By Angus Harley
“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave
to the Son also to have life in Himself” (John 5:26)
We come to the last article in a series of three that critiques Don Carson’s belief that John 5:26 indicates that Jesus was given deity and divine life-in-himself in an act of eternal generation by the Father. To aid the reader, I will summarize my argument:
John 5:26 refers to the power and authority of resurrection life that was given by the Father to the Messianic Son in his capacity as the Son of Man. This resurrection life is then passed on to believers. Thus, the Father, the Son, and even believers (see, John 6:53) have this life in themselves. It is a salvific ‘life’ that issues from the Father, is embodied in the Son of Man’s resurrection, and is applied to the saints.
The reader will see that the above summary moves beyond what has gone before, where I previously used quite freely the argument that on a theological level each person in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) had divine life-in-themselves, that each person was therefore autotheos.[1] This article does not concentrate on that theological form of the phrase ‘life-in-himself’, but on John’s Messianic/resurrection understanding of the life that Jesus had in himself.
We will begin with looking at John 5 and its general context as a background to v26.
JOHN 5 AND ITS GENERAL CONTENT
I will begin with quoting Carson at length.
Carson’s view
He writes:
“How shall we adjudicate among these three major interpretations of John 5:26? We must begin by reflecting on the immediate context of the verse. (1) Both Jesus’s healing of the man who had been paralyzed for thirtyeight years (5:1–9) and his instruction to the man to pick up his mat and go (5:8–13), taking place as they do on the Sabbath, arouse the sensitivities of the Jewish leaders regarding Sabbath observance (5:16).10 Jesus might have replied by inviting his interlocutors to engage in halakhic discussion, but instead he defends himself, here as often in the Gospels, by making a christological claim: “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working” (5:17). The Jewish leaders take this as a blasphemous claim. In their view, Jesus is “even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18). From the perspective of the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus’s opponents are curiously right and wrong: Jesus does make himself equal with God, but they imagine that he is doing so in such a way as to claim to be an alternative God, a second God. What they have in mind is apparently ditheism, and this side of the exile they are painfully aware that God stands implacably opposed to all forms of polytheism, including ditheism. As they see it, monotheism is being challenged before their eyes, and they are enraged. (2) But what Jesus has in mind is rather different. The following verses (5:19–30) find Jesus articulating and defending what would become in time the distinctively Christian understanding of monotheism. Jesus most emphatically insists that he is not a separate deity, an independent deity— far from it. He insists that “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing” (5:19). Here is dependence of the most thorough kind, a form of subordination (there is certainly no reciprocity in the relationship)—yet it immediately turns out to be a subordination carefully qualified. The Son can do only what he sees his Father doing, we are told, “because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (5:19). Two elements in this clause are striking. (a) The Son’s activities are co-extensive with those of the Father. Has the Father created all things? So also has the Son, as God’s Word—God’s own agent in creation (1:1–5). Is it the Father’s prerogative to give resurrection life, raise the dead, and exercise final judgment? So also is it the prerogative of the Son (5:24–30).” [Bold text is mine]
A response to Carson’s reading of John 5
Christological failure
What is striking is that, to Carson, the “Christological” emphasis that Jesus makes is one that is, in and of itself, an argument for his divinity, that he is divinely one with the Father. Upon this, Carson builds the opinion that the divine Son, because he does only what the Father does, is subordinate in status and function. In effect, Carson’s view of eternal subordination is controlling Christology, something we looked at previously. We can all agree that John 5 is heavily promoting Jesus’ divinity, but the humanity and Mediatorship of Christ must not thereby be muted or peripheralized, as seems to be happening here with Carson.
Human setting
The human setting of John 5 permeates the chapter. Jesus engages ‘on the ground’, as a man, with the sick man (vv1-9). The human touches of the text are not there as historical or descriptive dressing. Jesus going “up to Jerusalem”, entering by the “sheep gate”, and that Jesus “saw him”, the lame man, lying helpless on his “pallet”, are all indicators of his presence as the Son of Man, the Word in the flesh. Jesus as a man is up-close-and-personal in a one-on-one ministry. He himself interacts as a man- as the Word in the flesh, no less- in debate with the Jews (vv10ff.). More pointedly, he is the judge of all men as the Son of Man (v27). And let us pause to consider this placement in v27. For, it is evident that the reference to the Son of Man is not ‘lost’ in a sea of facts about Jesus’ divinity, nor is the title working merely as a divine equivalent to ‘Son’. Following this, the four witnesses also imply his humanity as a setting: the witness of the Baptist (vv33-35), the witness of Jesus’ works or miracles (v36), the witness and testimony of the Father (vv31, 37-38), and the witness of the Scriptures (vv39-47). They are all given as so many sources to highlight his mission as the Son in the capacity as the Son of Man who must do his Father’s salvific work. John the Baptist, for example, bore witness to the Son in the flesh, to what he saw with his own eyes, “ “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” ” (1:29). The works, or miracles, that Jesus did before men, as a man, were part of the Father’s testimony. The Father and the Scriptures testify to the ‘sent One’, the Son who is in their midst, performing these miracles before their eyes as a man, the Word in the flesh teaching the will of God to men, issuing divine authority as a man.
