(1:18). This metaphor underlines the intimacy of the relationship with a very feminine touch. Jesus himself declares that “the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (10:38). To Philip he explains that whoever has seen him has seen the Father (14:9). In a more direct statement Jesus affirms, “I and the Father are one” (10:30). At the end, Thomas makes the confession that the Johannine Christians thought all Christians should make: “My Lord and my God” (20:28). In Chapter 17 Jesus appeals to the unity enjoyed by the Father and him and insists that there must be unity among the disciples. At the climax of the prayer Jesus pleads: “as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (17:21).
That the unity of the Father and the Son is open to allow the disciples, already united among themselves, to enter it and be united “in us,” tells us that the unity of the Father and the Son does not imply homogeneity. There can be differences among those united. The next verse says that the glory of the Son was given to him by the Father (17:22). The relationship of the Father and the Son is that of “The One Who Sends” and “The One Sent.” To see the relationship in this way is what not only the disciples but the whole world must come to see. All must recognize in him the One Sent by the Father. In this way the declaration that The Son is God, totally repugnant to Judaism, is already being nuanced in According to John.
It took a couple of centuries for Christianity to fully accept the idea that Jesus was not another incarnate divine being, but the incarnation of God. That was done at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Not all Christians shared this way of seeing Jesus however, especially those who were primarily influenced by the preaching of Paul as evidenced by the gospel According to Mark. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, is the one who about 150 CE brought to the forefront the Johannine understanding of the Logos as the key to Christology. His arguments were then developed by Athanasius, the one who proposed a Logos/God Christology at Nicea. The position of Arius, who insisted on seeing the divine being incarnated in Jesus as a “first-born” or one “begotten,” however, did not disappear after Nicea. Arian Christianity continued to be prominent in the West for many centuries even after the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 CE, arrived at a compromised explanation of how the Logos and God could be one. The long history of the Christological controversies in the first Christian centuries actually begins with the Johannine community’s recognition that by claiming that the Logos was God they had a problem on their hands if they wished to remain monotheistic. That it saw the problem is evident by its effort to give some nuance to its claim to Jesus’ equality with God.
In chapter 5, where “the Jews” explicitly accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God, Jesus defends himself by explaining that while in fact the Son and the Father are one, his claim to divinity does not represent a real challenge to monotheism. In order to understand this defense of monotheism we need to consider some background. Judaism taught that while God did delegate some functions to agents, there were some functions that were exclusively God’s. These were primarily the prerogatives to judge and to give life. After having healed the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus claims these two divine prerogatives for himself.
In their discussions of the person of God, the Pharisees were also concerned with how to understand God’s need to keep God’s laws. This was a problem in connection with the Sabbath law. Since the world does not run on its own and there are no other gods in charge of running different natural phenomena, if God rests on Sabbaths, creation should disintegrate on these days. Since creation continues to function properly on Sabbaths, God must be working on every Sabbath to keep it going. This means that God also has the prerogative to work on Sabbath.
Jesus shocked “the Jews” by claiming to have this prerogative also. To defend himself for having cured the paralytic and having told him to carry his mat home on a Sabbath, Jesus says: “My Father works until now, and I work” (5:17). “The Jews,” correctly, understood that with these words Jesus was claiming for himself God’s exclusive prerogative to work on Sabbath. This declaration explicitly divides God in two and claims that both can work on Sabbath.
The conflict over monotheism is elaborated in According to John in two directions. On the one hand, Jesus elevates his claims even higher. Besides the prerogative to work on the Sabbath, the Son can also judge (5:22, 27), and he can give life “to whomever he wishes” (5:21, 26). Both activities, as already said, are God’s exclusive prerogatives. On the other hand, the Son cannot exercise these prerogatives independently. Everything he does, he does together with, and according to the will of the Father (5:19, 30). His activity is totally subordinated to the Father. He does not have an independent will. In this way the Son as God is being carefully defined as subject to the Father’s will. According to John, the gospel that squarely challenges the monotheistic religion of Yahve, begins the process that Christianity has been carrying on for centuries: trying to explain the relationships of the persons within the Godhead in a way that does not negate its claim to have only one God.
The claim that the incarnate Logos is God is so audacious that According to John recognizes that this claim needs to be backed by evidence. At once, Jesus admits that his claim cannot be sustained by the fact that he says so. “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (5:31). To sustain his claim to God’s exclusive prerogatives and to work as one with the Father, Jesus presents supporting witnesses.
The first is John the Baptist. His ministry had been “a burning and shining lamp” which for some time the Jews had considered valid (5:35). In the first chapter we read that “John bore witness to him .… he confessed, he did not deny .… ‘I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God’” (1:15, 20, 34). Given his influence in Judaism, the testimony of John is effective. But his repeated negations (“I am not the Christ,” “I am not Elijah,” “I am not the prophet,” etc., 1:21 – 22) and the rivalry between the disciples of John and those of Jesus (given that Jesus was baptizing more people than John, 3:26; 4:2) gave rise to doubts about John’s testimony among some. Jesus, therefore, presents more witnesses.
In the second place, Jesus appeals to “the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish.” They testify that he is the One Sent by the Father (5:36). In this gospel his works are designated “signs.” At the end of the gospel the narrator tells us that Jesus performed “many signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written 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). The testimony of the signs, it is argued, should be sufficient to produce faith and life. Throughout the gospel there are reports of people who believed on account of the signs, but also of those who failed to see the sign value of the works of Jesus. This, it would seem, makes the testimony of his works ambiguous.
Appeal is then made to the most important One who also bears witness: “the One who sent me, the Father.” God’s testimony should prove irrefutable. The problem is that those who demand proofs of authenticity for Jesus’ claims “have never heard God’s voice or seen God’s appearance” (5:37). This is the tragic condition of those who do not see the Father in the person of the One Sent by the Father (5:38). Thus, the testimony that should be incontrovertible is beyond the reach of those who ask for it.
The situation becomes even worst when those seeking eternal life look for it in the wrong place. Instead of coming to Jesus to obtain it, they misguidedly search the Scriptures hoping to find it there. The function of Scripture is not to give life. It is to bear witness to Jesus (5:38). Once again a testimony that should be effective is wasted by those who misunderstand the purpose of the Scriptures. Their real problem, actually, is that due to their pride in the Scriptures they lack the love of God (5:42-44).
Chapter 5 ends in a way similar to that of chapter 9. The irony of the situation is, again, on the surface. Those seeking eternal life in the Scriptures are not condemned by the One Sent by the Father, who was sent with the specific purpose of giving life, and also has the authority to judge. They consider Moses to be the great mediator between God and the people. On the basis of Deut. 18:15 – 18, they are waiting for the appearance of the prophet “like Moses.” “The Jews” will suffer a great disappointment, however. Having “placed their hope” in Moses, they are actually being condemned by Moses, not realizing