his Father. This will be followed by interaction with some who have understood the data differently from traditional scholarship.

I. THE SON AS "SENT" FROM THE FATHER

Many have attempted to identify the background to this sending concept. Bultmann found it in pre-Christian Gnosticism.11 Dodd points to the language of the OT prophets who are those "sent by Jehovah."12 Others have interpreted John against a background of religious and cultural messenger practices, particularly the Jewish institution of "agency" (shaliach).13 The basic principle of agency is found in the rabbinical statement, "A man's agent is like the man himself."14 Dealing with the agent was considered the same as dealing with the sender, since he was like his sender in juridical function and effects. The agent would carry out his mission in obedience to the sender and return to the sender when complete.15 Mercer notes that the sending in rabbinical agency implies subordination.16 According to Jewish midrash, "the sender is greater than the sent."17 Similarly, Jesus affirms the subordination of the sent one to the sender, telling his disciples, "A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one sent greater than the one who sent him" (13:16).18 But, as John makes clear, and as Harvey has observed, the Father has not sent just any agent in the Fourth Gospel, but his only Son. He alone could be relied on absolutely to promote his Father's interests (cf. Mark 12:6).19 The obvious parallels with John make the Jewish concept of agency an appealing choice as background, though one must be cautious since parallels do not necessarily imply dependence and the rabbinic sources in their final written form postdate the Gospel.20

Asserting "the limited usefulness and final inadequacy" of the shaliach figure to explain certain aspects of the Father-Son relationship in John, Marianne Meye Thompson insists that "one must turn to other categories and figures to help illumine the presentation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel."21 She admits that the Evangelist's use of the institution of agency "would go a long way towards explaining the following features of Johannine Christology: the unity of the work of the Father and Son ... ; the obedience, and even 'subordination,' of the agent to the sender, or of the Son to the Father; the call to honor the Son as one would honor the Father... ; and the language of sending."22 However, Thompson follows James D. G. Dunn and others who have turned to the figures of Wisdom and Word to account for features of the Johannine Jesus for which the Jewish agency concept does not. Dunn finds that John's emphases on Jesus' pre-existence and the unity between Father and Son go "far beyond the identity of sender and sent" present in the shaliach model.23 Thompson agrees, observing that the shaliach figure does not fully explicate themes such as Jesus' heavenly origins, his heavenly descent and ascent, the use of "Logos," and others.24 In dealing with the question of how knowledge of God is made available through Jesus in John, Thompson emphasizes that the figures that "prove most illuminating" in interpreting John's Christology are