Jesus the Vice-Regent of God — John 5:15-23

A vice-regent is someone who acts on behalf of, and with the authority of, a particular ruler. Joseph, for example, was given full authority over the household of Potiphar, effectively making him Potiphar’s vice-regent (Gen 39:1-6). Later, through his interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, he became the vice-regent of Pharaoh over all of Egypt.

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.”

And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. (Gen 41:39-43 ESV)

Notably, from the perspective of Pharaoh, Joseph was still subservient to him; they were not true equals. But from the perspective of anyone else in the kingdom, Joseph possessed all of the authority of Pharaoh, and thus it could be said that he was equal to Pharaoh.

In a similar sense, Jesus is the vice-regent of God, according to his human nature. After his faithful obedience on the cross, God gave Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth (Mat 28:18, Psa 8:3-6, Heb 2:6-9). This was not granted on account of his divinity; otherwise he would have possessed that authority even prior to his conception as a man (cf. Mat 4:8-10). Rather, as a man, Jesus ascended to the throne of God (Dan 7), to possess in actuality the authority that he previously held in the form of a promise (Gal 4:1-7, Heb 11:8-10). As God’s son, he now acts as a vice-regent of God, possessing equal authority from the perspective of those under him, yet still living in subjection to God, who is the higher regent.

For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:27-28 ESV)

God truly has given all authority to his son Jesus, granting him the status of an equal. But as Paul clarifies in this passage, there is an implied exception to this equality, such that the one who granted the authority (God) is still over the one acting as his vice-regent (his son). This exception helps to nuance our understanding of the equality granted to Jesus. It isn’t equality without exception, and it isn’t an equality of nature. Rather, it is an equality of authority grounded in the son’s obedient subjection to the father.

The parable of the tenants helps to illustrate this dynamic of Jesus acting as the vice-regent of God, and it specifically grounds his role as a vice-regent in his role as God’s son and heir. Because Jesus is the only begotten son and heir of God, he can therefore act as a true vice-regent of God, exercising authority as an equal over everything that God owns. And the parable shows us that this equality of authority is what made the religious leaders jealous of Jesus, not (in this instance) any reference to his divinity.

“Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit.

And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. (Mat 21:33-46)

With this in mind, we can move forward to better understand the debate in John 5.

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (Jhn 5:15-18)

Many would agree that Jesus is the vice-regent of God according to his human nature, but would question whether that is the proper lens through which to understand John 5. Is Jesus’ claim to be the son of God only a claim of equal authority? Or is it a claim of divinity?

To be sure, there are other places in John where some of the Jews tried to kill Jesus, and the specific reason they reacted in this way is because they believed he was claiming to be God himself, not merely equal to God in authority (Jhn 8:57-59, Jhn 10:30-33). Indeed, Jesus did claim to be God, both in those two passages and elsewhere. The question at hand is whether his claim to be God, and his claim to be the son of God, should be viewed as essentially the same thing, or essentially different. Trinitarians would view them as essentially the same (God the Son being a divine title), whereas patternists would view them as essentially different (son of God being a human title).

First, we know that the Jews of Jesus’ day didn’t always associate the title “son of God” with divinity. In one instance, they even claimed to be sons of God themselves.

“I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.”

They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. (Jhn 8:38-42 ESV)

In this passage, Jesus is fighting with certain Jews over who could rightly claim the title “son of God.” Here his opponents didn’t view the title as describing divinity; otherwise they wouldn’t have claimed it for themselves. The reason that they tried to kill Jesus in this passage is that he later claimed to be God himself, not because he claimed to be the son of God. Granting that this may be a different group of Jews than those we find in John 5, it nevertheless shows us that Jewish perception of the title “son of God” in Jesus’ day had an inconsistent standard. When Jesus used it, he was considered a blasphemer. When his opponents used it, they were being orthodox.

So it seems unwise for Christians to base our understanding of the title “son of God” on what the Jews believed it meant when Jesus applied it to himself. In their own community, there seemed to be significant disagreement and confusion on this subject, and that confusion led to many of the great debates that we see in the gospel of John. Chapter 10 particularly helps to highlight this issue of confusion, as Jesus had to argue that the title “son of God” was actually less significant than a claim to be “god.” He said,

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (Jhn 10:27-36 ESV)

Jesus quotes Psalm 82 which grants a divine title (“god”/”gods”)  to creatures, most likely civil rulers or angels. These creatures are less commendable than Jesus, due to their neglect of justice and compassion, and his higher role as the one “consecrated and sent into the world.” Yet despite their wickedness and lower role, God nevertheless gave them a divine title of “god” (elohim/theos).