The Jews’ dual complaint
We may put John’s approach from a different angle. It is not just the deity of the Son that the Jews could not, and would not, wrap their heads around; it was also the fact that this divine “Son” was clothed in humanity, and was to them a mere mortal. Not a very worthy one at that: a Nazarene who was poor (cf., 18:5, 7; 19:19), and, who, most crucially, broke the sabbath law. And, again, let us consider that fact: Jesus is said to have broken the Law. Plainly he is being assessed in context by the Jews as a man, even though the entire narrative promotes his divine equality. Strikingly, the Jews later concluded of Jesus, because of his healing a blind man on the sabbath, “ “this man is a sinner” ” (9:24). On both counts- his claim to deity and to that of being God’s sent ‘man’- Jesus failed the Jewish test. Such is the testimony of the entirety of John’s Gospel, even as found here in John 5.
Mediated humanity
There is a real danger that the modern push for eternal generation so strongly stresses Jesus’ deity in action, redemptively, that it renders his humanity a mere conduit for his divine glory. John’s teaching is very clear that Jesus as the divine Son is before us in his capacity as the Man for us, the Son of Man, the Mediator between God and men. We see divine glory come to us through the Man himself, so that, his humanity is not only crucial for revealing his divine glory, but it is mediated by his humanity.[2] Jesus is not coming to us as ‘raw God’, not even ‘raw God’ through humanity (Apollinarianism). His divine glory comes to us wrapped entirely in a human setting, but, most crucially, as mediated through it in his role as the Son of Man, ‘throttled back’, as it were, for our sake as creatures, for no man can bear the raw divine glory.
If the reader is unsure about the language just used, let me be plain: divine salvation is solely revealed, in John’s Gospel, via the God-man Jesus Christ, who accomplishes salvation by his death and resurrection. His divinity is delimited in its revelation by his humanity and by his salvific acts as the Messiah who will die and rise for us. His divinity is, in that sense, both ‘throttled back’ and ‘mediated’. We never, ever, in John’s Gospel, get to ‘see’ Jesus’ eternal and innate glory as the Son ad intra; it is only as he comes to us as the Son of Man, the Word in the flesh, that we see a revealed form of the divine glory of both the Father and the Son, and this is primarily in the form of his death and exaltation.
There is more to say on John 5 and John’s general theology, but we’ll leave matters at that to move onto Carson’s other arguments in his exegesis of John 5:26. This brings us to John 5:26 and its immediate context.
JOHN 5:26 AND THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
In looking at John 5:26 more specifically, we begin with Carson’s take on John’s five key uses of “for”.
Carson on John’s five “for” clauses
The first four are found in John 5:19-22.
John 5:19-22
In John 5:19-22, there are four uses of “for” (the Greek word is gar) that in quick succession serve as a model to demonstrate the relationship between the Father and the Son:
“19 Therefore Jesus 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. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son” ”
To Carson, these four relationships indicated by “for” demonstrate the Son to be God (see vv17-18), and, in doing so, reveal his eternal and divine subordination to the Father. For not only are the Father’s and Son’s works co-extensive, revealing they reflect one another in divinity, but the Son is dependent on the Father for those works, not the other way round. Also, the divine love of the Father toward the Son is the ground for all these things.[3]
John 5:26
Carson thinks the same theology of divine dependence and love is evident in John’s use of gar in 5:26. However, this time Carson uses this to tell us that the Son received divine life-in-himself from the Father:
“V26 The logical For (gar) is important: this verse explains how it is that the Son can exercise divine judgment and generate resurrection life by his powerful word. It is because, like God, he has life-in-himself. God is self-existent; he is always ‘the living God’.”[4]
A response to Carson’s understanding of “for”
Certainly, there is an underlying divine unity and synchronization between the Father and the Son as they go about the work of the new creation. This is a point I taught in my last article.[5]
X-factor
However, the x-factor on this occasion, or, put more critically, the ‘elephant in the room’, is that the Son is before us as the Man for us, the Mediator. The model John wishes us to grasp is that the divine unity of the Father and Son in doing the work of the new creation is executed via the Son as the Son of Man and the Father’s relationship to him in that capacity. To strip everything down, as Carson does, to an eternal relationship of two divine persons ignores this crucial Mediatorial catalyst.
Judging
Let me demonstrate this by the theme of the Son judging all men:
“22 ”For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given [Gk. didomi] all judgment to the Son” ”
“27 “and He gave [Gk. didomi] Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” ”
- There is the divine work of judging all men, which is passed on by the Father.
- This work is done by the Son.
- It is also done by the Son of Man.
- Therefore, judgment is “given” (Gk. didomi) by the Father to the Son/Son of Man to do.
By contrast, this is what Carson says in his article about v27, “On the one hand, the Father gives the authority to act as final judge to the Son (5:27)”.[6] See how Carson has turned “Son of Man” into “Son”. As said in an earlier article, there is no discussion of the “Son of Man” role in Carson’s article.
One event
It is evident from the above comparison of verses 22 and 27, that the Father “gave” (Gk. didomi) the judgment of all men into the hands of the Son as the Son of Man. The idea that he gave judgment to the Son from everlasting, and then gave a new form of judgment of all men to the Son as the Son of Man, cannot be derived from the context. There was only one ‘giving event’ in which the Son received authority to judge all men, and that was when he was set apart as the Son of Man in heaven itself.
