In 2017, D. A. Carson dubbed John 5:26 the “Crux Interpretum for Eternal Generation” (Sanders and Swain, eds., Retrieving Eternal Generation, 79–97). It is difficult to disagree with Carson—if, in fact, it can be established that the Father’s bestowal of ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ (“life in himself,” NIV) is a reference to a paternal grant of divine aseity to the Son. This presentation revives and refines Robert Reymond’s unease with an ontological interpretation of John 5:26 (Systematic Theology, 324ff) and suggests a more economic one.
The argument against a divine grant of aseity in John 5 is principally twofold. (1) Theologically, the idea that the Son depends upon the Father for his aseity is paradoxical. If one person depends upon another for aseity, then by definition it cannot be a se. This observation leads, then, to (2) a contextual examination of John 5:16–27 for alternate interpretations—an examination that yields a more utile understanding: just as the Father grants to the Son peculiar authority to judge because of his theanthropic experience, so also the Father grants the Son peculiar authority to dispense life.
These findings do not necessarily upset the traditional doctrine of eternal generation, but can contribute to existing discomfort with the concept that persists in Protestant life and points to the need for more precise definition (see, e.g., discussions in Calvin’s Institutes, 1.13.23–29; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology,1:468ff; Feinberg, No One Like Him, 488ff; John Frame, Doctrine of God, 707ff).