Jesus’ point here is that it is more scandalous to call these wicked men/angels “gods” than it is to call him the “son of God” (“god” is a greater title than “son of God,” cf. Mat 22:41-46). Amazingly, the one true and living God was willing to share his title with mere creatures (of the worst sort, no less), and the Jews of John 10 had no problem accepting this greater scandal recorded in their own scriptures. Yet they viewed Jesus’ less egregious claim to be the son of God as intrinsically blasphemous, a title that no man could ever take on himself. Rather than judge Jesus with righteous judgement, they were being highly inconsistent in their standard of blasphemy, and Jesus powerfully argued against their elevation of the title “son of God” to an improper height.

Thus if we take Jesus’ perspective on his own claims — rather than that of his confused and biased opponents — we can reasonably conclude that his claims to be “God” are essentially different from his claims to be the “son of God.” Jesus’ claim to be the son of God in John 5 and elsewhere should not be interpreted as a claim of divinity. Rather, this is a lesser title grounded in his humanity. Jesus is equal to God in authority, but he rules in subjection to his father as a human, image-bearing son. While Jesus is also truly divine, his use of the title “son of God” says nothing about his divine nature; it describes his role as a human heir and vice-regent of God.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. (Jhn 5:19-21)

The healing that led to this discussion gave Jesus significant notoriety, such that it is referenced in discussions surrounding later attempts to kill him (Jhn 7:19-25). First, the man that he made well had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years, making it a notable miracle. Second, he did this work on the sabbath, making Jesus a notorious “law-breaker.”

In his debates with the religious leaders of Israel, Jesus was constantly being cast as someone who disregarded or disobeyed the law of Moses, despite his statements to the contrary (Mat 5:17). Because he would challenge them for their breaking of the law (e.g. Mat 23:23), his opponents would respond in kind, and look for ways in which his behavior broke the law, as a means to discredit him. The issues that they found, such as his healing of this man on the Sabbath, were never true breaches of the mosaic law; Jesus obeyed the law from birth until his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 7:1-6, Gal 4:4-5, Heb 4:15). However, his behavior did often transgress the traditions and false interpretations of the law which were given by the religious leadership of Israel (Mat 15:7-9). Because they were the stewards of the law, they could easily employ rhetoric that made it look like Jesus was a law-breaker, rebelling against the authority and commands of God given through Moses.

Here, Jesus responds to an accusation that he’d broken the Sabbath by healing this paralyzed man. Interestingly, Jesus did not immediately address the false interpretations of Moses that were being thrown at him; he developed that issue later as the accusation lingered and continued to poison his ministry (Jhn 7:21-24). Instead, he took the accusation itself — that he had been working on the Sabbath — and reasoned that the work being used to discredit him was actually evidence of God’s approval.

1. He is doing the very work that God does every day, including on the Sabbath (Jhn 5:17)
2. He could not do this work on his own, without the help of God (Jhn 5:19)

The first point relates to his sonship toward the Father. Beyond merely serving as a vice-regent of God, Jesus is the son of God, and as such he has a familial relationship with God that would lead him to be an imitator of God (Eph 5:1). Children naturally emulate their parents, and desire to work alongside them. Just as Jesus’ stepfather Joseph taught him the ways and works of carpenter (Mat 13:55, Mar 6:3), so his heavenly father taught him the ways and works of God, which he imitated in healing the paralyzed man. Therefore, just as his father worked to heal and preserve life on the Sabbath, so he did too.

The second point relates to the miraculous nature of the work. Because human power was insufficient to heal this paralyzed man, the success of the work gave evidence that God granted his approval to the work. Jesus then began to highlight the “greater works” that he would do as future evidence of his approval in the eyes of God — namely the resurrection and judgement of the dead, beginning with his own resurrection and ascension. As the vice-regent of God, Jesus received authority over all things — including life and death — through his own obedient death and resurrection (Rev 1:17-18, Heb 2:14, 2Ti 1:10). God thus granted him to have life in himself, just as God has life in himself (Jhn 5:26), and he gave Jesus authority to grant eternal life to anyone he chooses, namely anyone who believes God through faith in the word of Christ (Jhn 5:24).