We can extend this principle of ‘one event’ to all of the ‘grants’ given by the Father to the Son:
- the Son as Mediator does only what the Father does (v19);
- the Son as Mediator is loved by the Father, who shows him all things, and even greater things (v20);
- the Son as Mediator will raise the dead (v21);
- the Son as Mediator will judge all men (v22);
- the Son as Mediator is given life-in-himself (v26).
These five grants from Father to Son are- each and everyone of them- Mediatorial in nature.
Carson’s commentary on the Son of Man’s authority
Objection
In criticism of my reading, it will be said that in his commentary on John’s Gospel, Carson strongly asserts the Son of Man’s role as the Man for us. He even goes as far to say that the Son of Man was no mere man, but the One appointed by God, the apocalyptic Son of Man of Daniel (Dan.7:13-14). This apocalyptic figure is divine. Thus, there is the combination of both the human and divine in the one apocalyptic figure. Carson refers to the revelatory character of the Son of Man’s role (John 1:51; 3:14-15). Carson then concludes on v27, “One could almost say this authority is but an entailment of his revelatory and life-giving functions in the midst of a dark and dying world”.[7]
Response
Carson is to be commended for recognizing this unity of the two natures in the person of Christ as the Son of Man, and that his role as such was revelatory- he came as the divine-man for our sake, in other words. We can most happily accept, too, the fact that Carson is here recognizing how the Son of Man’s authority to judge all men, all things, is, in his estimate, nigh to being an extension of his basic revelatory role as divine Son who gives salvific life to the world.
Yet, in practice, what we are seeing is the clash between Carson’s commentary- and its discipline of working with the text- over against his article on John 5:26, for the article is promoting the theological agenda of the eternal generation of the Son.
It is more than this, however, for Carson’s commentary itself, even in regard to John 5:26-27, is tied into the same eternal-generation theology, so that he is not able to see what entirely John is saying. This I will now demonstrate through the parallel found in John 5:26-27.
The parallel of vv26-27
I have mentioned in a previous article the strong parallel found in 5:26-27.[8] It is time to demonstrate it, and, through it, Carson’s exegetical flaw.
The parallel itself
26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave [Gk. didomi] to the Son also to have life in Himself;
27 and He gave [Gk. didomi] Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
Carson’s focus
Carson’s sole focus here, as far as a parallel is concerned, is that of v26 itself, in which the one clause, “as the Father has life in himself”, is paralleled by the next, “even so He gave the Son to have life in himself”. He concludes that, in regard to the verse, there cannot be two “givings”.[9]
Explanation
I agree with this specific point made by Carson, but it is unnecessarily delimited to v26 and does not at all take account of v27. It is evident that vv26 and 27 are in parallel, and both verses convey one act of giving, not two ‘givings’. The Son has life-in-himself, which is salvific life, resurrection life (see ahead). This is in his capacity as the Son of Man, for this life was given to him; God ad intra does not need divine life given to him, contra Carson. Similarly, as the Son of Man, the Son is given authority to judge all men. You will remember Carson’s words, “One could almost say this authority is but an entailment of his revelatory and life-giving functions in the midst of a dark and dying world”. Carson’s wording is very particular here; it has a bit of hesitation in it. Why? If we allow John’s parallel to hold, then he most definitely, without hesitation, is saying that the purpose of the Son having life-in-himself is the same as that of the Son of Man having authority to judge all men. How so? Because the judgement of all men by the Son of Man brings resurrection life to some. Therefore, Jesus’ role as the Son of Man at the resurrection is most definitely in-and-of-itself salvific in nature. Now, if the Son of Man is the source of resurrection life, then it becomes impossible, contextually, to extricate that from v26 and its content. Ergo: the life imparted by the Father to the Son is resurrection life. It is the same life which is given to the Son to give to others, as that which is given to theSon of Man by his authority to give to others.
The key: resurrection life
From all of this, we are meant to conclude from John 5 that, the life that John is referring to each and every time in that chapter is resurrection life, and it is for that reason that it is a form of life that is passed on to us as believers.
Objection
It will be counter-argued that, in his commentary, and, to a lesser extent, in his article, Carson tells us that the life that is given to, and via, the Son of Man is resurrection life.
Yes, Carson does. However, throughout his commentary, and even in his article, the resurrection life of Jesus is considered a mere extension of his life as the eternally generated One by the Father. It is the same life, in other words, but it is revealed to us, according to 5:27, in the form of resurrection life. Let us remind ourselves of the three (3) forms of divine life that are one, in Carson’s thinking:
-First, and most important, for it is the ‘grounding’ life, is that the Father eternally generated the Son, giving to him from all eternity to have divine life-in-himself.
-Second, as Creator, as the Word, this divine life-in-himself is manifested to all creatures, giving to them life. In that occasion the Word did what the Father wanted.
-Third, the same divine life that is in and through the Son naturally (divine life-in-himself granted by the Father) and in creation is manifested in the grant of resurrection life given to the Son by the Father, to, once again, execute the Father’s will.
To counter this theology of Carson’s, let us go back to the contextual setting of John 5:26.
Incontestable setting
Verses 26-27 are firmly embedded in the context of the resurrection and its life and judgment. It is not some form of ontological life belonging to the Son, or the Father, in eternity past that is the focus, or is set in the background:
“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. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
The voice of the Son of God- the One who is the Word of God incarnate, the God who spoke and all came to be (Gen.1:1ff.; John 1:1-3)- gives resurrection life. Specifically, this is, at the very least, the resurrection of the body at the end of time; for those who have followed the Christ and done good deeds will be raised bodily unto life. However, those who died, and who, in their lives, did not do good deeds, will be raised bodily unto judgment (condemnation). Therefore, the context is incontestably about resurrection life and resurrection judgment.
Inconceivable
It is inconceivable, therefore, that this life is reflective of the life of the Trinity ad intra, as to their ‘natural’ internal relations in eternity. For, what John calls ‘life’ in John 5 is the same life given to humans. How is it possible for mere man to be the carrier of the actual divine life of the Trinitarian God? We cannot have our cake and eat it:
either this divine life is, in the truest sense,
ontological and divine, belonging only to God;
or,
it is not ontological divine life, but a form of life
shared by the Father, the Son, and resurrected saints.
Shared life
It is one and the same life that John is speaking off each time, for it is the shared life of the resurrection:
-the Father has resurrection life-in-himself;
-the Son has resurrection life-in-himself;
-the saints are given resurrection life.
Objection
It will be said that I am forcing Carson’s position, and that he is not saying, literally, that the divine life of the Trinity ad intra is passed on. Rather, it is because of this divine life, and the eternal Son’s relationship to it, that the Son in time, in a subordinate fashion issued forth creation life, and, afterward, resurrection life.
Response
If this is Carson’s position, then he needs to state it loud and clear, for I found no such statement in his theology. Let us listen again to what he does say:
“Third, the reference to the Father’s “life in himself” is, in this context, that life that God alone experiences. It is bound up with his divine nature, his independence, his self-existence. The same “life in himself” is possessed by the Son, who shares the Father’s divine nature, independence, and self-existence. And yet John’s Gospel tells us that the Father granted to the Son to have this life in himself.”[10] [bold text is mine]
It is readily apparent, therefore, that three forms of life spoken of by Carson are blurred in his thinking, and he has not thought through what each entails, especially contextually to John 5.
Moreover, if he does insist that the life that the Son has in himself is not passed on, why, then, make this eternal and divine form of life the ground for Christology? Why go on and on about it, saying that ‘eternal generation’ is crucial for modern Evangelicalism?
The fundamental reason why Carson did not, nor could not, commit to such a clear statement was because its projected form is unthinkable for his thesis. For, he would have to speak about the life given to the Son, spoken about in John 5:26, as entirely outside of the concept of divine life in his eternal person, which, instead, issues from the Father to the Son for a completely different purpose to that of eternal generation.
What about the Father’s ‘life’?
Another objection will be that my view does not satisfy the idea of the Father having life-in-himself, for how is it that the Father needs resurrection life? He does not.
This is true: the Father does not need resurrection life. He is, however, the source of resurrection life. It was given by him to his Son in his capacity as the Man for us. It is a life that belongs, therefore, to the next world, one which is heavenly, and that is not of this world. It is a life that conquers death and sin through the death and resurrection of the Son of Man. In other words, the only manner in which we see the Father’s life is through this Son of Man and his obedience and by his work of bringing resurrection life.
I will now unfold my argument that the life of Jesus referred in v26 is resurrection life by developing associated themes that are found in John 5 itself.
DEVELOPING THEMES FOUND IN JOHN 5
First up is “eternal life”.
Eternal life
John 5
It is evident in John 5 itself that John is teaching that the “life” that the Son has in himself is eternal and resurrection life:
“21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has givenall judgment to the Son, 23 so 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. 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.” ”
See, here, how the same themes as before once again coalesce: the resurrection and its life, the divine Son judging all, a judgment resulting in resurrection life or sheer condemnation. For our immediate purposes, it is the phrase “eternal life” that is the star of the context. It is, evidently, the same life spoken of throughout, namely, resurrection life. Later, in 5:39-40, Jesus makes the same identification between “life” and “eternal life”, “39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” ”
Andreas J. Kostenberger writes:
“The probable meaning of the expression “eternal life” is “the life of the age to come”- that is, resurrection life, which, according to John, can to some extent already be experience in the here and now (e.g., 5:24; 10:10).”[11]
Two dimensions of eternal life
Crucially, there is another dimension to “eternal life” in John 5. For, this resurrection life, aka, “eternal life”, is both in the present and in the future. First off, the Son’s resurrection authority and power are illustrated in that he raised up the body of the man who was healed beside the water (vv1-9). This was not a form of resurrection as such, for resurrection is, contextually, from death to life. Yet, it illustrates the resurrection power and authority of the Son. The Son has resurrection-life-in-himself and therefore can, by his voice and command, by his touch, even, overcome sin that causes death and infirmities. All Jesus’ miracles, bar none, were illustrative of his resurrection power. Jesus therefore said, “ “The hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” ” (v25). By believing in the Son, in hearing his voice, “the Father raises the dead” (v21). Vitally, this takes place in the present. There is, therefore, a present resurrection, too. Nor is this present resurrection a mere display of resurrection authority and power (as in miracles). For, as the Son does what the Father does, those who believe in the Father through the Son, and hear the Son’s voice in the present, receive eternal life, resurrection life, “ “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” ” (v24).
