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

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

. . . those figures that unite agent (Jesus) and sender (God) most closely. The more a term or figure presses towards unity of the Son with the Father, and the more it allows for the exercise of divine functions, the more it elucidates how John understands knowledge of God to be available or appropriated through Jesus.25

Wisdom and Word, she concludes, allow for this unity. Wisdom is not exactly an "agent" of God, since it "is not a separable being or entity that must be 'related' to God but is in fact the expression of God's mind, will, or ways.. .. Wisdom and Word refer to something that belongs to and comes from God."26 While agents such as prophets or angels have "a separate existence and even a will distinct from God, and could be said to obey or disobey God, such predications are not possible of Wisdom." Thus, "Wisdom is a category of agency that allows for the closest possible unity between the 'agent'... and God."27 Though Thompson believes that the shaliach figure in many ways accounts for key aspects of Johannine Christology, it "has been subordinated to and incorporated into" the superior Wisdom/Word categories which "subsume into themselves" elements of the shaliach figure. Thus, it is "not just a combination of 'equal' figures, as it were."28 It is the "complete unity" of Father and Son in John which underlies the Evangelist's understanding of knowing God and which also entails the superiority of "agency" figures such as Wisdom and Word that most closely unite Jesus and God. These entities allow for the embodiment of divine attributes or characteristics in Jesus' person-he is no mere intermediary figure.29

Thompson's thesis suggests some helpful possibilities to account for aspects of Johannine Christology. Nevertheless, in the end her proposal appears to result in loss as well as potential gain. In response to the observations that the Jewish shaliach concept is lacking since it only accounts for some aspects of Johannine Christology but not others, one is led to ask why this one category is expected to accomplish more than it does. Thompson admits that the shaliach figure accounts well for various facets of John's portrait of Jesus (e.g. "subordination," obedience, sending language). But since it does not account well for others (e.g. heavenly origins, heavenly ascent/ descent, "Logos" language), this model is deemed inadequate. It may be true that it is inadequate by itself to give an all-encompassing picture of Jesus in John, but is this not what we might expect? It seems unwarranted to identify Wisdom/Word as the "superior" categories into which the shaliach figure has been subordinated and incorporated. While such a proposal is certainly not improper in principle, is it necessary? Given the multi-faceted nature of the Evangelist's presentation of Jesus, such attempts to explain everything through a blending and subordinating of competing background concepts run the risk of flattening certain aspects of Jesus' person as displayed in the Gospel that do not fit the suggested mold.

This appears to be the result of Thompson's insistence that Wisdom better explains the "agency" concept in John. Though she argues that the shaliach concept has been subsumed into the "agent" figures of Wisdom and Word (and not merely dismissed), one wonders what distinct contribution the former actually supplies in the end. Since the emphasis, as Thompson understands it, is on the "complete unity" of Jesus and God as agent and sender, the subsuming of the shaliach model into these categories would, presumably, negate any aspect of subordination. This seems a valid conclusion given her insistence that Wisdom could not be said to "obey or disobey" God as would be possible for other agent figures. But while Thompson's proposal can account for the "complete unity" of Jesus and God as agent and sender, can it account for the distinction between them? The Johannine Jesus can do nothing on his own initiative, but seeks the will of the one who sent him (5:30; cf. 6:38). His food is to do the will of and accomplish the work of his sender (4:34). Though John clearly emphasizes the unity of Jesus and God, these texts and others also appear to render him as a distinct figure sent on a mission from a higher authority. Assuming a Wisdom influence on John's Gospel,30 could one not argue similarly from the opposite direction? What if one contended, based on the abundance of sending language and apparent subordination of the Son, for the distinction between Father and Son at the expense of their unity? An emphasis on the shaliach as the "superior" model for understanding Jesus (with elements of Word/Wisdom incorporated into and subordinated to it) would seem to diminish the complementary picture of Jesus as the pre-existent divine Word who is "one" with the Father. As with the author's other thematic tensions, so here-the text should be allowed to stand as it is without attempts to reconcile two competing thoughts in a way that discounts their unique contributions. Fennema appears to acknowledge this in finding a "dual picture" of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel as both prophetic agent and heavenly agent: "On the one hand, he is a prophet; on the other, he is the very personification of God's activity."31 He argues that John maintains Jesus' firm distinction from the Father "by blending the imagery of prophetic agency with that of heavenly agency-which by itself would have compromised it."32

