John 5:18

Joh 5:18. Διὰ τοῦτο) on account of this, on account of which they ought to have been satisfied. They turn His very defence into a ground for greater accusation.—μᾶλλον, the more) There is a gradation: lately they were persecuting Him; now further they seek to kill Him.—ἔλυε, He was breaking) by act, Joh 5:8, “Take up thy bed;” and by word, Joh 5:17, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”—ἴδιον· ἴσον, His own: equal) His own Father’s own Son: Rom 8:32, “He that spared not His own Son.” The Only-begotten alone can say, My Father: of the Only-begotten alone the Father saith, My Son. Not only has Jesus most frequently repeated the names of Father and Son, but even has mentioned the intimate equality and unity of the Father and Himself: and I [work]: Joh 5:17, We are in unity, etc.; ch. Joh 10:30; Joh 10:38, “I and My Father are one;—the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” All these declarations conjointly the Jews assailed.—ἔλεγε, was saying) In reality Jesus did say that which the Jews were now supposing He said;[105] but that they, sad to say, esteemed as blasphemy.

[105] As for instance two men, of whom the one is father of the other, are of an equal nature: so that One, whose own Father peculiarly the supreme GOD is, and who is own Son peculiarly of the supreme GOD, is equal to GOD.—V. g.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_5:18. Διὰ τοῦτο] because He said this, and ὅτι as in Joh_5:16. Apologiam ipsam in majus crimen vertunt, Bengel.

μᾶλλον] neither potius nor amplius (Bengel: modo persequebantur, nunc amplius quaerunt occidere); but, as according to its position it necessarily belongs to ἐζήτ., magis, they redoubled their endeavours. It has a reference to ἐδίωκον in Joh_5:16, so far as this general expression includes the desire to kill. Comp. for the ζητεῖν ἀποκτεῖναι, Joh_7:1; Joh_7:19; Joh_7:25, Joh_8:37; Joh_8:40, Joh_11:53.

πατέρα ἴδιον, κ.τ.λ.] patrem proprium. Comp. Rom_8:32. They rightly interpreted ὁ πατήρ μου as signifying peculiar and personal fatherhood, and not what is true also with reference to others, sed id misere pro blasphemia habuerunt, Bengel. Comp. Joh_10:33.

ἴσον ἑαυτὸν, κ.τ.λ.] not an explanation, nor exactly (B. Crusius) a proof of what precedes, which the words themselves of Jesus, ὁ πατήρ μου, supply; but what Jesus says of Gods relation to Him (πατέρα ἴδιον), declares at the same time, as to the other side of the relationship, what He makes Himself out to be in His relation to God. We must translate: since He (at the same time) puts Himself on the same level with God i.e. by that κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι of Joh_5:17, wherein He, as the Son, claims for Himself equality of right and freedom with the Father. Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 133. The thought of claiming equality of essence (Php_2:6), however, lies in the background as an indistinct notion in the minds of His opponents.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ver. 18. “For this reason the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

The διὰ τοῦτο (for this reason), is explained by the ὅτι (because), which follows. We have seen, that according to the genuine text in Joh 5:16, the intention to kill Jesus had not yet been ascribed to His enemies; it was only implicitly contained in the word ἐδίωκον (they persecuted). This suffices to explain the μᾶλλον (yet more) of Joh 5:18. Let us notice here the singular exaggerations of Reuss:“Let one read,” he says, “the discourse, Joh 5:18 ff., many times interrupted by the phrase: They persecute him, they seek to kill him. According to the common and purely historical exegesis, we reach the picture of the Jews running after Jesus in the streets and pursuing Him with showers of stones” (t. ii., p. 416). The fact is, that the simple historical exegesis, which does not of set purpose go into error, does not find in these expressions: “They persecuted Him” (Joh 5:16), “they sought to kill Him” (Joh 5:18), anything else than the indication of some hostile secret meetings in which the rulers asked themselves, even then, how they could get rid of so dangerous a man. The Synoptics trace back also to this epoch the murderous projects of the adversaries of Jesus (Luk 6:7; Luk 6:11; Mar 3:6; Mat 12:14). The anxious look of John was able to discern the fruit in the germ.— ῎Ελυε, not: He had violated (Ostervald); but (imperfect): He broke, strictly: dissolved.His example and His principles seemed to annihilate the Sabbath. Besides this first complaint, the declaration of Jesus in Joh 5:17 had just furnished them a second—that of blaspheming. It was, first of all, the word μοῦ (myFather), which shocked them because of the special and exclusive sense which this expression assumed in the mouth of Jesus. If He had said Our Father, the Jews would have accepted the saying without displeasure (Joh 8:41). It was, in addition, the practical consequences which he seemed to draw from the term, making the working of God the standard of His own, and thus making Himself equal with God.

The 17th verse contains the primal idea of the whole following discourse: the relation of subordination between the activity of the Father and that of the Son. Joh 5:19-20, set forth this idea in a more detailed way; in Joh 5:19, the relation of the Son’s action to that of the Father; in Joh 5:20, the relation of the Father’s action to that of the Son. We might say: the Son who puts himself with fidelity at the service of the Father (Joh 5:19), and the Father who condescends to direct the activity of the Son (Joh 5:20).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, his only and no man’s else, which they gather by that, that he saith, (And I work) applying this word (work) to himself, which is proper to God, and therefore maketh himself equal to God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

God was his Father--literally, "His own [or peculiar] Father," (as in Rom 8:32). The addition is their own, but a very proper one.

making himself equal with God--rightly gathering this to be His meaning, not from the mere words "My Father," but from His claim of right to act as His Father did in the like high sphere, and by the same law of ceaseless activity in that sphere. And as, instead of instantly disclaiming any such meaning--as He must have done if it was false--He positively sets His seal to it in the following verses, merely explaining how consistent such claim was with the prerogatives of His Father, it is beyond all doubt that we have here an assumption of peculiar personal Sonship, or participation in the Father's essential nature.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 18. Making himself equal with God.] This the Jews understood from the preceding verse: nor did they take a wrong meaning out of our Lord's words; for he plainly stated that, whatever was the Father's work, his was the same; thus showing that He and the Father were ONE. They had now found out two pretenses to take away his life: one was that he had broken the Sabbath - ελυε, dissolved, as they pretended, the obligation of keeping it holy. The other was that he was guilty of blasphemy, in making himself equal to God: for both which crimes, a man, according to the law, must suffer death. See Nu 15:32; Le 24:11, Le 24:14, Le 24:16.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

18. For this reason, therefore, the Jews sought the more to slay him. This defense was so far from allaying their fury that it even enraged them the more. Nor was he unacquainted with their malignity and wickedness and hardened obstinacy, but he intended first to profit a few of his disciples who were then present, and next to make a public display of their incurable malice. By his example he has taught us that we ought never to yield to the fury of wicked men, but should endeavor to maintain the truth of God, so far as necessity demands it, though the whole world should oppose and murmur. Nor is there any reason why the servants of Christ should take it ill that they do not profit all men according to their wish, since Christ himself did not always succeed; and we need not wonder if, in proportion as the glory of God is more fully displayed, Satan rages the more violently in his members and instruments.

Because he not only had broken the Sabbath. When the Evangelist says that the Jews were hostile to Christ, because he had broken the Sabbath, he speaks according to the opinion which they had formed; for I have already showed that the state of the case was quite the contrary. The principal cause of their wrath was, that he called God his Father. And certainly Christ intended that it should be understood that God was his Father in a peculiar sense, so as to distinguish himself from the ordinary rank of other men. He made himself equal to God, when he claimed for himself continuance in working; and Christ is so far from denying this, that he confirms it more distinctly. This refutes the madness of the Arians, who acknowledged that Christ is God, but did not think that he is equal to the Father, as if in the one and simple essence of God there could be any inequality.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(18) For “had broken,” read did He break, and for “His Father,” His own Father. They recognise as beyond doubt what He means by the term “My Father,” and the attribute of ceaseless energy. It was a claim which none other had ever made, that God was in a peculiar sense His own Father. They feel it is a claim to divinity, a “making Himself equal with God.”

The more to kill him.—This implies what is included in the persecution of Joh_5:16. (Comp. Mat_12:14; Mar_3:6; Luk_6:7-11.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Therefore] Better, For this cause. See on Joh_5:16, Joh_6:65, Joh_7:21-22, Joh_8:47, Joh_9:23, Joh_10:17, Joh_12:39, Joh_13:11, Joh_15:19, Joh_16:15.

the more] Shewing that the persecution spoken of in Joh_5:16 included attempts to compass His death. Comp. Mar_3:6. This ‘seeking to kill’ is the blood-red thread which runs through the whole of this section of the Gospel: comp. Joh_7:1; Joh_7:19; Joh_7:25, Joh_8:37; Joh_8:40; Joh_8:59, Joh_10:31, Joh_11:53, Joh_12:10.

had broken] Literally, was loosing or relaxing; i.e. making less binding. As in Joh_5:15, the A. V. puts pluperfect for imperfect.

making himself equal] They fully understand the force of the parallel statements, ‘My Father is working; I am working also.’ ‘Behold,’ says Augustine, ‘the Jews understand what the Arians fail to understand.’ If Arian or Unitarian views were right, would not Christ at once have explained that what they imputed to Him as blasphemy was not in His mind at all? But instead of explaining that He by no means claims equality with the Father, He goes on to reaffirm this equality from other points of view: see especially Joh_5:23.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,.... They were the more desirous to take away his life, and were more bent and resolute upon it, and studied all ways and means how to bring it about;

because he had not only broken the sabbath; as they imagined; for he had not really broken it: and if they had known what that means, that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice, they would have been convinced that he had not broke it by this act of mercy to a poor distressed object:

but said also that God was his Father; his own Father, his proper Father, his Father by nature, and that he was his own Son by nature; and this they gathered from his calling him "my Father", and assuming a co-operation with him in his divine works:

making himself to be equal with God; to be of the same nature, and have the same perfections, and do the same works; for by saying that God was his Father, and so that he was the Son of God, a phrase, which, with them, signified a divine person, as they might learn from Psa 2:7, and by ascribing the same operations to himself, as to his Father, they rightly understood him, that he asserted his equality with him; for had he intended no more, and had they imagined that he intended no more by calling God his Father, than that he was so by creation, as he is to all men, or by adoption, as he was to the Jews, they would not have been so angry with him; for the phrase, in this sense, they used themselves: but they understood him otherwise, as asserting his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father; and therefore to the charge of sabbath breaking, add that of blasphemy, and on account of both, sought to put him to death; for according to their canons, both the sabbath breaker, and the blasphemer, were to be stoned (d).

(d) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Ver. 18. The Jews sought the more] Persecution is (as Calvin wrote to the French king) Evangelii genus, the birth of the gospel, the bad genius, the devil that dogs the gospel. Ecclesia haeres crucis The church clings to the cross, (saith Luther). Truth breeds hatred, saith the heathen, as the fair nymphs did the ill-favoured fauns and satyrs. Veritas odium parit. Ter.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The more to kill him - The answer of Jesus was suited greatly to irritate them. He did not deny what he had done, but he “added” to that what he well knew would highly offend them. That he should claim the right of dispensing with the law, and affirm that, in regard to its observance, he was in the same condition with God, was eminently suited to enrage them, and he doubtless knew that it might endanger his life. We may learn from his answer:

1.That we are not to keep back truth because it may endanger us.

2.That we are not to keep back truth because it will irritate and enrage sinners. The fault is not in the “truth,” but in the “sinner.”

3.That when any one portion of truth enrages hypocrites, they will be enraged the more they hear.

Had broken the sabbath - They supposed he had broken it.

Making himself equal with God - This shows that, in the view of the Jews, the name Son of God, or that calling God his Father, implied equality with God. The Jews were the best interpreters of their own language, and as Jesus did not deny the correctness of their interpretations, it follows that he meant to be so understood. See Joh 10:29-38. The interpretation of the Jews was a very natural and just one. He not only said that God was his Father, but he said that he had the same right to work on the Sabbath that God had; that by the same authority, and in the same manner, he could dispense with the obligation of the day. They had now two pretences for seeking to kill him - one for making himself equal with God, which they considered blasphemy, and the other for violating the Sabbath. For each of these the law denounced death, Num 15:35; Lev 24:11-14.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

That God was his Father,[4] making himself equal to God. In divers places of the Old Testament, God is called the Father of the Israelites, and they his children: but here, and on several other occasions, the Jews very well saw, that he called God his Father in a quite different sense from that in which he could be said to be their Father; that his words make him equal to God, and that he made himself God. See John x. 33; John xix. 7; Luke xxii. 70; &c. And therefore St. Augustine says on this verse: (Trac. xvii. in Joan.) Behold the Jews understand what the Arians do not. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Patrem suum, or proprium suum patrem, Greek: ton patira idio.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This yet enraged the Jews more: they had before against him a charge of breaking the sabbath, or, at least, teaching another to break it (in their opinion); but now he had (as they judged) spoken blasphemy, calling God

Father; not in the sense the Jews so called him, and all good Christians are licensed to call him; but πατερα ιδιον, his proper Father, or his own Father; by which (as they truly said) he made himself

equal with God. Nor did he by that alone make himself equal with God, but he ascribed also to himself a cooperation with God, in works proper to God alone: nor did he think this any robbery, Phi 2:6. This was their charge; we shall now hear how our Saviour defends himself against it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

18. Making himself equal—Not only his claim of Sonship, but the high position he assigned to that Sonship, both caused and justified their interpretation of his words as making himself God’s equal. He placed his work as on a par with the Father’s work, and justified his Sabbath action on the same ground as justifies God. He was no more bound to withhold his healing power on the Sabbath, than God was bound to arrest the progress of vegetation, or the waves of the ocean.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

On this account (the dia touto is still further defined by the oti) therefore the Jews were seeking the more mallon , i.e. more than they had sought before he made use of this sublime expression) to slay him, because not only in their opinion, though very falsely, he was violating (i.e. dissolving the authority of) the sabbath. Jesus was actually placing the sabbatic law where it has remained ever since, giving it sanctions, beauty, and hold on conscience it had never known before. He was abrogating the petty restrictions and abolishing the unspiritual somnolence by which it had been characterized and misunderstood. But there was another and more staggering charge which they were not at that moment able to condone. They sought the more to slay him because he was calling God his own (idon) Father, making himself equal to, on a level with, God. He did use the phrase, "my Father," with a marked emphasis. He did not say, our Father, or your Father;" he assumed a unique relation to the Father. The inmost centre of the Divine consciousness in him thrilled through the human. Though he did not wear now the "form of God," but the "form of the Servant," yet the Servant knew that he was Son and Lord of all. The Divine Personality which had always wrought out the eternal counsels of the Father"s will was working now on identical and parallel lines in the human sphere. There were senses in which the Lord Jesus was the own and only begotten Son of God. This was a hard saying. This placing of himself on a level with God was the blasphemy which the Jews resented. Jesus knew what he said, and saw the impression his words produced, and took no steps to correct it. Two classes of result naturally followed. Some said, "He blasphemeth," "He hath a devil," and the high priest subsequently, in reply to a similar utterance of the Lord, rent his clothes; but other some felt concerning him that the relation between him and the Father was, so far as they knew, absolutely unique. The author of this Gospel exclaimed, "He who "was with God and was God" has been manifested in the flesh, and we saw his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father.

Offence with Christ.

It might have been expected that a Saviour so compassionate and so beneficent as, even from an ordinary human point of view, Jesus undoubtedly was, would have met with a warm and grateful reception. Especially, it might have been expected, would his own countrymen, the neighbours and acquaintances of those who were benefited by his kindness, have encompassed him with honour, confidence, and affection. But it was not so; and Jesus was not surprised, for he well knew what human nature is. Again and again in the Gospel narrative do we meet with statements regarding the offence taken at Jesus by the Jews, and the hostility they cherished towards him.

I THE OFFENCE WAS USUALLY TAKEN WITH SOME WORD SPOKEN BY JESUS WHICH HAD A PECULIAR PRECIOUSNESS, OR WITH SOME DEED THAT DESERVED ESPECIAL HONOUR. Those who in their life and work moved upon familiar lines, who fell in with the prejudices of their country and their times, escaped censure and commanded confidence. But the discourses of Jesus were paradoxical, and the deeds of Jesus were novel and surprising. It was when he said something altogether above the spiritual level of his contemporaries, when he wrought some work worthy of God himself, that the hostility and malice of the Jews was aroused. And if any one will observe upon what grounds the unbelievers of our own time take offence at Christ, he will find that the "scandal," the stone of stumbling, is something deserving of admiration and of reverence.

II OFFENCE WAS TAKEN WITH JESUS BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT CONDESCEND TO THEM PETTY AND FORMAL NOTIONS OF RELIGION. The sabbath was a divinely instituted ordinance, and one obviously beneficial and beautiful. But the Jews confounded the means with the end, and attached a superstitious sanctity to the seventh day. Jesus was the Lord of the sabbath, and held that the day was hallowed by the performance of a deed of mercy and helpfulness. This was a view alien from the formal and ceremonial habits of the Jewish leaders. The ways of Jesus were too high, too spiritual, for these narrow-minded hypocrites, and accordingly they were offended with him.

III OFFENCE WAS TAKEN WITH JESUS BECAUSE HIS OPPONENTS COULD NOT RISE TO HIS GLORIOUS BUT JUST REPRESENTATION OF HIS OWN NATURE AND MISSION. The claim which Jesus made to identity of purpose and to closest intimacy of nature with the Divine Father should have awakened in the minds of the Jews, at least, a spirit of inquiry, and have suggested, at least, the hope that in this gracious Being God might be visiting and redeeming his people. This, however, was far from being the case. The higher Christ"s claim, the ruder the resentment of his adversaries. It may be questioned whether they really believed in God at all; had they done so, how could they have avoided the conclusion that God was "in Christ"?

IV THE OFFENCE WITH JESUS LED TO THOSE PURPOSES AND PLOTS WHICH ISSUED IN HIS DEATH. The impression produced upon the Jewish leaders by our Lord"s ministry in Jerusalem was one of hostility; and this hostility was deepened by every great act of Divine authority he accomplished, and by every bold and sublime utterance which either explicitly or implicitly rebuked their formality and unspirituality. Thus their "offence" deepened into malice and rage. They "stumbled" at the miracles by which the Lord asserted and explained his claims. Repeated "offence" issued in resolute plots against his life. And Jesus thus came to the cross not because of his faults, for he had none; but because of his righteous claims and his peerless beneficence. His death was a witness against his foes as fully as it was a witness in his own favour. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

His own Father - The Greek word means his own Father in such a sense as no creature can speak. Making himself equal with God - It is evident all the hearers so understood him, and that our Lord never contradicted, but confirmed it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

his Father

(Greek - βιβλαρίδιον," his own Father). The Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be God. Cf. Joh 10:33.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, The Jews instead of being satisfied, were the more enraged; not only because he had violated the sabbath (as they pretended) by healing the cripple on the sabbath-day, but because Christ had asserted that God was his Father in a peculiar manner, and made himself equal with God, our Saviour therefore goes on to assert his equality and conjunction with the Father in his operations and workings; which doth at once justify his work on the Sabbath-day, and prove him to be truly and really God. Now our holy Lord, to prove himself equal with God the Father produces first many arguments, to verse 31, and then alledges the testimony of many witnesses to the end of the chapter.

Our Saviour’s first argument to prove himself equal with the Father in essence and nature, is this, that the Father and he are equal in operation, in will and consent for working; that the Son doth all that the Father doth, and the Father doth nothing without the Son, ver 19. The Son can do nothing of himself; that is, as man, as the Messias, and as Mediator, he could do nothing of himself. His perfect obedience to, and compliance with, the will of his Father that sent him, would not suffer him to do any thing without him: but as God, he could do all things of himself.

Learn hence, That it is an undeniable proof that the Father and Son are one in nature, essence, and being; in that they are inseparable in operation and working; What things soever the Father doth, these also doth the Son likewise; and the Son doth nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: therefore Father and Son being equal in operation and working, are equal in nature and being; and consequently, both essentially, truly and really, God: Therefore the Arians of old, and the Socinians at this day, are wide when they produce this text? The Son can do nothing of himself, to prove that Christ is not equal with God the Father, They forget or neglect to distinguish between his divine nature, which could do all things, and his mediatorial office: which could not do, but what the Father that sent him had appointed him to do.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Because he not only had broken the Sabbath. The Pharisees were horrified, not only at what they deemed the breaking of the Sabbath, but at the high ground on which the Lord placed his defence. But said also that God was his Father. This high claim seemed to them blasphemous.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

18. διὰ τοῦτο. See on Joh 5:16. Μᾶλλον shews that ἐδίωκον in Joh 5:16 includes attempts to compass His death. Comp. Mar 3:6. This is the blood-red thread which runs through the whole of this section of the Gospel; Joh 7:1; Joh 7:19; Joh 7:25, Joh 8:37; Joh 8:40; Joh 8:59, Joh 10:31, Joh 11:53, Joh 12:10.

ἔλυεν. Was loosing or relaxing, making less binding; solvebat. Not a single occasion, but a general principle, was in question. Comp. Joh 7:23, and see on Joh 10:35: Mat 5:19; Mat 18:18.

ἴσον ἑ. π. τ. θ. They fully understand the force of the parallel statements, ‘My Father is working; I am working also,’ and the exclusive expression ‘My Father,’ not ‘our Father’ (Joh 8:41). ‘Behold,’ says S. Augustine, ‘the Jews understand what the Arians fail to understand.’ If Arian or Unitarian views were right, would not Christ at once have explained that what they imputed to Him as blasphemy was not in His mind at all? But instead of explaining that He by no means claims equality with the Father, He goes on to reaffirm this equality from other points of view: see especially Joh 5:23.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18.] The ground of the charge is now shifted; and by these last words (ver. 17), occasion is given for one of our Lord’s most weighty discourses.

The Jews understood His words to mean nothing short of peculiar personal Sonship, and thus equality of nature with God. And that this their understanding was the right one, the discourse testifies. All might in one sense, and the Jews did in a closer sense, call God their, or our, Father; but they at once said that the individual use of ‘My Father’ by Jesus had a totally distinct, and in their view a blasphemous, meaning: this latter especially, because He thus made God a participator in his crime of breaking the sabbath. Thus we obtain from the adversaries of the faith a most important statement of one of its highest and holiest doctrines.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. This declaration provoked the Jews to indignation. διὰ τοῦτο (see on v. 16) οὖν (om. אD, but ins. ABCL) μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκεῖναι. The phrase “sought to kill Him” is repeated 7:1, 19, 25, 8:37, 40.

οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον. For λύειν in the sense of “break,” “set at naught,” as in Mat 5:19, cf. 7:23, 10:35, Moulton-Milligan’s Vocab. (p. 384) cites from papyri of the third century b.c. ἐὰν δέ τις τούτων τι λύηι, κατάρατος ἔστω, and also λύειν τὰ πένθη, “to break the period of mourning,” i.e. to go out of mourning.

That Jesus was setting Sabbatical rules at naught was the primary cause of the Jews’ hostility to Him; but it was a much graver offence that He claimed to have Divine prerogatives. This they treated as blasphemy (cf. 8:59, 10:36, Mar 2:7, Mat 26:65).

It need not be doubted that the breaches of the Sabbath which Jesus countenanced provoked the first suspicions of His opponents at Jerusalem (as in Galilee, Mar 3:2), and that the incident of the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath is historical. Jn. is here true to fact, but he is not interested so much in Jewish Sabbatical doctrines as in the Divine Personality of Jesus,1 and so he dwells at great length on the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God which is implied in His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath.

πάτερα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν, “He was calling God His own Father,” in a special sense, as indeed the words ὁ πατήρ μου of v. 17 implied. Cf. Rom 8:32 ὁ ἴδιος υἱός.

ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ. This was the form in which His Jewish enemies defined the meaning of His words (cf. 10:33, 19:7), and there is a sense in which their complaint might be justified. But the actual phrase ἴσος θεῷ is not part of the claim of Jesus for Himself (see on 14:28 ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστι), and Paul’s phrase is ἴσα θεῷ, which refers to the attributes rather than to the person of Christ (see Lightfoot on Php 2:6). It is not taught anywhere by Jn. that Christ is ἴσος θεῷ, for that would seem to divide the Godhead (cf. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, 1:1).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Had broken [ελυε] . Literally, was loosing : the imperfect tense. See on He did, ver. 16. Not, broke the Sabbath in any particular case, but was annulling the law and duty of Sabbath observance.

His Father [πατερα ιδιον] . Properly, His own Father. So Rev.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.