Importantly, this passage teaches us that the authority held by Jesus over life and death is not granted to him because of a divine sonship. Rather, he receives this authority specifically because he is the son of man (Jhn 5:27), the vice-regent of God who ascended into heaven to rule all things from the right hand of the Father (Dan 7).

For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (Jhn 5:22-23)

Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Mat 5:16 ESV)

The final section of this passage addresses the purpose of the judgement that was entrusted to Jesus — to bring glory to God, leading the whole world to also glorify the son and vice-regent of God for his faithful service. Here Jesus and his opponents show us two paths that men will take to receive glory for their work. One is to seek glory from other men by hiding from the light that exposes our works as sinful, and pretending that our works are good. The other is to seek glory from God by shining the light that exposes dead works, and humbly submitting to the Father’s plan to transform them from sinful to good.

The context of this section establishes that the judgement in view is the giving of life and death (cf. the previous verse Jhn 5:21, and 5:29), which is the ultimate expression of the lesser works that Jesus did, such as giving life to (i.e. healing) the paralyzed man. These good works of healing were intended to bring glory to God, but those who sought their own glory apart from God accused Jesus of breaking the law as a means to hide their own sin (Jhn 5:44-47). The basic competition between each group progressed in the following way:

1. The world (in this case, Jewish religious leaders) sought glory from men, by observing empty traditions over the word of God (Jhn 5:44-47, Mat 23:23).
2. Jesus performed a genuinely good work, for the glory of God (Jhn 5:1-9, 7:17-18)
3. The world hated Jesus, because his good work exposed their evil works (1Jo 3:11-14)
4. They persecuted, slandered, and tried to kill Jesus (Jhn 5:18).
5. They justified their persecution by holding their traditions to be commands of God, and measuring Jesus against them (Mar 7:5-9).

Jesus faced this kind of dynamic throughout his earthly ministry, and promised that his disciples would face the same (Jhn 15:18-20, 17:14). Interestingly, the world actually appeals to God’s law to justify themselves and condemn the righteous, whether it be through law of Moses, or Gentile civil law established after the flood (Gen 9:6). They want to use the God-given authority that civil rulers possess to condemn the righteous, and protect their own wicked interests. This requires a twisting of the standard by which rulers judge those under their jurisdiction.

In the context of Israel, their distortion of the Mosaic law (in this case Sabbath law) was used to condemn Jesus and vindicate themselves. In Gentile territories, this would later involve putting Christians in conflict with tyrants who issue commands that go beyond the authority that God had given them (e.g. commanding their subjects to offer a pinch of incense to Caesar). This twisting of law into traditions that persecute the righteous can help us to understand Jesus’ opening statements in his sermon on the mount.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:10-20)

In this sermon, Jesus quickly jumps between issues that seem unrelated at first glance. First he speaks of persecution, then of the importance of good works, then of the continued relevance of the mosaic law. How do these things tie together? Understanding the conflict that he had with the scribes and the Pharisees helps to underscore the flow of thought.

Those who persecute Christians often try to put us in conflict with the law, be it the law of Moses or Gentile civil law. They do this out of a desire to bring glory to themselves by seeking glory from men, rather than from God. Those who seek glory from God, however, shine the light of God on their own lives and all around them, honoring his true standard of right and wrong rather than the twisted standard of the self-righteous. This light drives the Christian to Jesus, to seek a righteousness apart from the law that comes through his finished work on the cross (Rom 3:21-26), which produces the eventual fruit of good works in our lives, rather than the evil works of our former darkness. But it drives the self-righteous to flee the light — to twist the law so that they no longer are considered law-breakers, and to slander the Christian, because they hate and slander the light of God’s true word.

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (Jhn 3:19-21)

So when we do good, like Abel we are persecuted by those who pretend to do good through obedience to twisted forms of human law, but who truly love darkness. Christians should expect such treatment from the world in response to our good works, “for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” But Christians should also humbly recognize that the same darkness that lives in the world still lives in us. We still sin; we still hide from the light, and there is still is a nature within us that would slander other Christians who would correct our dark thoughts and actions through the light of God’s word.