Thompson's proposal appears to be an example of a frequent deficiency in Johannine studies-"the improper blending of distinct elements" in the Fourth Gospel's portrayal of Jesus' mission.33 In this regard, Kôstenberger's recent work, published just prior to Thompson's, is an important contribution to the present discussion. Focusing on John's presentation of the missions of Jesus and his disciples, Kôstenberger examines the various "modes of movement" in the Fourth Gospel describing Jesus' mission.34 Though these terms and concepts are related, they are nevertheless distinct. "One . . . finds one cluster of references to the Son sent by the Father and another strand of motifs referring to Jesus' coming into the world and returning to the Father which is also described metaphorically in terms of descent and ascent."35 Thus, through the modes of movement terminology, John presents Jesus in the roles of "Jesus as the sent Son" and "Jesus as the Coming and Returning One (Descent-Ascent)."36 To blend the two concepts together is to distort the evangelist's multifaceted picture of Jesus. The vast majority of instances where "Son" language (or where "Son" terminology is implied by the use of the term "Father") is combined with a term denoting movement, the terminology used is "sending" (see 3:16-17; 5:23, 36; 8:16, 18, 28-29; 10:36; 12:49; 14:24; 17:3, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21) rather than "coming" or "going."37 On the other hand, the Gospel never applies "sending" language to the Logos (though John's prologue does employ "sending" language for John the Baptist); instead, "coming" terminology is used (1:9, 11).38 Köstenberger concludes that the sending of the Son focuses on the "human" side of Jesus' mission, which includes the sent one's obedience to and dependence on the sender. This is balanced by the "coming-going" and "descending-ascending" terminology which puts the sending concept in the context of one who is "heaven-sent" and who displays his divine glory.39 Therefore, the Fourth Gospel presents the nature of Jesus' relationship to his sender (i.e. obedience and dependence) as the model for his disciples' mission (20:21). The language of "coming into the world," "descending," and "ascending," however, is uniquely reserved for Jesus to accentuate his divine origins.40

Such evidence would seem to indicate that one ought not to appeal to categories that attempt to explain the divine origin themes (heavenly descent/ ascent, exercising of divine attributes, "Logos" language) at the expense of the unique contribution of the sending theme. In fact, such a proposal distorts the Fourth Gospel's depiction of Jesus. Thompson rightly views the shaliach background as insufficient in and of itself to account for John's Christology, "especially in light of assertions such as those found in 1:1 and 1:18 regarding the Word who was with God and the Son who is 'ever at the Father's side.' "41 But her proposal would seem to lead to an equal insufficiency that leans too far toward the other end of the Johannine tension. An effort to highlight the real unity of Father and Son in the Gospel should not result in a conflating of this and other distinct aspects of their relationship in John. Responding to earlier similar attempts to identify the background of the Johannine sending concept in wisdom speculation, Juan Peter Miranda contends,

[T]he historical background of the Johannine sending concept is to be found neither in the gnostic redeemer myth nor in wisdom speculation, but in the ancient Semitic messenger concept and later Jewish messenger law in a prophetic context; the view that the gnostic redeemer myth or wisdom are the background for the Johannine sending concept were largely conditioned by the presupposition that it functioned to support the (ontological) unity of Father and Son.42

Whether or not the Jewish concept of agency (shaliach) forms the background for the sending of the Son, the Gospel's language of sending and the accompanying actions of the one sent seem to imply that the Son is subordinate to his Father who sent him.43 A comparison to others who were "sent," in which John uses the same terminology, reveals their obvious subordination to their sender(s): John the Baptist who was sent by God (1:6, 33), the priests and Levites who were sent by the Jews/Pharisees to question John (1:19, 22, 24), and the officers who were sent by the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus (7:32; cf. 7:45). So, it seems only natural to see Jesus' relationship to his sender in the same way.

