The Father “has given” judgment to the Son. Given, not shared by nature. Isn’t that delegation, and doesn’t delegation imply the delegate is subordinate?

The verse does say given, and John’s Gospel consistently portrays the Son as receiving from the Father; the Trinity affirms that, which is what eternally begotten means. What the verse adds is the purpose clause: that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Delegated agents in Jewish thought are never to be honored just as God is honored, because that would be idolatry. The given language and the equal honor language sit in the same sentence, and the tension between them is the central data of this case, not something to explain away.