John 5:23 — “… honor the Son, just as they honor the Father”: given, not essential honor
“That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father” is traditionally taken as proof of consubstantiality: equal honor presupposes equal essence. Read in the Socinian way, the verse says the opposite — the honor of the Son is a given honor: the Father “has given all judgment to the Son, that” he may be honored. What is given and conferred for a purpose does not have its origin in itself. The “just as” (kathôs) compares the manner of honoring, not the metaphysical ground; and the closing clause holds that the honor of the Son runs back to the Father, “who sent him.” Sozzini emphatically affirms the worship of Christ — but as the honor of a creature exalted by God, to whom God has imparted his honor.
“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.”
John 5:22–23
Context
John 5 unfolds from the healing at the pool of Bethesda (vv. 1–9) and the Sabbath controversy (vv. 10–18). The charge of the Jews is that Jesus was making himself “equal with God” (v. 18). The great discourse of vv. 19–47 is Jesus’ answer — and it does not begin with a claim to consubstantiality, but with its express rejection: “The Son can do nothing of his own accord” (v. 19). All the authority of the Son is in what follows described as received.
The immediate context of vv. 22–23 is the authority to judge: the Father “has given all judgment to the Son” (v. 22), and v. 27 grounds this transfer in the fact “that he is the Son of Man.” The honor demanded in v. 23 thus stands within the horizon of a delegated office, one bound precisely to Christ’s humanity and messianic mission — not to an eternal divinity.
John consistently frames the Father–Son relationship as one of sending and giving: the Father “gives,” “shows,” “sends”; the Son “receives,” “does the will of him who sent him” (v. 30). The closing clause of v. 23b – “who sent him” – binds the honor of the Son back to this logic of sending: the one sent is honored because and insofar as he represents the sender.
In the history of its reception, v. 23 became a stock proof-text of early-church Christology: the “equal honor” (iso-timía) was taken as evidence of equal nature. Yet this inference from honor to essence is not laid down in the Johannine text itself; it is brought to it. The verse speaks of honor, of gift, and of sending — not of essence, substance, or generation.
The Socinian Core Thesis
The Socinian reading takes seriously the governing verb of the passage: given. The authority to judge is “given” to the Son, and the honor is the consequence willed by God of this gift (“that”). An honor that has its legal ground in a divine conferral is by definition a derived honor, not an honor proper to one’s essence. God himself has no honor that is given to him; he is the source of all honor. Whoever receives honor is not the first from whom it proceeds.
The “just as” (kathôs) regularly designates, in Johannine usage, an analogy of manner, not an identity of being. “That they may all be one, just as we are one” (John 17:21–22) does not demand an essential unity of the believers with God. Likewise v. 23 does not demand that the Son be honored as the same God, but that he be honored with the same earnestness, the same sincerity, the same devotion with which one honors the Father — in the rank that belongs to him.
From this Sozzini draws not the conclusion of diminishing Christ’s honor, but of grounding it. Against the non-adorants (Ferenc Dávid, Christian Francken) he expressly defends the religious worship of Christ: God can impart his honor to whomever he wills, and he has imparted it to Christ. John 5:23 is therefore no objection to Socinian Christology, but its confirmation: the Son is to be honored — as the Lord exalted by God, not as the most high God by nature.
The closing clause completes the movement: “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” The honor of the Son runs toward the Father and ends in him. This is the logic of biblical representation: whoever honors the one sent honors the sender (John 13:20); whoever despises the one sent despises the sender. Christ is honored as the perfect representative of the Father — and precisely for that reason not in his place, but on his commission.
The honor of the Son is a given honor: “that” he may be honored, the Father gave him the judgment. What is conferred is derived; and the closing clause lets the honor of the Son run back to the Father, “who sent him.” The same manner of honoring — not the same essence.