II. THE SON S DEPENDENCE ON AND OBEDIENCE TO THE FATHER

In contrast to this interpretation, Royce Gruenler argues for a mutual deference and subordination between Father and Son in John's Gospel. He repeatedly points to texts that speak of the Father "giving" to the Son and explains them as clear instances of the Father's "deference" to him. Whether the Father gives the Son believers (6:37), disciples (17:6), or "all things" (3:35), Gruenler sees these as examples of the loving "deference" of the Father to the Son.46 With regard to 5:19-30, he argues that the Father "defers to the Son in giving him all authority to judge. The Father submits to the good judgment of the Son and trusts his judgment completely. . . . Father and Son are mutually at one another's service in the work of salvation."47 That the Father has granted the Son to have life in himself (5:26) further demonstrates "[t]he mutual interdependence of Father and Son."48 The Son is "worthy of executing divine judgment, hence the Father willingly subordinates himself to [him]."49

It is difficult, however, to see how Gruenler reaches such conclusions given the context of the passage and of the Gospel itself. No other major Johannine commentator of whom I am aware has interpreted this text to say that the Father "defers to" or "subordinates himself to" the authority of the Son.50 The text allows no "interdependence." Contrasted with Gruenler, Barrett's comments regarding John's repetition in the text are striking: "In vv. 19-30 the main theme is solemnly, constantly, almost wearisomely, repeated. As v. 17 foreshadowed, there is complete unity of action between the Father and the Son, and complete dependence of the Son on the Father."51 Elsewhere, he writes, "If [the Son] executes judgment and gives life to the dead, this is because these privileges have been granted him by the Father."52 Beasley-Murray observes, "[T]he Father has committed the responsibility of judgment to the Son";53 Bernard speaks of the Father's "delegation of judgment to the Son";54 and Keener claims that Jesus acts "on delegated authority."55 Commenting on 5:19, Carson insists that though Jesus is the unique Son who may truly be called God, yet he always submits to the Father and does only what he sees his Father doing. "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."56 Gruenler seems to have inappropriately substituted the concept of "deference" for John's description of the Father unilaterally "giving" the Son authority to judge (5:22, 27). There is no indication in this or any other passages on which Gruenler comments that by giving "all things," "authority to judge," "works to accomplish," "people," or "disciples" to the Son, the Father is somehow subordinating himself to the Son's authority. One cannot equate "giving" with "deferring" without some clear indication from the context.

The same problem emerges when Gruenler speaks of the Father placing himself "at the disposal" of the Son by bearing witness to him (8:18), seeking his glory (8:54), and answering his prayers (14:16).5T If answering Jesus' prayers is an example of the Father's "disposability" to the Son, it would seem that he could equally place himself "at the disposal" of believers by answering their prayers. This, in fact, turns out to be the case when Gruenler affirms the disposability of the Father and Son to the world through their radical humility (10:17) and their divine selfless generosity (17:1-2).58 But is it appropriate to speak of this in terms of "disposability"? Is this the Evangelist's intent? In doing this, Gruenler seems to have blurred the semantic lines between the concepts of serving others in humility and submitting to a higher authority. To claim that the Father "defers to," puts himself "at the disposal of," and "subordinates himself to" the Son in the Fourth Gospel appears to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the very concepts of subordination and delegated authority. The comments of Davey present a stark contrast: "There is no more remarkable element in the Fourth Gospel than the consistent and universal presentation of Christ... as dependent upon the Father at every point."59

Not only is the Son dependent on his Father, but also he demonstrates total obedience. The Son has not come to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (5:30; 6:38). To do the Father's will and accomplish his work is the Son's food (4:35). During a confrontation with the Jews, Jesus repeatedly tells them that he speaks what he has heard from the Father (8:26, 38, 40) and also that he always does the things that are pleasing to him (8:29). He has received commandments from the Father regarding what to speak (12:49) and the laying down of his life (10:18). According to Jesus, he does just as the Father has commanded as an expression of his love for him (14:31), and, by keeping his commandments, he also abides in the Father's love (15:10). As the hour for his glorification arrives, the Son declares to his Father, "I glorified you on the earth, accomplishing the work which you have given me to do" (17:4). Then, when his work on the cross is done, his last words before his death in the Fourth Gospel are, "It is accomplished!" (19:30), signifying the completion of his mission which he has carried out in perfect obedience to the Father.60