All too often, we still seek glory from men rather than God. As with the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, the fear of man can drive even genuine Christians to grant our theological traditions the same level of authority that we give to scripture — then use those traditions to condemn other genuine believers who shine a light on the flaws of our belief systems. The Pharisees had rules about the Sabbath that were reasoned from inerrant scripture. But the reasoning was flawed, and their traditions thus came in conflict with the true word of God, brought forward through the good works done by Jesus. When his light exposed the problems in their beliefs and actions, rather than repent, they chose to condemn him, desiring glory from men above the glory given by God.

This applies quite helpfully to discussions on the trinity. While some trinitarians protest this (proper/clear) categorization of their views, when the evidence is examined carefully, it is unarguable that the doctrine of the trinity is a human tradition built upon biblical revelation; it is not biblical revelation itself. That doesn’t necessarily make the trinity wrong; it simply helps us to correctly identify the kind of thing that we are dealing with. The idea that God exists as three persons sharing one divine essence is not taught anywhere in the Bible. That concept is the result of a theological system that has been developed to explain and tie together various passages related to the Father, the Son, the Word and the Spirit — a tradition built upon inerrant revelation, and fallible human reasoning.

When a non-trinitarian, such as a patternist, raises biblically-based objections to the trinity, shining a light on the flaws of that system, there can sometimes be a dynamic of unjust persecution on the part of the trinitarian. Many trinitarians simply want to understand what the Bible teaches, and believe that the trinity accurately represents what’s contained therein. These typically provide no problem for those who charitably disagree. Others however — those who seem to desire honor from one another rather than from God — will misrepresent, slander, and even work to excommunicate the non-trinitarian who has an honest and powerful objection to the prevailing tradition, just as the Pharisees did to Jesus and his disciples. That doesn’t always happen of course, but it’s enough of a dynamic within the trinitarian camp that it can become very difficult for a patternist or other non-trinitarian to live and work in fellowship with those who adhere to the trinitarian tradition. And that is unfortunate.

In our day, calvinists and arminians can work together for the gospel, despite having very different views on the inner workings of the gospel. Covenantalists and dispensationalists can dialogue in peace, recognizing that whatever problems their opponents may have, they are still true believers. Even paedo-baptists and credo-baptists have reconciled their differences enough to recognize the genuineness of faith demonstrated by the opposing party. But sadly, trinitarians and non-trinitarians cannot yet work in grace and fellowship with one another. To a large degree, this is because non-trinitarians (in general) have failed to produce the tension of good works that would force trinitarians to acknowledge the genuineness of our faith, as history has allowed to happen in these other debates. Sadly, many non-trinitarians truly are non-christians, departing from the clear teaching of scripture, and giving no evidence of a life that has been transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. The enemies of Christ have used the weaknesses of trinitarian thinking not only to draw people away from the trinity, but to also draw them away from the authority of God’s word.

So if you also are a non-trinitarian Christian, living in an environment where your beliefs are unjustly viewed as non-Christian, my encouragement to you would be to let your light shine before men, so that they will glorify God for the work that he has done in and through you. I agree with you that the trinity is a tradition of man, one that has been given too much weight and authority over the consciences of believers. We should be allowed to disagree with the trinity on biblical grounds, without facing sanctions and shame from their camp. But as important as it is to refute trinitarian arguments, it is just as important to challenge their tradition by glorifying God through our good works. It is by the love that we have for one another (especially for our trinitarian brethren) that the people of God will come to recognize our share in the body of Christ (Jhn 13:35). It is by the love that we have for those who claim to be our enemies that we will defeat this trinity-only thinking that has overtaken the church.

With that said, Jesus himself shows us that good works should always be paired with good arguments. Debate with trinitarian thinking should be fought on both fronts, with compassion for our opponents, and a willingness to engage in clear, thoughtful dialogue. Viewing Jesus as a vice-regent of God allows us to at least answer one objection that trinitarians raise against the pattern. Jesus is equal to God in this passage, not because he is divine (although he is), but because he is the human son and heir of God, serving as a human vice-regent of God who possesses all authority in heaven and on earth. While other passages clearly establish the divinity of Christ, they do so apart from the sonship of Christ. Thus we maintain that Jesus is a human son and vice-regent of God, in the same way that we, his bride, are children of God, and co-heirs / co-regents with Christ.