Exegesis: Key Terms and Word Field
Four linguistic observations decide the interpretation of John 5:22–23:
timáô / timê — “to honor” / “honor”
The verse uses the verb timáô, the ordinary word for showing honor — the same one used for honoring parents (Matt 15:4; Eph 6:2), the king (1 Pet 2:17: “Honor the emperor”), and widows (1 Tim 5:3). It is not the exclusive vocabulary of cultic divine worship (latreía, latreúein), which in the NT is reserved for God alone (Matt 4:10).
This choice of words carries weight. Had John wished to express the thesis “to the Son is owed the worship due to God alone,” the vocabulary of latreúein would have lain ready to hand. Instead we have timáô — a word that spans an entire scale of honorings, from civil respect to the highest veneration. The degree of honor is determined by the “just as the Father”; but the kind of honor remains that of a received, conferred dignity.
In the OT too, those appointed by God receive timê without being God: Joseph (Gen 41), Moses, who is “made as God” before Pharaoh (Exod 7:1), the judges (Ps 82:6). The Bible knows a graded honor conferred by God, one that precisely does not raise the honored into the Godhead.
kathôs — “just as,” “even as”
The particle kathôs (“just as,” “even as”) is in the Gospel of John a key word of analogy. “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21); “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:21). In none of these cases does kathôs mean identity of essence — the apostles are not sent as the eternal Son is, the believers are not one as the divine unity is.
Kathôs establishes a correspondence of manner, not an equation of natures. Applied to v. 23: the Son is to be honored with the same earnestness, the same undivided sincerity with which one honors the Father. To infer equal essence from this would be to load the particle with a burden it bears nowhere else. The comparative particle compares; it does not identify.
dédôken — “has given”
The perfect of dídômi dominates the whole passage: to the Son the judgment is “given” (v. 22), to him it is granted “to have life in himself” (v. 26), to him is “given authority to execute judgment” (v. 27). What is given is received; the recipient is not the origin. A bestowed authority is a derived authority.
Here lies the theological point: God has no power given to him; he is the source of all power. Where Scripture says that something has been “given” to the Son, it thereby testifies that the Son is not the first, unbegotten author, but the one to whom the Father has granted a share in his rule and honor. The honor of v. 23 is the telos of this gift (“that”), not an essential property independent of it.
ho pémpsas — “who sent him”
The verse ends with a precise determination of the Father: “who sent him” (ho pémpsas autón). The formula of sending is omnipresent in the Fourth Gospel and always directed: the Father sends, the Son is the one sent. The sender is greater than the one sent (John 13:16; 14:28).
With this the honor of the Son is from the outset determined as representative honor. According to the Jewish maxim of agency (shaliach), the one sent is reckoned equal to the sender because he represents him: “Whoever receives you receives me” (Matt 10:40); “whoever receives me receives him who sent me” (John 13:20). The honor of the authorized agent is the honor of the one who authorized him — and ends in him.
Comparison of Interpretations
Reference to Fausto Sozzini
Sozzini treats John 5:23 not as an opponent, but as a resolute defender of the worship of Christ. In his disputation against Christian Francken — who denied the exalted Christ any religious honor — Sozzini maintains that God can impart his honor to whomever he wills, and that he has indeed imparted it to Christ. The decisive distinction is that between the proper glory of God, which he gives to no one, and an imparted honor, which he freely confers.
And although the distance between God and the creature is the greatest of all, it is yet not necessary that the difference between the honor of God and that of the creature be equally great. For God can impart his honor to whomever he wills; this he has shown to Christ, who is worthy of such honor and whom Holy Scripture does not command us to venerate without the weightiest reasons.
Fausto Sozzini, Disputation on the Honor of Christ (against Christian Francken)
Sozzini applies this principle directly to our passage. Christ himself, he explains, “testifies that the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, and this so that all may honor the Son just as the Father (John 5:22–23).” The equal honor is here expressly bound to the gift of judgment: the Father conferred it, “so that” the Son might be honored. An honor so grounded is imparted, not an honor proper to one’s essence.
The traditional objection from Isaiah 42:8 — “My glory I give to no other” — Sozzini refutes by a fine distinction. There is a glory that God never surrenders: “The proper glory of God, however, is that he himself be acknowledged as the first author of all good things, and that all worship refer to him and come to rest in him. This glory God has certainly not given to Christ.” What God gives to Christ is a share in his glory, one that remains undiminished to himself.
So the apparent contradiction dissolves: Isaiah speaks of a glory that God would give in such a way that it would no longer be his — just this God never does. The honor of the Son, by contrast, is a shared honor, in which the Father is preserved as the first author and goal of all worship. Sozzini thus preserves at once the full worship of Christ and the inalienable uniqueness of the Father — against Francken, who denied the former, and against the orthodoxy that blurred the latter.
Overview of the writings of Sozzini
Logical Arguments
From John 5:22–23 the following arguments arise against the inference from equal honor to equal essence:
- Argument from the gift. The authority to judge is “given” to the Son (v. 22). What is given is received; the recipient is not the origin. God has no authority conferred upon him. A bestowed authority and the honor that flows from it are therefore derived, not proper to one’s essence.
- Argument from the purpose clause. The equal honor is formulated not as an independent fact but as the purpose of the transfer of judgment: “that all may honor the Son.” The Father confers the authority so that the Son may be honored. The honor is thus subordinate to the divine decree, not derived from an eternal nature.
- Argument from the word field. The verse uses timáô (“to honor”), not latreúein (the worship reserved for God alone, Matt 4:10). The same verb applies to the honoring of parents and kings (Eph 6:2; 1 Pet 2:17). An exclusively divine honor would have required a different vocabulary.
- Argument from kathôs. The “just as” designates in John an analogy of manner, not identity of being (John 17:21–22: “one, just as we are one”; John 20:21: “as the Father has sent me”). To infer equal essence overloads the comparative particle.
- Argument from the closing clause. “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (v. 23b). The honor of the Son runs toward the Father and ends in him. The Son is the one sent; the sender remains the first. The honoring is representative, not coordinate and equal in essence.
- Argument from the grounding of judgment (v. 27). The Father gave the Son the power to judge, “because he is the Son of Man.” The authority is thus bound to Christ’s humanity and messianic office, not to an eternal divinity. An office conferred for the sake of his humanity is no indication of consubstantiality.
- Argument from the logic of representation. According to biblical agency, whoever honors the one sent honors the sender (John 13:20; Matt 10:40). In the OT, Moses (Exod 7:1), the judges (Ps 82:6), and the anointed king (1 Chr 29:20) receive high honor conferred by God, without being God. Christ is the perfect, yet conferred, representative.
- Argument from the harmony with Isaiah. God’s proper glory — to be acknowledged as the first author of all good things and the goal of all worship — he gives to no one (Isa 42:8). An imparted honor, however, he freely shares: with man (Ps 8:5), with those called (1 Pet 5:10). John 5:23 speaks of this shared glory, not of that inalienable one.
Biblical Cross-References
The following passages clarify in what sense equal honor is due to the Son:
John 5:26–27 — the gift of judgment is bound to his humanity
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” Three times “given,” and the ground reads: “because he is the Son of Man.” The authority, whose consequence is the honor of v. 23, depends on Christ’s messianic humanity, not on an eternal nature.
Philippians 2:9–11 — exalted, to the glory of God the Father
God has “highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,” that every knee should bow — and all this “to the glory of God the Father.” The universal worship of Christ is the fruit of an exaltation (gift) and ends in the Father. Exactly the movement of John 5:23: a given honor that runs back to the Father.
John 14:28 — “the Father is greater than I”
In the same Gospel and the same farewell logic, Jesus confesses the superiority of the Father. Whoever confesses the sender as greater cannot have meant by the “equal honor” of 5:23 a consubstantiality. Cf. the entry on John 14:28.
1 Chronicles 29:20 — they worshiped the LORD and the king
“And they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD and the king.” One and the same gesture is directed to God and to his anointed — without two gods arising. The honor shown to the anointed is the honor of the God who appointed him. A model for the representative honor of Christ.
Isaiah 42:8 — “my glory I give to no other”
The classic objection. Sozzini answers with the distinction: God gives his proper glory (as first author and goal of all worship) to no one; an imparted honor, however, he freely confers. John 5:23 speaks of the latter, not the former. Cf. Isaiah 44:6.
Revelation 5:13 — to him on the throne and to the Lamb
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor.” Two distinct recipients of honor; the Lamb is honored as the one “who was slain” (v. 12), that is, for the sake of his saving work. The honor of Christ is the honor of the exalted creature, beside the one enthroned, not identical with him.
John 13:20 — whoever receives the one sent receives the sender
“Whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” The chain sender–sent–further-sent shows the pervasive logic of representation in which v. 23 stands: the honor of the one sent is the honor of the sender.
Objections and Socinian Replies
Objection 1: “‘Just as the Father’ can only mean exactly equal, hence divine, honor.”
If the Son is to be honored just as the Father, then with divine honor. But divine honor is due to God alone. Therefore the Son is God.
The inference confuses the degree of veneration with its metaphysical ground. Kathôs (“just as”) consistently determines in John the manner, not the essence: “that they may be one, just as we are one” (17:21) demands no essential unity of the believers.
The verse itself names the ground of the honor: the Father “has given all judgment to the Son, that” he may be honored. The honor is the consequence of a gift, not of a nature. A received honor is by its kind derived, even if in the earnestness of veneration it equals the honor of the Father.
The closing clause makes it fully precise: the honor of the Son ends in the Father, “who sent him.” Whoever honors the authorized agent with full earnestness thereby honors the sender — without the one sent and the sender being one essence.
“Equal honor” with differing rank is no exception in Scripture: Israel “worshiped the LORD and the king” in one gesture (1 Chr 29:20), without deifying the king.
Objection 2: “Isaiah 42:8 — God gives his glory to no other.”
God says expressly: ‘My glory I give to no other.’ If Christ receives the same honor as the Father, he must be God himself — otherwise God would break his own word.
Here Sozzini’s distinction is decisive: there is a proper glory of God — to be acknowledged as the first author of all good things and the goal of all worship — and this God gives to no one. And there is an imparted honor, a share in his glory, which God freely confers.
Isaiah speaks of the first: of a glory that would be surrendered in such a way that it no longer belonged to the giver. Just this God never does. The honor of the Son, by contrast, is shared, not surrendered: the Father remains the first and the goal.
That God shares glory without losing it is broadly attested in Scripture: to man in creation glory is conferred (Ps 8:5), and God has “called us to his eternal glory in Christ” (1 Pet 5:10). Shared glory does not contradict Isa 42:8.
John 5:23 itself holds fast to the Father as source: “who sent him.” The honor of the Son is thus precisely not one taken from the Father, but one given by him and running back to him.
Objection 3: “Only God may be religiously venerated; but the Son is venerated.”
Religious veneration is due to God alone (Matt 4:10). If Christ is religiously venerated, he must be God. John 5:23 attests this veneration.
The verse uses timáô (“to honor”), not the vocabulary of the latreía owed to God alone (Matt 4:10). On this ground alone the equation “honor of Christ = worship of God” is not linguistically covered.
On the Socinian view the worship of Christ is by no means denied — on the contrary. Sozzini defends it expressly against the non-adorants: God can impart his honor to whomever he wills, and has imparted it to Christ. The dispute is not about whether to venerate, but about its ground.
This ground is the exaltation: God has “made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36) and given him the name, “that … to the glory of God the Father” every knee should bow (Phil 2:9–11). The one venerated is the exalted Lord, and the veneration ends in the Father.
Christ is therefore truly venerated — but as the mediator appointed by God, not as the most high God by nature. This is no diminishment, but the precise form that the verse (given honor, referred to the Father) prefigures.
Objection 4: “Given honor for a creature would be idolatry.”
If Christ’s honor is only conferred, then one honors a creature as God — and that is idolatry, against the first commandment.
Idolatry is the veneration of what God has not appointed, in God’s place. Here, however, God himself commands the honor of the Son (“that all may honor the Son”) and orders it toward himself (“who sent him”). An honor commanded by God and referred to God is not idolatry, but obedience.
The OT knows this structure: Israel “worshiped the LORD and the king” (1 Chr 29:20); the angel of the LORD, who bears God’s name, receives honor because he represents God. Whoever honors the one sent by God honors God (John 13:20).
Idolatry would arise only if one set Christ in the place of the Father and let the honor end in him. Precisely this v. 23b prevents: the honor runs through the Son toward the Father. The Son is honored not instead of the Father, but on his commission.
The Socinian position thus preserves both of the things that the idolatry argument tears apart: the full, commanded veneration of Christ and the inalienable uniqueness of the Father as first source and final goal.
Objection 5: “A merely exalted man does not deserve the same honor as the Father.”
If Christ is only an exalted creature, it is excessive to honor him just as the Father. The demand of v. 23 makes sense only if he is true God.
The measure of honor is set by the rank conferred by God, and this rank is unique: Christ is exalted “far above all rule and authority and power” (Eph 1:21), to him is “all authority in heaven and on earth” given (Matt 28:18). No other creature has this rank.
Precisely because the dignity of a creature can, by God’s will, “come nearest” to the dignity of God — so Sozzini’s argument against Francken — it is not excessive but commanded to honor the one so exalted with the highest earnestness.
The honor is precisely not self-acquired, but a response to Christ’s obedience unto death: “therefore God has highly exalted him” (Phil 2:9). That God so exalts an obedient one is no argument for his eternal deity, but for God’s rewarding faithfulness.
The same manner of veneration thus follows not from equal essence, but from the highest rank conferred by God — and it honors in the end him “who sent him.”
Theological Consequences
Related Verses
The following passages support, deepen, or contrast the interpretation presented here:
- John 14:28 — “The Father is greater than I” — the superiority of the sender in the same Gospel.
- John 10:30 — “I and the Father are one” — unity of will and working, not of essence.
- Philippians 2:6–7 — exaltation and the giving of the name “to the glory of God the Father” — given honor, referred to the Father.
- John 17:3 — the Father as the “only true God,” beside whom Christ is the one sent.
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 — “one God, the Father” — one Lord, Jesus Christ; a clear assignment of source and mediator.
- Isaiah 44:6 — the LORD the only one and the first — background of the distinction proper / imparted glory.
Summary
John 5:22–23 is no proof of consubstantiality, but is formulated against its very presupposition: the honor of the Son is a given one. The Father “has given all judgment to the Son, that” he may be honored — the honor is the consequence of a gift and a decree, not the expression of an eternal nature. The “just as” (kathôs) compares the manner of veneration, not the essence, and the closing clause lets the honor of the Son run back to the Father, “who sent him.”
The classic objection from Isaiah 42:8 Sozzini refutes by the distinction between proper and imparted glory: the former — to be acknowledged as the first author and goal of all worship — God gives to no one; the latter he freely shares, with men, with angels, and above all with the exalted Christ. Shared glory does not contradict the inalienable uniqueness of the Father.
Understood in the Socinian way, the verse confirms the worship of Christ instead of undermining it: the Son is to be honored with full earnestness — as the judge appointed by God and the exalted Lord, whose honor God himself has commanded and which finds its goal in the Father. The same manner of veneration, a different rank in essence: that is the precise form of John 5:23.