The dilemma resolved
The implication is plain: those who believe in the Son and his word are, at this moment, ‘resurrected’ by both him and the Father. Yet, how can this be, when the believers’ resurrection is at a future point, after their death, and is of their bodies? We are to take from this that there are two aspects to the resurrection: one that involves the body of man, the other that engages him directly spiritually. This is brought out through John’s other uses of “eternal life”. Some refer directly to eternal life in the present (3:36; 4:14; 6:27, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:50; and, 17:2, 3); others indicate eternal life in the future, in the resurrection of the body (4:36; 6:40). In fact, it is possible that on occasions both aspects are implied, it being so hard at times to distinguish them.
Internal life and death
The internal, spiritual, and present form of eternal life in the believer is wonderfully described in John 4:14, “ “but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” ” This verse is complemented by John 7:37-39:
“37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
We learn from this that the gift of eternal life, internal life from God, came through his Spirit. Jesus had not yet died and rose from the dead, so he could not at that moment send the Spirit who gives eternal life (14:26; 16:7). Does the reader see, here, how the resurrection is crucial, the resurrection and glorification of the Son? He rises from the dead to send the Spirit to give resurrection life in the present, and to hold it in store for the future bodily resurrection.
The corollary of this teaching is that there is spiritual death in man. If the Spirit gives internal and spiritual life, which is resurrection life, then it follows that man is dead spiritually. This is the teaching of John 3:1-8, for the flesh produces nothing but more flesh contaminated by sin; it cannot produce Spirit-life (1:12-13). We are to understand, therefore, that the flesh is in a state of spiritual death (see 5:24).
Whether “eternal life” or “life”, it is the same life referred to each and every time: it is resurrection life, which is imparted to sinners and humans, a divine act of salvation delivering from death to life.
Purpose of John’s Gospel
Thus, the theme of John becomes all the more relevant and profound:
“30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (20:30-31)
This statement is made by John at the crucial juncture of Jesus’ resurrection appearances to his disciples. It confirms that Jesus’ signs, of John 5 and John 9 for example, are indications of eternal life and authority in action. Secondly, it asserts that this life is transferable, shareable, as it is given from God, through the resurrected Son himself, to those of faith.
John 6:52-58
John 6:52-58 ought to be in the previous sub-section but is so important that we must give it its own space.
The text
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
Familiar and unfamiliar
John 6, following on as it does from John 5, has familiar themes: the Son as the Son of Man who was sent by the Father; the Son of Man having authority to raise up people by the resurrection of their bodies on the Last Day; believing in the Son of Man; the result of believing in the Son of Man is that they are given to have life-in-themselves; this resurrection life given to men is “eternal life”, aka, life “forever”.
If we use John 5 alone as our measurement, an unfamiliar theme appears in John 6: a crucial stage in Jesus’ work as the Christ is that those who believe in him must drink of his blood and eat his flesh. Why does John 5 exclude this theme? One major reason is that John 5 is dealing with ‘authority concepts’ in and of themselves. In John 2:18, the Jews sought for a sign of Jesus’ authority to do what he did. Jesus said that the only sign that will be given to them is the raising up of “this temple”, meaning his body (2:18-22). We have already argued that signs in John’s Gospel are tied to Jesus’ resurrection as so many live illustrations of his resurrection authority. John 5 deals with the signs and authority aspect that the Jews so strongly relied on; it also seeks to demonstrate that the Son acts as a divine partner in a work of new creation, allowing the Son to violate the sabbath to that end. John 6 drives home the fact that at the heart of the new creation and its eternal life is the flesh and blood of the Lamb of God. At the center is Jesus’ death on the cross, which naturally ties to resurrection life in him, for he will be raised from the dead (see ahead). Sinners must, therefore, believe in the crucified Son of Man, and thereby, metaphorically, drink of his blood and eat of his flesh, in order to experience the life of the resurrection.
All these themes are woven into one tapestry of life. There is no indication that the different names for salvific life stated in John’s Gospel- “life”, “eternal life”, life “forever”, etc.- are each conveying distinct forms of divine life; it is one life: that founded in Jesus’ death and resurrection themselves, and which believers thereby share in.
“life in yourselves”
This fact is drawn out, most importantly, in John 6:53, for we see in it explicit language that the resurrection life of believers, through faith in the Son of Man’s death and resurrection, was to result in life being given within those believers: “life in yourselves”. The language between both chapters is nigh identical:
-“the Father has life in himself” (zoen en heauto) (5:26a);
-“he gave to the Son to have life in himself” (zoen…en heauto) (5:26b);
-“life in yourselves” (zoen en heautois) (6:53).
It is not the innate, divine, life of either the Father or Son that is given to believers (which is utterly impossible, anyway). It is resurrection life, through faith in the crucified and risen Son of Man, that the Father has in himself and the Son has in himself, and which both pass on to those of faith. Upon this thought we will build up the Christological core of John’s model.
The Christological paradigm
All along, and even in my previous two articles, I have limited myself to general statements about Jesus’ death and resurrection from a Christological perspective. I have constantly contended that, in John’s Gospel, divine salvation is manifested exclusively in the Son’s Mediatorial death and in his Mediatorial resurrection for us as the Son of Man. Yet, I have not argued up to this point that Jesus’ own death and resurrection are in-and-of-themselves John’s Christological paradigm for describing the life that Jesus has in himself, as given by the Father. This I will now do.
John 11:25-27
Jesus had this to say about the resurrection in John 11:25-26:
“25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” ”
It is certain, here, that we find a key text that explains John’s view of eternal life. The believer can rest assured that the resurrection of their bodies, their salvation, is certain. Is it not for that very reason that Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (11:30-45)? Plainly, Jesus is not presented to us, therefore, as a source for innate divine life beamed down from heaven like a laser, zapping sinners with ‘eternal life’. It is resurrection life they receive through him in his role as God in the flesh.
Yet, this does not get us to the core of Jesus’ own claim. He is not merely the God of the resurrection, who speaks and it comes to pass. He is in himself resurrection, “I am the resurrection and the life”. Note, again, the natural union of resurrection and life. Lazarus’ resurrection was a foretaste of the resurrection victory and power found in Jesus’ own resurrection. Thus, after Jesus’ resurrection, in demonstration of its victory and power, many saints were raised from the dead and appeared to people (Matt.27:51-53).
For, Jesus’ death and resurrection are the “way” to eternal life, and are the exact form of eternal life that believers themselves must latch onto by faith. Let us listen again to Jesus’ famous words, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” ” (John 14:6). Jesus’ ‘way’, his ‘truth’, and his ‘life’ are first and foremost embodied, or incarnated, in him as the Christ, the Anointed One, and as expressed exclusively in him as the crucified and resurrected Son. We should not, therefore, consider this life as some form, or expression, of eternal divinity and its ontological life. It is the salvific life of the Triune God, of the next world, that is passed on to the saints, to believers.
John 10:18
We need to revisit John 10:18. In referring to his death and resurrection, Jesus said about his life, “ “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” ”
- What was Jesus given? Jesus was given authority to lay down his life, and authority to take it up.
- What was the result of having this authority? The result was that he had life-in-himself, as the Messiah, to perform the actions of laying down his life, and, subsequently, the work of raising himself from the dead. Both his death and resurrection were under his complete and utter control as the Man for us, the Word in the flesh.
- Who gave him this cross and resurrection authority? The Father gave it to him in the form of a commandment.
In effect, what John is teaching is that, the Son in himself actually embodies the Gospel. Not that he was a sinner, or needed ‘salvation’, but that it was through his death and resurrection that we were saved; it is through the life he embodied in both these events of his death and resurrection- which, to John, are really one salvific Gospel-event (see ahead)- that we receive “eternal life” by faith. Let’s now unfold John’s understanding of the one act of salvation in Christ.
The one event of salvation
The cross is one side of the salvific ‘coin’, in John’s Gospel. Jesus is “ “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” ” (1:29; see 1:36), the One who must be lifted up onto the cross to die (3:14 (x2); 8:28; and 12:32, 34). Thus, life is given through his crucified “blood” and his “flesh” (6:41-58). So, we have the standard picture, found in all the Gospels, of Jesus’ death on the cross (19:16-30). Jesus foretold his death on the cross (12:27-36). It is through the cross, therefore, that Jesus is the “Savior of the world” (4:42).
Now, the above is typical, standard, Gospel fare, to be sure. Yet, in John’s Gospel, far more than is found in the Synoptics, the death and resurrection of Christ are unified in such a manner that, although being distinct historical events, they are theologically merged into one salvific moment, or event, that eventually finds its final expression in the glorification and exaltation of the Son. For, in John’s Gospel, Jesus is depicted as dying, rising from the dead, going to his Father, and being glorified and exalted in his Father’s presence. From that exalted place in heaven, glorified (7:39; 12:16, 23, 28, 41; etc., see ahead), beside the Father, he then will send the Spirit to bring resurrection life to the world (14:15-31). This theology is, by comparison to John, barely present in the Synoptic Gospels.
John’s more holistic view of salvation in the Christ is reflected in Jesus’ references to his “hour”. It indicates that the ‘time’ of salvation has come through his presence whilst on earth, and it will again be revealed in both his death (7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1) and his exaltation-glorification to the Father’s presence (4:21-23; 5:25, 28; 17:1). The Synoptics simply do not have this intense form of union that strongly stresses Jesus’ exaltation-glorification as an extension of his death.
It is, in other words, exclusively through the Christ as the Lamb of God and as subsequently glorified through his resurrection and exaltation as Son, that eternal life is received. For in these things, by his own death and resurrection unto life, we receive eternal life. It is therefore a Christ-shaped life, a death-and-exaltation form of eternal life, that believers receive.
John is stressing, for our sake, that we should not consider our life from God to be merely rooted in the cross; it is resurrection-life, after all. The one ‘side’ utterly depends on the other to work, so to speak. The cross of the Lamb destroyed the guilt of sin and death; and his resurrection, having broken sin and death’s power, gave to us the new life of the resurrection-world to come. Both as one give us life, resurrection life, for they are utterly inseparable.
This Christological paradigm in which the Christ in himself embodies the resurrection life that we share in through faith is also alluded to in the title of “Son of Man” itself. We will give to it separate attention due to John’s use of the name.
The Son of Man
To begin with, we will describe John’s larger picture of the title’s relevance.
Pre-incarnational
John’s use of ‘Son of Man’ conveys that he is a pre-incarnational figure who is sent by the Father from heaven:
“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” (3:13);
“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (6:62).
In this pre-incarnational status of the Son as the Son of Man is grounded all of John’s theology about the ‘Son’ as subordinate; the Son’s subordination is not built on the mistaken doctrine of eternal generation. It is failure to properly recognize and assimilate the Son’s pre-incarnational role and status as the Son of Man that leads to Carson and others misinterpreting John’s theology.
The crucified and exalted “Son of Man” in John
Although John focuses mostly on the Son of Man as having descended to this world to be lifted up on the cross, this is always described to the end of glorifying him along with the Father in heaven:
“And He said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” ” (1:51);
“ “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;” ” (John 3:14);
“”Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”” (6:27);
“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” ” (6:53);
“So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.” ” (8:82);
“Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” ” (9:35);
“And Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” ” (12:23);
“The crowd then answered Him, “We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?” ” (12:34);
“ “Therefore when he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him” ” (13:31).
The entire force of these verses is on the Son of Man going about his Father’s will and preparing to be “lifted up” on the cross, and subsequently brought into the Father’s heavenly presence. John’s unified theology of Jesus’ own salvific work does not allow for the compartmentalization of Jesus’ death from his resurrection/exaltation. The Son of Man who is glorified ‘now’, is the same Son of Man who will be glorified in the cross, the same Son of Man who will be glorified in the Father’s presence in heaven. All is one giant ‘glory event’ for the Son of Man.
Daniel 7
Carson was right in saying that “son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14 is not a reference to the mere humanity of the Messiah, for it represent his apocalyptic nature as the Man who will come at the end of time to deliver his people.
Even so, we need to take a second look at one like the son of man in Daniel to understand it as an expression of the Christological model promoted in this article. In Daniel 7:14, 27, the son of man figure is an individual who is expressive of a people. Thus, as the individual, the one like a son of man comes before the Ancient of Days, who is sitting in judgment on the bestial kingdoms of this fallen world. Many correctly point out that he is a divine figure, for he comes on the clouds of heaven, which the OT associates with Yahweh himself (Psa.18:10; 97:2; 104:3; Isa.19:1; Eze.1, 10; Nah.1:3; see Matt.24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:82; Luke 9:35; 21:27; Acts 1:9; Rev.1:7; 14:14; 1 Thess.4:17). The Ancient of Days gives to this son of man an everlasting kingdom and authority. However, some verses later, the everlasting kingdom of God is given to the “saints of the Highest One”. This Danielic scene confirms for us similar results to that which we found in John 5. The son of man is a divine figure. He is clearly a man, yet not any man, but a representative of the saints of the Highest One. He embodies them. So that, what he receives, they receive. What he does receive, in context, is the everlasting kingdom of God, which is given to those same saints, too. In other words, the blessing of the kingdom of God is expressive of God’s reign through the one like a son of man, so that the saints of the Highest One might share in this everlasting kingdom. There is in all of this, no hint of ontological relationships between the Ancient of Days and the divine son of man traced back into eternity past. The whole point of receiving the kingdom and glory was so that the saints of the Highest might participate in this same kingdom in union with the one like the son of man.
“Son” and “Father”
Carson’s interpretation
Carson rejects the view that John’s Gospel refers merely to an ‘economic Trinity’, that is, to the idea that ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’ are mere ‘salvific’ names given to the three persons of the Godhead. Sonship naturally defaults to subordination in John’s Gospel, there being so many verses that refer to the Son both in his capacity as the obedient One, yet who is divine. John 5 in particular reinforces this view. After all, the Son was sent into the world (3:17). Carson concludes on that point, “The text does not mean to say that God sends the one who would become his Son into the world.” Carson’s ties the language of eternal generation to the relationship between the Spirit’s ‘procession’, using Johannine terminology.[12]
False choice…again
In my first article critiquing Carson, I said that he made the mistake of delimiting the reader to two choices- the Son was given life-in-himself from all eternity in eternal generation; or, the Son was given life-in-himself at his incarnation. I said that there was a third choice: the Son was given life-in-himself as the Son of Man, the Mediatorial head of the assembly, and that this happened in heaven before his incarnation.
Once again Carson delimits our choices: the names of ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’ are either innate divine names, or they are names that belonging solely to the economic Trinity. There is a third choice: they are both! These titles are both eternal and salvific at the one time. Let me break this down.
Before time
First of all, let us not forget that the ‘Son of Man’ (3:13; 13:62), too, was sent from heaven- not only the ‘Son’. However, Carson tried to slip in a qualification: “The text does not mean to say that God sends the one who would become his Son into the world.” The implication, here, being that the title ‘Son of Man’ reflects that the Son became the Son of Man only when he entered the world. However, I argued elsewhere that this is most certainly wrong.[13] To John, Jesus before entering this world was already appointed as the Son of Man, not merely ‘to be’ the Son of Man. He was prior to his incarnation already the chosen representative of his people as the Son of Man.
Economic Trinity revisited
The titles ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’ are titles revealed to us, in John’s Gospel, in explanation of the salvation of God that issues from heaven via the Word incarnate. They are, therefore, salvifically-shaped titles. Even though the titles tell us about three persons in the Godhead and also concerning their divine relations, this is done entirely in the context of salvific history, as far as John is concerned. It is not either-or, therefore. It is both. ‘Father’ is known to us through whom? The ‘Son’ in the flesh, the Word in the flesh. ‘Spirit’ is known to us how? By being sent by this salvific ‘Father’ who reveals himself in his incarnated ‘Son’, to remind the disciples of the revelation of Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) to them. It is utterly impossible to extricate these three divine figures from their economic (salvific) roles and titles, according to John’s Gospel.
OT vs NT revelation
To understand John’s use of the three divine titles, we need to speak about the contrast between OT and NT revelation concerning the Godhead.
The OT presented to us streams of witness to the divine Son in a mediated form, or in a vague fashion. The ‘Angel of Yahweh’ is one example. Various theophanies connected with angelic figures. There were human figures who acted in a divine fashion, or were given an exalted, divine, status: the Davidic ‘son’/’son of God’, the one like a ‘son of man’, the ‘root’, the ‘servant’, etc.. Other passages implied two or more divine persons. E.g., there was Yahweh’s appearance to Abraham, even when the same Yahweh was in heaven (Gen.18). Genesis 1:26-28 describes a discussion in which God the Creator says, ” “Let us….” ” Yes, the Son is there in the OT; but it is not an exceptionally clear and detailed witness such as we get in the NT.
We come, then, to the NT. God’s revelation explodes, and suddenly all things are opened up to us. The The OT witnesses to Jesus’ divinity spoken of above are said to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ as God. But there is another form of witness in the NT, one which is the most significant of all, in my opinion. It is where the one God of Israel is identified directly with Jesus himself. For example, we saw in an earlier article how John, using the OT and Genesis 1 as his background, now parses this passage to teach that there were two in Genesis 1 who were true ‘God’. In Hebrews 1:10-12, the reference to the OT God, who, in the original context of Psalm 102:25-27 refers to Yahweh, the one God, turns out to be two persons, for there is Father and there is Son (Heb.1:1-4). To be pointed: all of the OT texts that convey the one-God theme are now interpreted in the NT as indicating multiple divine persons within this ‘one God’. This, in my view, is the most powerful evidence, using the OT, for Jesus’ divinity, from an NT perspective..
We see from this that the OT revelation ‘veiled’ the Son as God. The two streams veiled his deity in the form of created beings- angel and man. And the third form of witness veiled his deity under the one-God concept. The NT removes this veil that produced a feint form of Jesus’ deity, and presents to us the full-blown divine person of the ‘Son’.
Although we get to see the divine Son as the ‘Son’ of the NT revelation, as a divine figure, he is still somewhat ‘veiled’, for he comes as the Word in the flesh. We see his divine glory, but only as mediated by (not merely through) his humanity- in his miracles, and his death and resurrection. The divine Son takes on a subordinate form (of man, as Messiah) for our sake, so that we might see his glory as the Son beloved by the Father. If he did not come in this subordinate manner, we would not see his glory or his Father’s. Revelation, humiliation, and exaltation of the Christ are vital to the Son’s revelation to us as ‘Son’, therefore.
‘Son of God’ revelation
This double-edged nature of the Son’s revelation as ‘Son’ (the divine-incarnate One) is also understood through the lens of ‘Son’ and ‘Son of God’ as Messianic titles. It is noticeable that in Carson’s article there is no discussion of the Christological implications of John’s use of ‘Son of God’. Carson chooses, rather, to focus on the name ‘Son’, for by it, Jesus is distinguished as God from those who are God’s “children” (Greek, tekna).[16] Yet, John’s Gospel is invested in the title ‘Son of God’ as a Messianic concept:
“Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” ” (1:49);
“ “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” ” (11:27);
“The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” ” (19:7).
CONCLUSION
The series of articles I have written critiquing Carson have sought to demonstrate that his view of the eternal generation of the Son is not present in John 5:26. For the phrase “life-in-himself” as it applies to the Son and Father refers to resurrection life, the life of the world to come that is not polluted by sin and death. It is, therefore, “eternal life”, for it is a resurrection life that is passed on to believers, belonging to God’s heavenly realm that will continue forever and will not be prevented by any form of evil.
Carson’s view of eternal generation is taking the Mediatorial categories of the ‘Son’ as the Word in the flesh and applying them directly to his divine and eternal status, pre-creation, as Son. This is a massive error. Divinity does not need to be given deity. Innate divine life, deity and its life ad intra, by its very definition, is unoriginated and incapable of being ‘passed on’ or ‘generated’.
[1] Angus Harley, “A critique of Don Carson’s interpretation of John 5:26, Part 1 “, All Things New Covenant, July 29, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/07/29/a-critique-of-don-carsons-interpretation-of-john-526-part-1/; Angus Harley, “A critique of Don Carson’s interpretation of John 5:26, Part 2 “, All Things New Covenant, August 27, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/08/07/a-critique-of-don-carsons-interpretation-of-john-526-part-2/.
[2] Harley, “Carson part 2”.
[3] Carson, “John 5:26”, 84.
[4] Carson, Gospel, 256.
[5] Harley, “Carson, part 2”.
[6] Carson, “John 5:26”, 84.
[7] Carson, Commentary, 257-258.
[8] Harley, “Carson, part 2”.
[9] Carson, “John 5:26”, 85.
[10] Carson, “John 5:26”, 82.
[11] Andreas J. Kostenberger, “John”, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G.K. Beale, D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 2542.
[12] Carson, “John 5:26”, 85-87.
[13] Harley, “Carson, part 1”.
All Things New Covenant 