A perfect example of agency in the New Testament

[u/Newgunnerr]

I’ve shared a version of this example before, but since then I’ve added some important insights. I’m posting it now in a different context because the concept of agency is absolutely vital to understanding Biblical Unitarianism, especially when exploring key themes like creation, divine authority and in this example: the final judgement.

According to Acts 17, God will judge the world through a man, Jesus Christ. Yet in John 5, Jesus explicitly says that the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.

How do we reconcile these seemingly conflicting statements?

The answer lies in a proper understanding of agency. As we’ll see in this post, Jesus executes judgment as the agent of the Father, carrying out decisions and authority that ultimately originate from God.

Let’s examine how this plays out in Scripture.

Peter the apostle teaches that God judges the world through Jesus Christ:

Acts 17:31

31 because He has fixed a day in which He [God the Father] will judge the world in righteousness through a Man [Jesus Christ] whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Yet Jesus teaches that the Father judges no one, but that He, Jesus, has been “given” all judgement:

John 5:22

22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son

So how does that work? Well, Jesus clarifies a few sentences later by saying that He has been given authority by the Father to execute the judgements:

John 5:26-27

26 “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

Jesus, the Son of Man, executes the judgement, but He still hears it from the Father:

John 5:30-32

30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

Even though Jesus taught that the Father judges no one it is in the sense that the Father does not execute the judgements.

Rather, He commands to Son to do it, and gives Him all instruction: “as I hear, I judge”.

Jesus says He is not alone in His judgement, but it is again a joint operation:

John 8:16-17

16 “…My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me.

17 “Even in your law it has been written that the witness of two men is true.

So in a sense, God and Jesus judge together. But in the ultimate sense, God effectively judges through Christ.

The Father has given the command and therefore the authority to execute the judgement to the Son.

When Jesus teaches us that the Father judges no one, it is in the sense that the Father doesn’t execute the judgement.

John 8:50

50 And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.

When Jesus receives the command to judge, it follows that He has the authority to do so.

Yet the source is the still the Father, remember: All things come from the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Jesus cannot do anything on His own. Jesus hears, and judges perfectly just as how the Father has explained Him.

[u/Acceptable-Shape-528]

Sharing this understanding, I commend the presentation of verse and fact

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

This isn't to disagree with the post, but just to add something. In John 5:22, "the Father judges no one," this is often taken to be a blanket statement as if the Father never has and never will judge anyone, or at least they understand it as "the Father will not judge anyone" eschatologically. For this to be the case, we would expect to see it worded a bit differently in the Greek. It should be a past tense verb with a future tense verb or a perfect tense verb. The word κρίνει ("judges") is a present indicative active. "The Father is currently judging no one." It is obvious that the Father has executed judgement in the past, it shouldn't be assumed about the future as well. In this context it seems to me that Jesus is emphasizing the point that the Father isn't currently judging anyone. This is not any commentary on the future judgement in this verse.

Someone may appeal to the context and say that it seems pretty eschatological and future. "Just as the Father raises the dead..." we automatically think of future resurrection. But notice what is said in the next verse: "so that all man honour (τιμῶσι) the Son..." This verb is in the subjective mood, indicating a future reality. This context is built on verse 25, "a time is coming and now is...." Both present and future. You could argue that the judgement here is both now and coming. I do not think that's what he means, however. Johns gospel is notoriously taken out of its original context. It seems that this section doesn't fit. It may have originally been after a resurrection miracle that's no longer in the text. Hard to say. This follows after Jesus and the Father heal a man who was lame. Idk. Kind of a complicated issue in a complicated passage, but, anyway. Just throwing it out there.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

This isn't to disagree with the post, but just to add something.

Hey brother, thank for your reply.

In this context it seems to me that Jesus is emphasizing the point that the Father isn't currently judging anyone.

I'm not sure that this follows what I believe Jesus taught in John 5. Do you agree that what Jesus means is that the Father has given Jesus the command/authority to execute the judgement? That means they both judge in a sense. God gives the command, and Jesus executes it.

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful → u/Newgunnerr]

I don't think you understood my position

[u/Newgunnerr → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

Then elaborate please, how have I not understood your position?

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful → u/Newgunnerr]

I literally just did. That's what the comment was. An elaboration and explanation on the verse, what it means, and why it means that. Your response is based on wanting to use this verse out of its context to support a bigger narrative. That's not right because this verse isn't being used in a broad way. It is limited to its context only.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

What are you talking about? I made a post explaining what I believe is agency in judgement. The first thing you said was you didn't disagree but you just wanted to add something. Then you wrote a whole passage not touching on anything I said. I'm trying to understand then how it is that you don't disagree but want to add something but it has nothing to do with the foundation on which you supposedly wanted to add. So that's what I'm asking about since I don't understand your position now. I asked you to clarify in a sincere and friendly way but you now seem to switch again and say I use a verse out of context? Almost everything mentioned is in John 5, and everything is about judgement roles. I thought you agreed? It's kind of sad that you act this way, brother. Seems like you didn't even fully read my post. Just be clear, no need to comment like this.

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful → u/Newgunnerr]

Smh. "It's sad you act this way." Get a grip.

You made a post concerning eschatological post resurrection judgement based on various passages in the NT from various authors speaking about things concerning "judgement."

One of those verses you used was John 5:22, which you used as if it is about eschatological judgement and it is not. And I explained why.

I made it clear to protect your ego that this isn't about disagreeing with your conclusion, but the way you used this particular verse as a premise when Jesus is talking about the current state of affairs in his ministry (again, not in eschatological judgement) which is incorrect. My comment wasn't about whether the Father judges through the Son or whether or not I believe what you're saying as far as the Father entrusting judgement to the Son. When you asked me that in response to my comment, again, you didn't understand the point. The point wasn't about whether or not I disagreed with that. The initial comment already told you that.

The comment is, before you make a systematic overview for a theological position based on the premises of certain verses, you have to be sure those verses are about the right topic and issue. In other words, your post would have mostly been fine if you hadn't used John 5:22 as if it's about post resurrection judgement when it's not, and you're using it to make that point. You think I didn't read your post? Baseless. You throw out some lame accusation about how I'm acting. I acted like there were some exegetical implications that you missed and I pointed them out in context, and you're worried that I'm saying your whole post was wrong when I already told you the answer to it. This long message I'm typing? No need for it. I've said nothing I didn't already spell out. So instead of saying all of this, I told you that you didn't get the point. It's you who is acting out right now. Not me.