Acknowledging that the Son is often said to "do the will" or to "do the works" of the Father, Marianne Meye Thompson nevertheless also calls attention to the absence of the word "obey," remarking that John "stresses rather dramatically the harmony of the Son's will with the Father's, interpreting the Son's obedience as an enactment or expression of the Father's will, rather than as submission or acquiescence to it."65 This does not imply, however, "that the Johannine Jesus has no will, rather, that Jesus' will is fully in harmony with that of the Father."66 Like Meyer, Thompson calls attention to 10:18, finding that not only does the passage speak of the "charge" Jesus has received from his Father, but it also simultaneously stresses his sovereignty over his life. "The climactic statement, 'This charge I have received from my Father,' stands out almost as a surd element, for now Jesus' sovereignty over his own life, death, and resurrection is attributed to the command of the Father." She continues,

However, the dialectic is resolved in the peculiarity of the Father-Son relationship in John, in which the Father not only gives the Son his life but grants it to him to dispose of it as he will-or, as the Father wills.. . . The Son's obedience to the Father does not establish their unity, nor is it an obedience construed in terms of submission to an alien command. Rather, the Son's "obedience" is the expression of the will of the One who sent him.67

Second, the fact that Jesus speaks of the authority and sovereignty he has over his own life in 10:18 is not inconsistent with the commandment he has received from his Father to lay it down. The Son willingly submits to the Father's will and lays down his life. In declaring that no one takes his life from him but that he lays it down of his own accord, Jesus' point is that the cross is not a tragic accident of fate or merely a scheme concocted by wicked men-it is the Father's plan.73 John wants his readers to know ahead of time that, while the perpetrators are morally culpable, what is about to happen is directed by divine sovereignty (cf. 13:18-19; 18:8-9; 19:11, 24).74

Third, it is a false dichotomy to set Jesus' unity of will with the Father in opposition to his obedience to his Father's commands in John. According to Meyer, obedience so understood would produce unity, but, instead, Jesus' constancy in doing the Father's will is grounded in their unity.75 Thompson insists that Jesus' actions are not the acquiescence of his own will to yield to the Father's or submission to an alien command, but rather an expression of the will of his sender.76 However, to speak of one's "obedience" or "submission" to God's command does not imply any necessary lack of unity of will between the two, as if the one obeying God does so only under protest. The OT describes the psalmist whose "delight is in the law of Yahweh" (Ps 1:2; cf. 119:14, 16, 24, 35, 70, 77) and who recognizes God's testimonies as the "joy of [his] heart" (119:111). Psalm 40:8 testifies, "I delight to do your will, O my God." Submission to God's will on the part of the OT saint is described in terms of delight and, thus, harmony of will-not mere acquiescence of his will to yield to God's. If such could be said by the faithful OT believer, how much more is this true of the Son who considers it his very food "to do the will" of his Father who sent him (4:34)? According to Thompson, John interprets the Son's "obedience" as "an enactment or expression of the Father's will."77 But while this is certainly true, it is not merely that. Such emphasis on their unity runs the risk of swallowing up any distinction between the two. Jesus' will is in harmony with the Father's, but he obeys him nonetheless. The oneness of their wills should not be used to trump John's presentation of the Son's loving, willing obedience to his Father's commands (14:31). Though they are at one, "it is the oneness of command and obedience."78

III. "FATHER" AND "SON" TERMINOLOGY

A third and final issue I will consider that seems to imply the Son's subordination to his Father in John involves the very use of "Father-Son" terminology. The scope of this article limits the extent to which the "Father" and "Son" terminology will be explored in John. The question of concern here is, "What does the 'Father-Son' language in the Fourth Gospel imply regarding the relationship between Jesus and God?" More specifically, "Do these terms necessarily imply a hierarchical relationship between the two?" It would seem to be no coincidence that the Gospel in which Jesus characteristically and frequently calls God his Father and himself the Son is the same Gospel in which Jesus emphasizes his submission to God.

Jesus consistently calls God "Father" when speaking of his actions of dependence and obedience in the relationship. The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; as the Father does, so the Son does (5:19). The Father taught the Son (8:28), whose obedience is evident because he always does what pleases the Father (8:29) and speaks what he has heard from him (8:38). Jesus honors his Father (8:49, cf. Exod 20:12) and keeps his word (8:55). When his hour draws near, he tells his disciples that he is going to the Father, "for the Father is greater than I" (14:28).

Thompson argues that "there are distinct patterns of usage that illumine the meaning of 'Father' in the Gospel" and which suggest why it is such an important term for God. She asserts, "The primary understanding of God as Father in John comes to expression in John 5:26: 'Just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.'" Thus, what shapes understanding of God as Father is "the fundamental reality that a father's relationship to his children consists first in terms simply of giving them life. What it means to be a father is to be the origin or source of the life of one's children."79 "[A] son by definition is one who has life from his father."80 For Thompson, John 6:57, which speaks of God as "the living Father," and the above statement from 5:26 "are essential to understanding John's delineation of God as Father and Jesus as Son."81 So, she argues, "When Jesus calls God 'Father,' he points first to the Father as the source or origin of life, and to the relationship established through the life-giving activity of the Father."82 "[T]he primary characteristic of the Father-Son relationship is the life that constitutes their relationship."83 So, to label Jesus' words in John 14:28 ("The Father is greater than I") as an example of John's "subordinationism" is misleading, "inasmuch as it conceives of the relationship of Father and Son primarily in hierarchical terms." Thompson insists,

Since John stresses the function of the Father as the one who gives life to his offspring, rather than the role of the Father as the one who instructs or disciplines, statements such as "The Father is greater than I" ought not to be read against a backdrop of patriarchal hierarchy. The Father is the source of the Son's life; it is as the origin of the Son's very being that "the Father is greater than I."84

Pointing to the OT and to Jewish literature in support of her thesis, she finds there three characteristic descriptions of a father's attributes or activities that figure prominently in John, the first of which involves the father being the origin or source of life.85 The second description she lists is that the father is an authority figure worthy of obedience and honor. However, Thompson interprets Jesus' "obedience" in light of the harmony of his will with the Father's will, and thus, as an enactment of it (see critique above). A father as the origin or source of life characterizes not only human fathers, but God as Father as well. "God is the Father of Israel as its founder, the ancestor of the 'clan' of the Israelite nation insofar as he called it into being."86 In addition, the OT phrase "the living God" stands as an affirmation of God as creator of all that is and the source of all life.87 So, when we come to John, "Precisely in holding together the affirmation that the Son has 'life in himself with the affirmation that he has 'been given' such life by the Father, we find the uniquely Johannine characterization of the relationship of the Father and the Son."88 While the characterization of God as "the living God" does not occur in John, the variant "the living Father" does. Thompson contends,

The affirmation that God is "Father" cannot be separated from the affirmation that God is the source of life, nor from the conviction that the life of the Father has been given to, and comes to human beings through, the Son. Consequently, within the Gospel of John, the commonplace that God is the living God appears within polemic contexts (chs. 5 and 6) precisely as the warrant for the claims about the life-giving work of Jesus, the Son.89

This understanding of the Father-Son relationship in John, however, is perhaps somewhat forced in light of the Gospel as a whole. Let us consider four responses. First, two texts (5:26; 6:57) seem to have become the hermeneutical grid by which the relationship is interpreted. In context, that the Father has given the Son to have life in himself (5:26) serves as the ground for how the Son is able to grant eternal life to others (which Thompson affirms)-but it does not appear to follow that it also serves to express the "primary understanding of God as Father in John." Note the emphasis on life and judgment in the passage. Jesus tells the Jews that those who hear his word and believe the one who sent him have eternal life and do not enter into judgment (5:24). An hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear his voice and live (5:25). The ground (γαρ) for this assertion is that (1) the Father has given to the Son to have life in himself just as the Father has life in himself (5:26); and (και) (2) he gave him authority to execute judgment (5:27). Thus, those in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth to either a resurrection of life or judgment (5:28-29). Life and judgment are in the Son's hands to render to others, because the Father has given both to him. In 6:57, the Son lives because of the "living Father," and those who "eat" the Son will live because of him. Here also, the point of asserting that the Son lives because of the Father is to show that individuals can only have life through feeding on the Son.

These texts serve to justify Jesus' ability to mediate eternal life to others. While Thompson clearly views the Father's granting to the Son to have "life in himself" as the ground for the Son's life-giving work, what appears unjustified is her assertion that such giving of life represents "the uniquely Johannine characterization" of the relationship of the Father and the Son. As the foregoing discussion has attempted to demonstrate, John repeatedly and in numerous texts describes Jesus as the dependent and obedient Son who has been sent on a mission from the Father. How is it that two verses pertaining to Jesus having life because of the Father stand as "essential to understanding John's delineation of God as Father and Jesus as Son"? To conclude from these texts that the primary reason Jesus calls God "Father" throughout the Gospel is to point to him as his source of life seems to call for an interpretive jump that is not intended.90

Second, in interpreting 14:28, Thompson asserts that "it is as the origin of the Son's very being that 'the Father is greater than I.' " As evidence, she points to the context, "in which Jesus asserts that he returns to the Father, because the Father is greater; that is, he has his origins in the Father."91 However, this has not been established from the context, but. assumed. She has not explained why the Father being greater means that he is the origin of the Son's being. Jesus does speak of "going" to the Father in the context (14:12, 28; 16:5), but he is going back to "him who sent me" (16:5), drawing on the "sending" language. So if Jesus speaks of the Father as his "source" or "origin" in this discourse, it seems best to see the Father as the authority that is the source or origin of his mission to whom he returns. While contextual clues are lacking for Thompson's view, Jesus' statement in 14:28 is certainly consistent with the evidence cited thus far supporting the subordination theme.92

Third, it is also hard to reconcile Thompson's view of the Father-Son relationship with other passages in John. In 8:38-44, Jesus compares his actions to those of the Jews in terms of their respective "fathers." Jesus speaks what he has heard from his Father, and they from their father (8:38). When they claim Abraham as their father, Jesus tells them to "do the deeds of Abraham" (8:39). When they claim God as their Father, he tells them that if this were so, they should recognize that he was sent from God and love him (8:41-42). Rather, he claims, they are of their father the devil because they want to do his desires (8:44). Surely, Jesus is not speaking of these three "fathers" as origins or sources of life. The obvious implication is that a child imitates his father from whom he has learned (cf. 5:19; 8:26, 28). Jesus is speaking of these father-son relationships in terms of moral behavior.

Commenting on the same passage, Thompson acknowledges that Jesus emphasizes conduct, not physical descent, as the ultimate criterion in determining the Jews' true relationship to their "father." But she continues,

At first glance, this treatment of the Father-Son imagery seems to tend in a rather different direction from that previously delineated, for here sonship is determined not by kinship or descent but by obedience. This argument, however, is set in a discourse that begins with the assertion that Jesus is the free Son of the house, the only rightful heir of the Father's inheritance, the one who is not destined for death (8:31-36). As the "Son of the house" (8:35), Jesus is the heir of the Father; he has life from the Father and can bestow it on others; he alone is obedient to the Father. All the elements of genuine sonship are embodied in him, but his mission is to set others free so that they can enter into the Father's inheritance through him.93

However, in speaking of his peculiar sonship in 8:31-36, Jesus is not saying explicitly or implicitly that he "is not destined for death" or that "he has life from the Father." He is contrasting the one who is a "slave of sin" (8:35) with the free Son who is able to make others free (8:32, 36). The emphasis in the text is not on the Son as an heir who can bestow life and make others free, so that they "may enter into the Father's inheritance." Rather, the emphasis is on the Son who makes slaves of sin free-a freedom which Jesus characterizes as "continuing] in my word" and "know[ing] the truth" as true disciples (8:31-32). In other words, Jesus' sonship is the ground for freeing others to exhibit faithful moral conduct before God. This is something for which the Jews' deny their need (8:33) and sets up the ensuing discussion regarding father-son relationships based on similar behavior.94

Fourth, when John's readers thought of a father-son relationship, what would have come to mind? Thompson's survey of the OT and Judaism seeks to address this. As already noted, she does identify obedience and honor as expressions that sons owe to their fathers. If one grants the earlier critique of Thompson's view of Jesus' "obedience" so that it is not explained away, Jesus can be understood as obeying and honoring his Father in John. As a son obeys and honors his father, so Jesus responds to his Father. However, it seems possible to push further. While one can hardly deny that Scripture and Judaism recognize a father as the source or origin of his children, would this have been the primary characteristic of a father in the minds of John's readers? At the very least, this would seem highly debatable. In its OT secular sense, Hofius identifies the father as the head of his family and an authority to be respected.95 Quell writes, "From the official and semi-official secular modes of expression one may indirectly draw the conclusion that predominantly, and sometimes even exclusively, Israel regarded the father relationship as one of authority."96 Having discussed the man's position in the family as the ba'al, the "master of the house," Pedersen then explains,

When a man is called father, it really implies the same thing, kinship and authority also being expressed by the name of father. To the Israelite the name father always spells authority. Naaman is called father by his servants (2 Kings 5,13). The priest is called father of the cultic community, of which he is the head (Judg. 18,19), and Elijah is called father by his disciple (2 Kings 2,12).97

The Hebrews did not neglect the importance of the physical bond between father and son, Lofthouse argues,

But Father, to the Hebrew, suggests so much more than physical origin, that physical origin, when the word Father or Son was used, was apt to be neglected, and the word could equally well be used when physical origin was out of the question. Moreover, a father, though he might be less than the progenitor, was also much more. Like the Roman father, he was also the lifelong guardian and master of the boy, expecting obedience, cooperation, affection and confidence to the end. . . . The words "like father, like son" . . . [for the Hebrew] . . . would . . . express an ideal bond, in which the father lived and acted in his son, and the son carried out the father's aims and purposes in proud and joyous submission.98

Clearly, the Evangelist does not intend his readers to understand the Father's giving to the Son to have life in himself (5:26) in the same manner as God's giving life to human beings or as his creating Israel as a nation. Nor does he intend this to be understood in terms of the Father's superiority to the Son in his essential being." If John intended the Father-Son relationship to be primarily understood in terms of the Father as the origin of the Son's life, this would seem to run, not just in tension with, but in sharp contrast to his description of the Son as not a created being, but himself God (1:1).

Thus, the very use of the Father-Son language in John seems to imply a hierarchical relationship.100 Gruenler insists, "The dynamics of the divine Family are relational and symmetrical."101 But if the relationship between Jesus and God is purely symmetrical, what is the Father-Son terminology intended to convey? Would not such language present serious confusion for John's readers? Would the first reader's of the Fourth Gospel have understood a father-son relationship as "symmetrical"? Could the Son have sent the Father into the world? Could the Father as equally have said, "I do exactly as the Son commanded me" (14:31)? It is extremely difficult to imagine John writing this. Instead it seems that the burden of proof lies with those who would deny that such language necessarily implies a hierarchical relationship in the Fourth Gospel.

IV. CONCLUSION

In the same way that the Fourth Gospel presents other combinations of seemingly opposed themes, it also displays a tension in its portrayal of Jesus' relationship to God.102 John not only depicts Jesus as equal to God in his essential nature, but also displays him as the Son who fulfills a subordinate role to his Father's authority. It is the challenging of this latter view in recent scholarship in particular with which this article has been concerned. Some have denied that the Son's submission to his Father in John is in any way unilateral. Such "deference" occurs from Father to Son in like manner. Others have reinterpreted the themes of the sending of the Son, the obedience of Jesus, and the Father-Son relationship in John to the extent that they no longer imply a subordination of the Son to the Father in the sense of a hierarchical relationship between the two.

I have attempted to argue, however, that these efforts have fallen short. Not only do they depart sharply from the majority of Johannine scholarship, but they do not provide an adequate explanation of John's portrayal of the Son's relationship to his Father based on the data of the Gospel. Given the Fourth Gospel's emphasis on such elements as the deity, pre-existence, and sovereignty of Jesus, combined with statements such as, "I and the Father are one" (10:30), one can perhaps sympathize with a reticence to understand this same Jesus as functionally subordinate to God. However, one need not, indeed must not, choose between the two, if evidence for both exists within the text.103

I have pointed to three pieces of evidence in John that imply the Son's subordination to his Father: (1) the Father's sending of the Son; (2) the Son's unilateral dependence on and obedience to the Father; and (3) the usage of Father-Son language to describe the relationship between the two. The reader of the Fourth Gospel can hardly miss the fact, though, that this relational hierarchy is set in the context of perfect divine love. For it is because the Father loves the Son that he shows him all that he is doing (5:20), and it is so that the world may know that the Son loves the Father, that he does as he is commanded (14:31). It is this divine love between Father and Son-expressed through the Father sending and the Son obeying-which makes possible the manifestation of the love of God for the world (3:16).

CHRISTOPHER COWAN*

* Christopher Cowan is a Ph.D. student in New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280.

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Mar 2006
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved