That All Men Should Honour the Son: Does John 5:23 Teach That Jesus Is God?

Introduction

John 5:23 is frequently presented as evidence that Jesus must be God because Jesus declares that all men should honour the Son “even as” they honour the Father:

John 5:22–23

“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

The argument commonly made from this passage goes considerably beyond the actual wording of the text. It is argued that because the Son must be honoured as the Father is honoured, the Son must receive the same divine honour and worship as the Father; and because only God can rightly receive such honour, the Son must therefore possess the same divine essence and be the same God as the Father.

But none of those propositions is actually stated in John 5:23.

The passage does not mention divine essence, equality of substance, the Trinity, or even “worship.” Nor does Jesus say that the Son should be honoured because he is the same God as the Father.

Instead, the passage itself provides another explanation.

The Father has committed judgment to the Son, and the Son has been sent by the Father. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly explains that he comes in the Father’s name, speaks the Father’s words, performs the Father’s works, and exercises authority given to him by the Father.

Consequently, receiving the Son is receiving the One who sent him; believing the Son is believing the One who sent him; rejecting the Son is rejecting the One who sent him; and, in John 5:23, honouring the Son is inseparable from honouring “the Father which hath sent him.”

John 5:23 therefore needs to be examined within this broader biblical concept of the sent representative.

---

What Does “Honour” Mean?

The Greek verb translated “honour” in John 5:23 is τιμάω (timaō):

“That all men should honour [τιμῶσι] the Son, even as they honour [τιμῶσι] the Father. He that honoureth [τιμῶν] not the Son honoureth [τιμᾷ] not the Father which hath sent him.”

Timaō fundamentally concerns honouring, valuing, esteeming, respecting, or treating someone as worthy of honour.

Importantly, it is not a technical Greek term meaning “worship as God.”

The New Testament regularly uses the same word for honour given to human beings.

Jesus quotes the commandment:

Matthew 15:4

“Honour thy father and mother…”

Paul likewise writes:

Ephesians 6:2

“Honour thy father and mother…”

Paul commands:

1 Timothy 5:3

“Honour widows that are widows indeed.”

Peter provides an especially useful example:

1 Peter 2:17

“Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”

The same verb can therefore describe honour given to parents, widows, kings, and people generally.

This does not diminish the honour given to Christ. It simply establishes an important lexical point:

The word timaō does not itself mean divine worship.

The nature and degree of the honour must be determined from the context and the status of the person being honoured.

John’s own Gospel confirms this.

Jesus says:

John 12:26

“If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.”

God himself can “honour” a human servant.

Consequently, merely observing that timaō is used both of the Father and the Son in John 5:23 cannot establish that the Son must therefore be God.

The question is not whether Jesus receives honour—he unquestionably does.

The question is why the Son must be honoured in correspondence with the Father.

---

What Does “Even As” Mean?

The second important Greek term is καθώς (kathōs), translated in the KJV as “even as”:

“That all men should honour the Son, even as [καθώς] they honour the Father.”

The word establishes a genuine comparison: “as,” “just as,” or “according as.”

Therefore, it would probably be too weak to paraphrase Jesus as merely saying:

“Honour the Father, and honour the Son as well.”

There is a real correspondence between the honour given to the Son and the honour given to the Father.

However, kathōs does not inherently establish ontological identity, absolute equality, or identity in every respect.

John himself demonstrates this.

Jesus prays:

John 17:18

“As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”

The same word, kathōs, compares the Father’s sending of Jesus with Jesus’ sending of his disciples.

Yet the comparison does not mean that the apostles possess exactly the same identity, authority, status, or mission as Christ.

Similarly:

John 17:22

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.”

The disciples are to be one “even as” the Father and Son are one.

Whatever one understands concerning the unity of Father and Son, the disciples obviously do not become ontologically identical to them merely because kathōs establishes a correspondence.

Therefore:

“Even as” establishes correspondence according to the relevant point of comparison; it does not itself define that correspondence as equality of divine essence.

John 5:23 therefore establishes that the Son must be honoured in correspondence with the Father.

We must then ask the context why.

---

The Immediate Context Gives the Reason

John 5:23 should not be separated from verse 22:

John 5:22–23

“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father…”

The Greek of verse 23 begins with ἵνα (hina), ordinarily expressing purpose or result.

There is therefore a direct relationship between the two statements:

The Father commits judgment to the Son

↓

so that all should honour the Son.

This is extremely important.

John does not explain the Son’s honour by saying:

The Son possesses the same divine essence as the Father, therefore honour him as God.

Instead, the immediate context concerns the authority entrusted to the Son by the Father.

This pattern dominates the entire discourse.

---

The Father Gives; the Son Receives

Consider how consistently John 5 describes the relationship.

Jesus says:

John 5:19

“The Son can do nothing of himself…”

Then:

John 5:20

“For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth…”

Then:

John 5:22

“the Father… hath committed all judgment unto the Son.”

Then:

John 5:26

“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”

And:

John 5:27

“And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.”

The direction throughout the passage is clear:

The Father gives.

The Son receives.

The Father shows the Son.

The Father commits judgment to the Son.

The Father gives life to the Son.

The Father gives authority to the Son.

The Son therefore occupies an extraordinarily exalted position. But the passage explains that position repeatedly through what the Father has given him.

This makes the final words of John 5:23 especially significant:

“He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

The Father is the sender.

The Son is the sent one.

This is not incidental language. It belongs to one of the dominant themes of John’s Gospel.

---

Jesus Comes in His Father’s Name

Later in the same chapter Jesus says:

John 5:43

“I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”

This provides important context for verse 23.

Jesus does not come independently or in his own name. He comes in the name of his Father.

Furthermore, Jesus says concerning his works:

John 5:36

“the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.”

The pattern within John 5 itself is therefore remarkably consistent:

The Father sends the Son.

The Father gives the Son works to accomplish.

The Father gives the Son authority.

The Father commits judgment to the Son.

The Son comes in the Father’s name.

Consequently, rejecting the Son is rejecting the authority of the Father whom the Son represents.

---

Jesus Speaks the Father’s Words

The same principle appears throughout John’s Gospel.

Jesus says:

John 7:16

“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.”

Again:

John 8:28

“I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.”

And:

John 12:49

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”

Likewise:

John 14:24

“the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.”

Jesus therefore represents the Father not merely by claiming to have been sent by him, but by speaking the words the Father gave him to speak.

The words of Jesus are the words of the Father who commissioned him.

This explains why one’s response to Jesus constitutes a response to God.

---

Jesus Does the Father’s Works

The same principle applies to Jesus’ works.

As already noted:

John 5:36

“the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do…”

Jesus later says:

John 10:37

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.”

And:

John 14:10

“the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”

Jesus therefore speaks the Father’s words and performs the Father’s works.

He acts in the Father’s name and under the Father’s commission.

The honour given to such a representative consequently reaches the One whose authority he bears.

---

“He That Receiveth Me Receiveth Him That Sent Me”

Jesus explicitly teaches this representative principle.

Perhaps the clearest example occurs in John 13:

John 13:20

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

This is extremely important for understanding John 5:23.

There are three parties:

The Father

↓ sends

Jesus

↓ sends

The disciples

Yet reception moves back through the chain:

Receive the disciple

↓

Receive Jesus

↓

Receive the Father

The representative does not become the sender.

Receiving a disciple does not mean that the disciple is Jesus.

Likewise, receiving Jesus as the Father’s commissioned Son does not, by this principle itself, establish that Jesus is the God who sent him.

Rather, the representative carries the authority of his sender.

Matthew records the same teaching:

Matthew 10:40

“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

Again, the principle is clear:

Reception of the sent one constitutes reception of the sender.

---

Rejecting the Representative Rejects the Sender

Luke gives us the negative side of precisely the same principle:

Luke 10:16

“He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

This provides a particularly strong conceptual parallel with John 5:23.

Compare the two:

Luke 10:16

“he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

And:

John 5:23

“He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

The reasoning is remarkably similar.

In Luke:

Reject the disciples → reject Christ → reject God.

In John:

Dishonour Christ → dishonour God.

Why?

Because rejection of an authorised representative constitutes rejection of the authority of the one who commissioned him.

Yet nobody would conclude from Luke 10:16 that the disciples must ontologically be Christ because despising them constitutes despising Christ.

Representative identification is not ontological identity.

---

Believing Jesus Means Believing the One Who Sent Him

John applies the same principle to belief:

John 12:44

“He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.”

This statement is remarkable.

Jesus directs the response beyond himself to the One whom he represents.

He continues:

John 12:45

“And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.”

This gives us a consistent Johannine pattern:

Honour Jesus → honour the Father who sent him.

Receive Jesus → receive the Father who sent him.

Believe Jesus → believe the Father who sent him.

See Jesus → see the Father who sent him.

Reject Jesus → reject the Father who sent him.

These statements should be interpreted together.

They represent a consistent theology of the relationship between the Sender and his uniquely authorised Son.

---

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants

Jesus’ Parable of the Wicked Tenants provides an illuminating illustration of the same principle.

The owner of the vineyard repeatedly sends servants to collect what belongs to him. The tenants reject and abuse them.

Finally:

Mark 12:6

“Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.”

The language is striking.

The owner:

has a beloved son

↓

sends the son

↓

expects the son to be reverenced.

The tenants’ treatment of the son constitutes rebellion against the owner who sent him.

Yet the son does not have to be the vineyard owner for this principle to work.

Indeed, the parable distinguishes them.

The father is the owner who sends.

The son is the heir who is sent.

The son possesses extraordinary status precisely because he is not merely another servant. He is the owner’s beloved Son and heir.

Therefore, reverencing the son acknowledges the authority of the father who sent him; rejecting the son constitutes rebellion against that father.

This provides an excellent conceptual parallel for John 5:23.

---

The Son Is More Than an Ordinary Messenger

Understanding representative authority must not be used to diminish the extraordinary position John assigns to Jesus.

Jesus is not simply another prophet among many.

The Wicked Tenants itself distinguishes the Son from the servants:

Mark 12:6

“Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them…”

The prophets were servants.

Jesus is the beloved Son and heir.

Likewise, John 5 assigns Jesus extraordinary authority.

The Father has committed all judgment to him.

The Father has given him authority to execute judgment.

The dead will hear his voice.

Those in the graves will come forth at his command.

Therefore the Son rightly receives extraordinary honour.

But extraordinary delegated authority does not logically require the recipient of that authority to be the God who delegated it.

Indeed, John continually distinguishes between:

the Father who sends

and

the Son who is sent;

between

the Father who gives authority

and

the Son who receives authority.

---

The Analogy of a King’s Representative

The concept can be illustrated by the familiar relationship between a king and his authorised representative.

Suppose a king sends his son bearing his authority and commands his subjects to receive him accordingly.

A subject cannot reasonably say:

“I honour the king, but I reject the son whom the king personally sent, reject his authority, refuse his commands, and treat him with contempt.”

To dishonour the king’s authorised representative precisely in his capacity as the king’s representative is to dishonour the authority of the king himself.

Conversely, honouring the representative because he carries the king’s authority honours the king whose authority he represents.

The representative does not thereby become the king.

Rather, the honour shown to the representative extends to the one who commissioned him.

This appears to fit Jesus’ own explanation remarkably well:

“He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

---

The Old Testament Background: Honouring God’s Appointed Representatives

The representative principle behind John 5:23 does not appear for the first time in the Gospel of John.

Throughout the Old Testament, God appoints individuals to act with his authority, places honour upon them, commands the people to hear them, and sometimes describes rejection of those representatives as rejection of God himself.

This is important because if the Old Testament already establishes that honouring or rejecting God’s appointed representative can constitute honouring or rejecting God, then the relationship described in John 5:23 does not require ontological identity between the representative and the One represented.

Rather, it belongs to an established biblical pattern of representative authority.

The Old Testament Uses “Honour” for Human Beings

The Septuagint uses the same Greek verb found in John 5:23, τιμάω (timaō), for honour given to human beings.

The most familiar example is:

Exodus 20:12

“Honour thy father and thy mother…”

The Greek Septuagint uses timaō here.

Therefore, the Greek biblical tradition itself demonstrates that timaō is not a technical term meaning “worship as God.”

The more important question, however, is whether the Old Testament connects honour and corresponding treatment specifically with God-appointed representatives.

It does.

God Places Honour upon Joshua

When Moses’ ministry was approaching its end, YHWH appointed Joshua as his successor:

Numbers 27:18–20

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;

And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight.

And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.”

The Hebrew word translated “honour” here is הוֹד (hôd), denoting majesty, splendour, dignity, or honour.

The sequence is significant:

YHWH appoints Joshua

↓

Moses places some of his honour upon Joshua

↓

Israel is expected to obey Joshua.

Joshua does not become Moses, and he certainly does not become YHWH.

Rather, he receives honour appropriate to the divinely appointed position entrusted to him.

The same principle appears again:

Joshua 3:7

“And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day will I begin to magnify thee in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee.”

The result is recorded after Israel crosses the Jordan:

Joshua 4:14

“On that day the LORD magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life.”

This is particularly relevant to John 5:23.

Israel feared Joshua as they feared Moses.

There is genuine correspondence between the response given to Joshua and that previously given to Moses.

Yet corresponding treatment does not establish ontological identity.

Joshua receives this recognition because YHWH has appointed and magnified him.

The honour of the representative derives from the authority of the one who appointed him.

---

YHWH Bestows Extraordinary Honour upon Solomon

The same principle becomes even more striking with the Davidic king.

At Solomon’s coronation we read:

1 Chronicles 29:20

“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.”

The same outward act of prostration is directed toward YHWH and toward God’s appointed king.

Yet Solomon is obviously not thereby identified as YHWH.

Instead, the following verses explain Solomon’s position:

1 Chronicles 29:22

“And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor…”

Then comes an extraordinary statement:

1 Chronicles 29:23

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father…”

Solomon can sit upon “the throne of the LORD” without being YHWH.

Why?

Because he exercises kingship as YHWH’s appointed ruler.

The text then explicitly describes God giving Solomon extraordinary honour:

1 Chronicles 29:25

“And the LORD magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel.”

Again the direction is important:

YHWH

↓

magnifies Solomon

↓

bestows royal majesty upon him

↓

Israel recognises Solomon’s authority.

Extraordinary honour given to God’s appointed king does not transform the king into God.

It reflects the authority and position that God has bestowed upon him.

---

Murmuring against Moses Was Murmuring against YHWH

The Old Testament goes considerably further than merely giving honour to God’s representatives.

It repeatedly establishes that the treatment of God’s appointed representative can be regarded as treatment of God himself.

The narrative says:

Exodus 16:2

“And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.”

Yet Moses subsequently tells them:

Exodus 16:7

“the LORD heareth your murmurings against the LORD…”

Then he makes the principle explicit:

Exodus 16:8

“what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD.”

This is representative identification in remarkably clear language.

Historically, Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron.

Yet because Moses and Aaron were God’s appointed servants acting under his authority, their rebellion ultimately constituted rebellion against YHWH.

The reasoning is not:

Moses is YHWH; therefore murmuring against Moses is murmuring against YHWH.

Rather:

Moses represents YHWH; therefore rejecting Moses’ God-given authority constitutes rejection of YHWH who gave him that authority.

That distinction is directly relevant to John 5:23.

---

Rebellion against Aaron Was Rebellion against YHWH

The same principle appears during Korah’s rebellion.

Moses says:

Numbers 16:11

“For which cause both thou and all thy company are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?”

The people are directly challenging Aaron and Moses, yet their rebellion is described as being:

“against the LORD.”

Again, opposition to God’s appointed representative reaches the God who appointed him.

Aaron does not have to be YHWH for opposition to Aaron to constitute opposition to YHWH.

Representative authority is sufficient to explain the relationship.

---

Rejecting Samuel Was Rejecting YHWH

Perhaps the clearest Old Testament parallel to John 5:23 occurs when Israel requests a king.

Samuel is distressed by the people’s demand:

1 Samuel 8:6

“But the thing displeased Samuel…”

YHWH then tells him:

1 Samuel 8:7

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

The importance of this statement should not be overlooked.

God says, in effect:

Their rejection of Samuel constitutes rejection of YHWH.

Yet Samuel is obviously not YHWH.

The equivalence concerns representation and authority, not identity of being.

Compare the statements:

1 Samuel 8:7

Reject Samuel
→ reject YHWH.

John 5:23

Dishonour the Son
→ dishonour the Father who sent him.

If the first statement does not require Samuel to be YHWH, then the second statement cannot by itself establish that Jesus is God.

Of course, Jesus occupies an incomparably greater position than Samuel. He is God’s beloved Son, Messiah, heir, and appointed judge.

But the representative principle itself is already thoroughly biblical.

---

Rejecting God’s Messengers Means Rejecting God’s Words

The same pattern extends to the prophets.

The Chronicler describes Israel’s rejection of God’s prophets:

2 Chronicles 36:15–16

“And the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:

But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets…”

Notice the progression:

YHWH sends

↓

his messengers

↓

the messengers deliver God’s words

↓

the people reject the messengers

↓

they thereby despise God’s words.

This is strikingly similar to Jesus’ own description of his mission:

John 12:49

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”

The principle is the same.

The sender gives the message.

The representative delivers the message.

The hearer’s response to the representative therefore constitutes a response to the sender whose words he carries.

---

The Old Testament Pattern and the Teaching of Jesus

We can now place the biblical evidence side by side.

Joshua

YHWH appoints and magnifies him
→ Israel fears him as they feared Moses.

Solomon

YHWH appoints and magnifies him
→ bestows royal majesty upon him
→ Solomon sits upon “the throne of the LORD.”

Moses and Aaron

Israel murmurs against them
→ Scripture says they murmured against YHWH.

Aaron

The people rebel against him
→ Moses says they are gathered against YHWH.

Samuel

Israel rejects him
→ YHWH says, “they have rejected me.”

The prophets

YHWH sends them with his words
→ rejecting them constitutes despising God’s words.

Jesus then employs precisely this biblical principle:

Matthew 10:40

“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

And:

Luke 10:16

“he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

And:

John 13:20

“He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

Finally:

John 5:23

“He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

There is therefore no need to invent a new mechanism for John 5:23.

The mechanism already exists throughout Scripture:

God authorises his representative.

The representative bears God’s commission.

Therefore one’s response to that representative constitutes a response to the God who commissioned him.

Jesus occupies the supreme position within this biblical pattern. He is not merely another prophet or servant. He is the beloved Son and heir to whom the Father has committed judgment and given extraordinary authority.

But the greatness of the representative does not change the nature of representation.

---

What John 5:23 Does Not Say

We can therefore return to some of the claims frequently attached to this passage.

John 5:23 does not say:

“The Son possesses the same divine essence as the Father.”

It does not say:

“The Son and Father are the same God.”

It does not say:

“The Son must receive divine worship because he is ontologically equal with the Father.”

It does not say:

“The Son possesses the same substance as the Father.”

Nor does the Greek word timaō itself mean:

“worship as deity.”

These propositions have to be supplied from outside the verse.

A Trinitarian may believe that other biblical passages establish these theological propositions and then interpret John 5:23 accordingly. But that is fundamentally different from claiming that John 5:23 itself teaches them.

The distinction is important.

The actual argument of the passage is:

The Father commits judgment to the Son

↓

therefore all should honour the Son

↓

failure to honour the Son dishonours

↓

“the Father which hath sent him.”

That explanation is already present in the text.

---

The Hidden Premises in the “Jesus Must Be God” Argument

The common argument can be represented as follows:

The Son must be honoured kathōs the Father

↓

Kathōs means absolutely identical honour

↓

“Honour” means divine worship

↓

identical divine worship requires identical divine essence

↓

therefore Father and Son are the same God.

The problem is that the intermediate propositions are not stated in John 5:23.

By contrast, John’s own explanation requires no such additions:

The Father sent the Son

↓

The Son comes in the Father’s name

↓

The Son speaks the Father’s words

↓

The Son performs the Father’s works

↓

The Father gives the Son authority and judgment

↓

Therefore the Son must be honoured

↓

Honouring the Son honours the Father who sent him.

This explanation emerges directly from John’s Gospel and is rooted in an already-established Old Testament pattern.

---

Honour Given to the Son Ultimately Honours the Father

This principle is not confined to John.

Paul describes the extraordinary exaltation of Jesus:

Philippians 2:9–11

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

This is among the most exalted descriptions of Jesus in the New Testament.

Every knee bows.

Every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as Lord.

Yet Paul explicitly states where this ultimately terminates:

“to the glory of God the Father.”

God exalts his Son.

The Son consequently receives extraordinary honour.

And that honour glorifies the God who exalted him.

That fits remarkably well with John 5:23.

Honouring God’s Son does not compete with honouring God.

It honours God precisely because Jesus is God’s Son, God’s Messiah, God’s appointed judge, and the one whom God sent in his own name and authority.

---

Conclusion

John 5:23 unquestionably presents Jesus as worthy of extraordinary honour:

“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”

This should neither be diminished nor explained away.

The Greek kathōs establishes a genuine correspondence between honouring the Son and honouring the Father. However, correspondence does not by itself establish ontological identity, as John’s own use of kathōs elsewhere demonstrates.

Likewise, the Greek verb timaō means to honour, value, esteem, or treat as worthy. It is regularly applied to human beings and is not itself a technical term meaning “worship as God.”

Most importantly, John provides his own explanation for why the Son must receive such honour.

The Father sent him.

The Father committed judgment to him.

The Father gave him authority.

The Father gave him works to accomplish.

Jesus comes in his Father’s name.

He speaks his Father’s words.

He performs his Father’s works.

Consequently, a person cannot claim genuinely to honour the Father while rejecting the Son whom the Father personally commissioned.

Nor is this principle unique to Jesus’ statements in John’s Gospel.

The Old Testament had already established that God can place extraordinary honour and authority upon his appointed representatives. Joshua was magnified by YHWH and feared as Moses had been feared. Solomon received royal majesty from YHWH, was bowed before alongside YHWH, and even sat upon “the throne of the LORD.” Israel’s murmuring against Moses and Aaron was described as murmuring against YHWH. Korah’s rebellion against God’s appointed servants was rebellion against YHWH. Most strikingly, when Israel rejected Samuel, YHWH declared:

“they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.”

Samuel was not YHWH.

Moses was not YHWH.

Joshua was not YHWH.

Solomon was not YHWH.

Yet Scripture repeatedly treats the response given to God’s authorised representative as a response ultimately directed toward God himself.

Jesus then teaches exactly this representative principle:

“He that receiveth you receiveth me.”

And:

“he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

Likewise:

“he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

And:

“He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.”

The principle is consistent:

Receiving the representative receives the sender.

Rejecting the representative rejects the sender.

Honouring the representative honours the sender.

Dishonouring the representative dishonours the sender.

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants illustrates precisely this relationship. The owner sends his beloved son and expects the tenants to “reverence” him. Their rejection of the son constitutes rebellion against the father who sent him. Yet the son is not thereby the owner himself. He is the owner’s uniquely beloved Son and heir.

Jesus occupies the supreme position within this biblical representative pattern. He is greater than Moses, Samuel, Joshua, Solomon, or any prophet. He is God’s beloved Son, Messiah, heir, and appointed judge, to whom the Father has committed extraordinary authority.

But the greatness of the representative does not transform representation into ontological identity.

The passage does not say that Jesus must be honoured because he possesses the same divine essence as the Father. It does not say that Father and Son constitute the same God. It does not define the honour as identical divine worship.

Those are theological conclusions that must be argued independently.

What the passage itself tells us is that the Father has entrusted judgment to his Son “that all men should honour the Son,” and that refusing this honour constitutes dishonouring “the Father which hath sent him.”

John’s own explanation is therefore fundamentally relational and representative:

Honour the Son whom God has sent, and in honouring God’s Son, you honour the God who sent him.

John 5:23 is therefore a profound declaration of the honour and authority bestowed upon God’s Son. But it is not, by itself, a declaration that the Son is the God who sent him.

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere