Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 5:16
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
16. And therefore ] Better, And on this account, or, and for this cause (Joh 12:18; Joh 12:27). It is not St John’s favourite particle ‘therefore.’ but a preposition and pronoun. Comp. Joh 5:18.
and sought to slay him ] These words are not genuine here, but have been inserted from Joh 5:18. The other two verbs are both in the imperfect tense expressing continued action; ‘used to persecute, continued to persecute;’ ‘used to do, habitually did.’ From which we may infer that some of the unrecorded miracles (Joh 2:23, Joh 4:45) were wrought on the Sabbath: unless the Evangelist is speaking from their point of view; ‘because (as they said) He habitually did these things on the Sabbath.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Persecuted Jesus – They opposed him; attempted to ruin his character; to destroy his popularity; and probably held him up before the people as a violator of the law of God. Instead of making inquiry whether he had not given proof that he was the Messiah, they assumed that he must be wrong, and ought to be punished. Thus every bigot and persecutor does in regard to those who differ from them.
To slay him – To put him to death. This they attempted to do because it was directed in the law of Moses, Exo 31:15; Exo 35:2. See Luk 6:7, Luk 6:11; Luk 13:14. We see here,
1. How full of enmity and how bloody was the purpose of the Jews, All that Jesus had done was to restore an infirm man to health – a thing which they would have done for their cattle Luk 6:7, and yet they sought. his life because he had done it for a sick man.
2. Men are often extremely envious because good is done by others, especially if it is not done according to the way of their denomination or party.
3. Here was an instance of the common feelings of a hypocrite. He often covers his enmity against the power of religion by great zeal for the form of it. He hates and persecutes those who do good, who seek the conversion of sinners, who love revivals of religion and the spread of the gospel, because it is not according to some matter of form which has been established, and on which he supposes the whole safety of the church to hang. There was nothing that Jesus was more opposed to than hypocrisy, and nothing that he set himself more against than those who suppose all goodness to consist in forms, and all piety in the shibboleths of a party.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. And sought to slay him] This clause is omitted by BCDL, some others, and several ancient versions. Griesbach has left it out of the text; and Professor White says, certissime delenda: but it does not appear to me that it should be omitted. However, it was true of the Jews, whether the words were originally in the evangelist or not. For what cause did these persons seek to destroy our Lord? Because he had healed a poor man, who had been diseased thirty-eight years, and ordered him to carry home the couch on which he lay! How implacable must their malice have been! The spirit of religious persecution has always been the most fell and dangerous of all on this side perdition. Every other disposition appears to have its moderator; but this is wholly abandoned to the guidance of Satan, and has for its objects the men who know the truth, and who live to the glory of their God, and for the benefit of mankind. How strange that such should ever be objects of malice and hatred! But the Satanic nature in fallen man is ever opposed to whatever comes from God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But the Jews made another use of it, seeking from hence an advantage against him, because he had violated the sabbath, which they often made a capital crime.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. because he had done these thingson the sabbath dayWhat to these hypocritical religionists wasthe doing of the most glorious and beneficent miracles, compared withthe atrocity of doing them on the sabbath day! Having given them thishandle, on purpose to raise the first public controversy with them,and thus open a fitting opportunity of laying His claims before them,He rises at once to the whole height of them, in a statement whichfor grandeur and terseness exceeds almost anything that everafterwards fell from Him, at least to His enemies.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus,…. With their tongues, reproaching and reviling him, as a sabbath breaker, a destroyer of the law, and a sinful wicked man:
and sought to slay him; either in a violent way, by setting the zealots, a sort of ruffians under the pretence of religion, upon him; or rather in a judicial way, summoning him before the sanhedrim, in order to condemn him to death for the breach of the sabbath, which by the law of Moses was punishable with death:
because he had done these things on the sabbath day; because he had cured the man of his disease, under which he had laboured eight and thirty years, and had ordered him to take up his bed, and walk home with it on his back on the sabbath day. This drew upon him their resentment to such a degree, that they not only persecuted him with their tongues, but sought to take away his life. Nothing would satisfy them but his blood.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Persecute (). Inchoative imperfect, “began to persecute” and kept it up. They took this occasion as one excuse ( , because of this). They disliked Jesus when here first (2:18) and were suspicious of his popularity (4:1). Now they have cause for an open breach.
Because he did ( ). Imperfect active, not just this one act, but he was becoming a regular Sabbath-breaker. The Pharisees will watch his conduct on the Sabbath henceforth (Mark 2:23; Mark 3:2).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Did the Jews persecute. The imperfect tense [] might be rendered began to persecute, as this is an opening of hostilities against Jesus, or, more probably, corresponds with the same tense in ejpoiei, he did, or better, was wont to do. Diwkw, to persecute, is originally to run after, to pursue with hostile purpose, and thence to harass.
And sought to kill Him. The best texts omit.
He did. See above. Godet observes : “the imperfect malignantly expresses the idea that the violation of the Sabbath has become with Him a sort of maxim.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus,” (kai dia touto ediokon hoi loudaioi ton lesoun) “And, on account of this, the Jews persecuted Jesus,” Having rejected all of their fulfilled prophecies of Him, they then turned with rejection and resentment against His miracles, Mat 12:14; Joh 1:11-12.
2) “And sought to slay him,” sought for good evidence to put Him to death legally. They had malice in their hearts and pre-meditated murder on their minds. Nothing less than His death would, they feared, save their jobs of administering rituals and rites of the Mosaic Law, Psa 2:2-3; Mar 3:6; Mar 11:18.
3) “Because he had done these things on the sabbath day.” (hoti touta epoiei en sabbato) “Because he did these things (kind of things) on a sabbath day;- That was their immediate excuse for seeking to put Him to death, Luk 6:11. In collusion, on numerous occasions, they plotted His death, until they finally killed Him, Joh 8:40; Joh 8:59; Mat 26:3-5; Mat 26:47; Mat 26:57; Mat 26:59-66; 1Th 2:14-16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(16) The words, and sought to slay Him, should be omitted. They have been inserted in some MSS. to explain the first clause of Joh. 5:18. For He had done, read He was doing. The word is in the imperfect tense, expressing continuance or custom. It is either that from this one instance they generalise a law of practice to justify their persecution, or that some of the earlier unrecorded miracles were also performed on the Sabbath. (Comp. Luk. 6:1-11.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the Sabbath’.
Initially the persecution must have taken on the form of some verbal attack, as it leads on to a reply from Jesus, but the way it is put suggests that this is seen as the commencement of a continual process of persecution. Jesus is looked on as a confirmed Sabbath-breaker. Note that ‘these things’ confirms that Jesus is recognised as having flouted the Pharisaic regulations a number of times. This is only one example.
The Pharisees were, of course, to be found in many places and they were not so organised that they would act as one body in every particular case. It is the leading Pharisees and other Jewish leaders in this locality who are spoken of here. When Jesus moves to a new locality He will be reassessed (Mar 2:6; Mar 2:16; Mar 2:24; Mar 3:2), but in the end, with exceptions, the result is always the same, until finally He becomes watched by the central authority, ‘the Scribes from Jerusalem’ (Mar 3:22).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 5:16-17 . ] on account of this notice referring to Jesus, and then , because He that is. See on Joh 10:17 .
.] not judicially , by means of the law (Lampe, Rosenmller, Kuinoel), of which the sequel says nothing, but in a general way: they made Him the object of their persecutions.
] these things , such as the healing of the paralytic.
] he did , not .
] The means by which He met the of the Jews, whether that then showed itself in accusations, reproaches, machinations, or otherwise in overt acts of hostility. This Aorist occurs in John only here, Joh 5:19 ; Joh 12:23 .
, . . .] My Father is working even to this moment; I also work . This expression is not borrowed from Philo (Strauss); Jesus alludes to the unresting activity of God for human salvation [205] since the creation was finished, notwithstanding the divine rest of the Sabbath (Gen 2:1-3 ) observed after the six days’ work. This distinct reference (not generally “to the sustaining and government of the world”) is presented in the activity of Christ answering to that of God the Father. “As the Father ,” that is, says Jesus, has not ceased from the beginning to work for the world’s salvation, but ever works on even to the present moment, [206] so of necessity and right, notwithstanding the law of the Sabbath, does He also, the Son , who as such (by virtue of His essentially divine relationship of equality with the Father) cannot in this His activity be subject to the sabbatical law, but is Lord of the Sabbath (comp. Mat 12:8 ; Mar 2:28 ). Olshausen and de Wette import this in the words: “As in God rest and action are united, so in Christ are contemplation and activity.” But there is no mention of rest and contemplation. According to Godet, Jesus says, “ Jusqu’ chaque dernier moment o mon pre agit, j’agis aussi;” the Son can only cease His work when He sees the Father cease. But in this case we should have simply (Joh 9:4 ), and not ; means nothing more nor less than usque adhuc (Joh 2:10 , Joh 16:24 ; 1Jn 2:9 ), the now limiting it still more distinctly than (Lobeck, ad Phryn . pp. 19, 20).
] is not to be again supplemented by . I also (do not rest, but) work . The relation of both sentences is not that of imitation (Grotius), nor of example (Ewald), but of necessary equality of will and procedure. The asyndeton (instead of “ because my Father,” etc.) makes the statement all the more striking. See on 1Co 10:17 .
[205] Jesus accordingly does not deny that God rested on the seventh day after the six days of creation (against Ammon); but He affirms that since then He is ever active, even on the Sabbath-days, for man’s redemption. Nor does He speak of the law concerning the Sabbath as not of divine institution (Baur), as of no obligation, or as abrogated; but He as the Son stands above it, and is as little bound by it as the Father, who ever continues to work, even on the Sabbath. This against Hilgenfeld ( Lehrbegriff , p. 81; Evang . p. 270; and in his Zeitschrift 1863, p. 218), who considers that, according to this Gospel, Jesus, passing by the O. T. representation of God, rises to the absolutely transcendental essence, exalted above all contact with the finite, and manifest only to the Son; and that the evangelist, following the Gnostics, refers the history of the creation to the Demiurge, as distinct from the most high God. This is not the “eagle height” of John’s theology.
[206] carries our view of God’s working, which began with the creation, onwards to the present moment , the moment wherein Jesus has to defend Himself on account of Sabbath-breaking. In conformity with this redemptive work of God the Father onwards until now, and which was interrupted by no rest, He also works. The inference that herein is implied a divine rest at a future period, as Luthardt thinks, who regards the day of Christ’s resurrection as the then approaching Sabbath of God’s redemptive work, is quite remote from the text. includes the survey of the entire past down to the moment then present, without any intimation of a change in the future, which, if intended, should appear in the context , as in Joh 16:24 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Ver. 16. Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus ] This he foreknew would follow, and yet he forbore not. In the discharge of our consciences (tightly informed and regulated) we must not stand to cast perils; but do our duties zealously, whatever come of it. This courage in Christians, heathens counted obstinacy, but they knew not the power of the Spirit, nor the privy armour of proof that saints have about their hearts.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] is not used in the sense of legal prosecution in the N.T.: persecuted is the best word for it.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 5:16 . The consequence however was that “the Jews persecuted Jesus,” , not in the technical sense; but, as the imperfect also suggests, they began from this point to meditate hostile action; cf. Mar 3:6 . , on the ground that He was a Sabbath-breaker, and therefore worthy of death; . The plural and the imperfect show that the cure of the impotent man was not the only case they had in view. Their allies in the provinces had made them acquainted with similar cases. It would almost seem as if He was in the habit of thus signalising the Sabbath.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
therefore = on account of (Greek. dia. App-104. Joh 5:2) this.
did . . . persecute = began to persecute. Beginning of open hostility.
sought = were seeking. Most texts, not Syriac, omit this clause.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] is not used in the sense of legal prosecution in the N.T.:-persecuted is the best word for it.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 5:16. ) they attempted to thrust Him out [began to persecute].- ) More modern copies have inserted this here from Joh 5:18.[104] The attempt to kill is opposed to persecution, properly so called.
[104] BCDL Vulg. and Memph. Versions omit it. A and Hilary, however, have it.-E. and T.
And so also the margin of Ed. 2 sets aside this clause more decidedly than the Ed. Maj., and the Germ. Vers. has altogether omitted it.-E. B.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 5:16
Joh 5:16
And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.-The persecution of Jesus for what they claimed as breaking the Sabbath began here and it resulted in the effort to slay him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
persecute: Joh 15:20, Act 9:4, Act 9:5
and sought: Joh 5:13, Joh 7:19, Joh 7:20, Joh 7:25, Joh 10:39, Mat 12:13, Mar 3:6, Luk 6:11
Reciprocal: Exo 35:2 – whosoever Mat 12:2 – Behold Luk 6:2 – Why Luk 13:14 – with Joh 8:37 – but Joh 9:14 – General Joh 11:46 – General Joh 11:57 – had Heb 12:3 – contradiction
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
The Jews evidently knew that Jesus was going about doing good to the people, and that he was likely the one who had healed the impotent man. But their envy of Him was made more bitter because the man had learned about the identity of his friend, and seemed to be interested in His work. The envy of the Jews became so active they had a desire to kill Him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The Apologists Bible Commentary
John 5
16And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.
CommentaryThe Jewish leaders had developed an overly legalistic interpretation of Sabbath law. While God had set aside the Sabbath and proscribed regular work on this day, as Jesus reminded his critics elsewhere, the Law allowed a man to rescue an animal on the Sabbath, so it certainly allowed for the healing of a disabled man (Luke 14:5). The Jews had earlier accused the man whom Jesus healed of breaking the Sabbath because he was carrying his pallet. Now, they begin to persecute Jesus. Jesus’ response is direct and uncompromising. Not only are the leaders incorrect in their view of God’s Son, they also are improperly representing God, portraying Him as a cruel tyrant, rather than the loving and gracious Father who loves the world so much that He sends His Only Son to die for it.
Grammatical AnalysisPersecute (edikon). Inchoative imperfect, “began to persecute” and kept it up (RWP ).
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary
THESE verses begin one of the most deep and solemn passages in the four Gospels. They show us the Lord Jesus asserting His own Divine nature, His unity with God the Father, and the high dignity of His office. Nowhere does our Lord dwell so fully on these subjects as in the chapter before us. And nowhere, we must confess, do we find out so thoroughly the weakness of man’s understanding! There is much, we must all feel, that is far beyond our comprehension in our Lord’s account of Himself. Such knowledge, in short, is too wonderful for us. “It is high: we cannot attain unto it.” (Psa 139:6.) How often men say that they want clear explanations of such doctrines as the Trinity. Yet here we have our Lord handling the subject of His own Person, and, behold! we cannot follow Him. We seem only to touch His meaning with the tip of our fingers.
We learn, for one thing, from the verses before us, that there are some works which it is lawful to do on the Sabbath day.
The Jews, as on many other occasions, found fault because Jesus healed a man who had been ill for thirty-eight years, on the Sabbath. They charged our Lord with a breach of the fourth commandment.
Our Lord’s reply to the Jews is very remarkable. “My Father,” he says, “worketh hitherto, and I also work.” It is as though He said:-“Though my Father rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, He has never rested for a moment from His providential government of the world, and from His merciful work of supplying the daily wants of all His creatures. Were He to rest from such work, the whole frame of nature would stand still. And I also work works of mercy on the Sabbath day. I do not break the fourth commandment when I heal the sick, any more than my Father breaks it when He causes the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath.”
We must distinctly understand, that neither here nor elsewhere does the Lord Jesus overthrow the obligation of the fourth commandment. Neither here nor elsewhere is there a word to justify the vague assertions of some modern teachers, that “Christians ought not to keep a Sabbath,” and that it is “a Jewish institution which has passed away.” The utmost that our Lord does, is to place the claims of the Sabbath on the right foundation. He clears the day of rest from the false and superstitious teaching of the Jews, about the right way of observing it. He shows us clearly that works of necessity and works of mercy are no breach of the fourth commandment.
After all, the errors of Christians on this subject, in these latter days, are of a very different kind from those of the Jews. There is little danger of men keeping the Sabbath too strictly. The thing to be feared is the disposition to keep it loosely and partially, or not to keep it at all. The tendency of the age is not to exaggerate the fourth commandment, but to cut it out of the Decalogue, and throw it aside altogether. Against this tendency it becomes us all to be on our guard. The experience of eighteen centuries supplies abundant proofs that vital religion never flourishes when the Sabbath is not well kept.
We learn, for another thing, from these verses, the dignity and greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Jews, we are told, sought to kill Jesus because He said “that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” Our Lord, in reply, on this special occasion, enters very fully into the question of His own Divine nature. In reading His words, we must all feel that we are reading mysterious things, and treading on very holy ground. But we must feel a deep conviction, however little we may understand, that the things He says could never have been said by one who was only man. The Speaker is nothing less than “God manifest in the flesh.” (1Ti 3:16.)
He asserts His own unity with God the Father. No other reasonable meaning can be put on the expressions,-“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.-The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth.” Such language, however deep and high, appears to mean that in operation, and knowledge, and heart, and will, the Father and the Son are One,-two Persons, but one God. Truths such as these are of course beyond man’s power to explain particularly. Enough for us to believe and rest upon them.
He asserts, in the next place, His own Divine power to give life. He tells us, “The Son quickeneth whom he will.” Life is the highest and greatest gift that can be bestowed. It is precisely that thing that man, with all his cleverness, can neither give to the work of his hands, nor restore when taken away. But life, we are told, is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, to bestow and give at His discretion. Dead bodies and dead souls are both alike under His dominion. He has the keys of death and hell. In Him is life. He is the life. (Joh 1:4. Rev 1:18.)
He asserts, in the last place, His own authority to judge the world. “The Father,” we are told, “has committed all judgment unto the Son.” All power and authority over the world is committed to Christ’s hands. He is the King and the Judge of mankind. Before Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord. He that was once despised and rejected of man, condemned and crucified as a malefactor, shall one day hold a great assize, and judge all the world. “God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.” (Rom 2:16.)
And now let us think whether it is possible to make too much of Christ in our religion. If we have ever thought so, let us cast aside the thought for ever. Both in His Own nature as God, and in His office as commissioned Mediator, He is worthy of all honor. He that is one with the Father,-the Giver of life,-the King of kings,-the coming Judge, can never be too much exalted. “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent him.”
If we desire salvation, let us lean our whole weight on this mighty Savior. So leaning, we never need be afraid. Christ is the rock of ages, and he that builds on Him shall never be confounded,-neither in sickness, nor in death, nor in the judgment-day. The hand that was nailed to the cross is almighty! The Savior of sinners is “mighty to save.” (Isa 63:1.)
==================
Notes-
v16.-[Therefore….Jews persecute, etc.] The verbs in this verse are all in the imperfect tense. It may be doubted whether the meaning is not, strictly speaking, something of this kind:-“The Jews from this time began to persecute Jesus, and were always seeking to slay Him, because He made a habit of doing these things on the Sabbath day.” It is some confirmation of this view that our Lord at a much later period refers to this very miracle at Bethesda, as a thing which had specially angered the Jews of Jerusalem, and for which they hated Him and sought still to kill Him. It was long after the time of this miracle when He said,-“Are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?” (Joh 7:23.)
v17.-[But Jesus answered.] This seems to have been the first reply which our Lord made when charged with breaking the fourth commandment. It was a short, simple justification of the lawfulness of doing works of mercy on the Sabbath. There seems to have been an interval between this reply and the long argumentative defense which begins in the 19th verse.
[My Father worketh hitherto, and I also work.] The words rendered “hitherto,” are, literally, “until now,”-that is, from the beginning of creation up to the present time.
I can only see one meaning in this pithy sentence:-“My Father in heaven is continually working works of mercy and kindness in His providential government of the world, in supplying the wants of all His creatures, in maintaining the whole fabric of the earth in perfection, in giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, in preserving and sustaining life. All this He does on Sabbaths, as well as week days. Were He to cease from such works, the whole world would be full of confusion. When He rested from His works of creation He did not rest from His works of providence. I also, who am His beloved Son, claim the right to work works of mercy on the Sabbath. In working such works I do not break the Sabbath any more than My Father does. My Father appointed the fourth commandment to be honoured, and yet never ceased to cause the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath. I also, who claim to be One with the Father, honour the Sabbath, but I do not abstain from works of mercy upon it.”
Two things should be observed in this sentence. One is the plain practical lesson that the Sabbath was not meant to be a day of total idleness, and of entire cessation from all kinds and sorts of work. “The Sabbath was made for man,”-for his benefit, comfort, and advantage. Works of mercy and of real necessity to man’s life and animal existence on the Sabbath day, were never intended to be forbidden.-The other thing to be observed is our Lord’s assertion of His own Divinity and equality with God the Father. When He said, “My Father worketh, and I also work,” He evidently meant much more than bringing forward His Father’s example, though that of course is contained in His argument, and justifies all Christians in doing works of mercy on Sundays. What He meant was, “I am the beloved Son of God: I and My Father are one in essence, dignity, honour, and authority; whatever He does I also do, and have right to do. He works and I also work. He gave you the Sabbath, and it is His day. I too, as one with Him, am Lord of the Sabbath.” That the Jews saw this to be the meaning of His words seems clear from the next verse.
Chrysostom remarks on this verse:-“If any one say, ‘How doth the Father work, who ceased on the seventh day from all His works?’ let him learn the manner in which He worketh. What is it? He careth for, He holdeth together all that hath been made. When thou beholdest the sun rising, and the moon running in her path, the lakes, the fountains, the rivers, the rains, the course of nature in seeds, and in our own bodies and those of irrational beings, and all the rest, by means of which this universe is made up, then learn the ceaseless working of the Father.” (Mat 5:45; Mat 6:30.)
Schottgen quotes a remarkable saying of Philo Judus,-“God never ceases to work. Just as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to be cold, so is it the property of God to work.”
Ferus remarks on the great variety of arguments used by our Lord on various occasions, in reply to the superstitious views of the Jews about the Sabbath. One time He adduces the example of David eating the shew-bread, another time the example of the priests working in the Temple on the Sabbath, another time the readiness of the Jews to help an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. All these arguments were used in defense of works of necessity and mercy. Here He takes higher ground still,-the example of His Father.
v18.-[Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him.] This short defense which our Lord made seems to have rankled in the minds of the Jews, and to have made them even more bitter against Him. What length of time is covered by this verse is not very plain. I am inclined to think that it implies some little pause between the 17th and 19th verses. Here again, as in the 16th verse, we have the imperfect tense all the way through. It must surely point at something of habit, both in the designs of the Jews against our Lord, and in our Lord’s conduct, and in His language about His Father.
[Said God…his Father…equal with God.] It is clear that our Lord’s words about His Sonship struck the Jews in a far more forcible way than they seem to strike us. In a certain sense all believers are “sons of God.” (Rom 8:14.) But it is evident that they are not so in the sense that our Lord meant when He talked of God as His Father, and Himself as God’s Son. The Greek undoubtedly might be translated more clearly, “said that God was His own particular Father.” (Compare Rom 8:32.) The Jews at any rate accepted the words as meaning our Lord to assert His own peculiar Sonship, and His consequent entire equality with God the Father. Their charge and ground of anger against Him amounted to this:-“Thou callest God Thine own particular Father, and claimest authority to do whatsoever He does. By so doing Thou makest Thyself equal with God.” And our Lord seems to have accepted this charge as a correct statement of the case, and to have proceeded to argue that He had a right to say what He had said, and that He really was equal with God. As Paul says,-“He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Php 2:6.)
Augustine remarks,-“Behold the Jews understood what the Arians would not understand.”
Whitby remarks that the Jews never accused our Lord of blasphemy for saying that he was the Messiah, But for saying that He was the Son of God, because they did not believe that Messiah when He appeared was to be a Divine Person.
Ferus remarks that the Jews probably took notice of our Lord calling God “My Father,” and not “our Father.”-Cartwright also thinks that there is much weight in the expression “my,” and that the Jews gathered from it that Christ claimed to be the only-begotten Son of God, and not merely a Son by adoption and grace.
v19.-[Then answered Jesus and said unto them.] This verse begins a long discourse, in which our Lord formally defends himself from the charge of the Jews of laying claim to what He had no right to claim. (1.) He asserts His own Divine authority, commission, dignity, and equality with God His Father. (2.) He brings forward the evidence of His Divine commission, which the Jews ought to consider and receive. (3.) Finally, He tells the Jews plainly the reason of their unbelief, and charges home on their consciences their love of man’s praise more than God’s, and their inconsistency in pretending to honour Moses while they did not honour Christ. It is a discourse almost unrivalled in depth and majesty.
There are few chapters in the Bible, perhaps, where we feel our own shallowness of understanding so thoroughly, and discover so completely the insufficiency of all human language to express “the deep things of God.” Men are often saying they want explanations of the mysteries of the Christian faith, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the person of Christ, and the like. Let them just observe, when we do find a passage full of explanatory statements on a deep subject, how much there is that we have no line to fathom and no mind to take in. “I want more light,” says proud man. God gives him his desire in this chapter, and lifts up the veil a little. But behold! we are dazzled by the very light we wanted, and find we have not eyes to take it in.
It has always been thought by many commentators that this solemn discourse of our Lord’s was delivered before the Sanhedrim, or general Ecclesiastical Assembly of the Jews. They regard it as a formal defense of His Divinity and Messiahship, and a statement of evidence why He should be received, before a regularly constituted ecclesiastical court.-It may be so. Probabilities seem in favour of the idea. But it must be remembered that we have nothing but internal evidence in favour of the theory. There is not a word said to show that our Lord was formally brought before the Sanhedrim, and made a formal defense.-Some writers lay much stress upon the opening words of the 19th verse,-“Then answered Jesus and said,”-and consider that these words imply a formal charge in court, and a formal reply from our Lord. It may be true. But we must remember that it is only a conjecture.
One thing only is certain. Nowhere else in the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regular statement of His own unity with the Father, His Divine commission and authority, and the proofs of His Messiahship, as we find in this discourse. To me it seems one of the deepest things in the Bible.
[Verily, verily, I say unto you.] Here, as elsewhere, the remark applies, that this form of expression always precedes some statement of more than ordinary depth and importance.
[The Son can do nothing of himself, &c.] This opening verse declares the complete unity there is between God the Father and God the Son. The Son, from His very nature and relation to the Father, “can do nothing” independently or separately from the Father. It is not that He lacks or wants the power to do, but that He will not do. (Compare Gen 19:22.) When the angel said, “I cannot do anything till thou be come thither;” it means of course “I will not do.”-“Of himself” does not mean without help, or unassisted, but “from himself,” from His own independent will. He can only do such things as, from His unity with the Father, and consequent ineffable knowledge, He “seeth the Father doing. For the Father and the Son are so united,-one God though two Persons,-that whatsoever the Father does the Son does also. The acts of the Son therefore are not His own independent acts, but the acts of His Father also.
The Greek word which we render “likewise” must not be supposed to mean nothing more than “also, as well.” It is literally “in like manner.”
Bishop Hall paraphrases this saying of our Lord thus:-“I and the Father are one indivisible essence, and our acts are no less inseparable. The Son can do nothing without the will and act of the Father; and, even as He is man, can do nothing but what He seeth agreeable to the will and purpose of His heavenly Father.”
Barnes remarks,-“The words ‘what things soever’ are without limit; all that the Father does, the Son likewise does. This is as high an assertion as possible of His being equal with God. If one does all that another does, or can do, then there is proof of equality. If the Son does all that the Father does, then, like Him, He must be almighty, omniscient, all-present, and infinite in every perfection; or, in other words, He must be God.”
Augustine remarks,-“Our Lord does not say, whatsoever the Father doeth the Son does other things like them, but the very same things….If the Son doeth the same things, and in like manner, then let the Jew be silenced, the Christian believe, the heretic be convinced; the Son is equal with the Father.”
Hilary, quoted in the “Catena Aurea” remarks,-“Christ is the Son because He does nothing of Himself. He is God because whatsoever things the Father doeth, He doeth the same. They are One because They are equal in honour. He is not the Father because He is sent.”
Diodati remarks,-“The phrase, ‘what He seeth the Father do,’ is a figurative term, showing the inseparable communion of will, wisdom, and power, between the Son and the Father in the internal order of the most holy Trinity.”
Toletus remarks,-“When it is said ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself’, this does not mean want of power, but the highest power. Just as it is a mark of omnipotence not to be able to die, or to be worn out, or to be annihilated, because there is nothing that can injure omnipotence, so, likewise, ‘to be unable to do anything of Himself’ is no mark of impotence, but of the highest power. It means nothing less than having one and the same power with the Father, so that nothing can be done by the One which is not equally done by the Other.”
v20.-[The Father loveth the Son, &c.] This verse carries on the thought begun in the preceding verse,-the unity of the Father and the Son. When we read the words, “The father loveth,” and the “Father showeth,” we must not for a moment suppose them to imply any superiority in the Father, or any inferiority in the Son, as to their Divine nature and essence.-The “love” is not the love of an earthly parent to a beloved child. The “showing” is not the showing of a teacher to an ignorant scholar. The “love” is meant to show us that unspeakable unity of heart and affection (if such words may be reverently used) which eternally existed and exists between the Father and the Son. The “showing” means that entire confidence and cooperation which there was between the Father and the Son as to all the works which the Son should do when He came into the world, to fill the office of Mediator, and to save sinners.-The “greater works,” which remained to be shown, were evidently the works specified in the two following verses,-the works of quickening and of judging. That the Jews did “marvel” and were confounded at the works of “quickening,” we know from the Acts of the Apostles. That they will “marvel,” even more at our Lord’s work of judgment we shall see when Christ comes again to judge the heathen, to restore Jerusalem, to gather Israel, to convince the Jews of their unbelief, and to renew the face of the earth.
Both in this, and the preceding verse, we must carefully remember the utter inability of any human language, or human ideas, to express perfectly such matters as our Lord is speaking of. Language is intended specially to express the things of man. It fails greatly when used to express things about God. In the expressions “seeth the Father do,”-“loveth the Son,”-“showeth him all things,”-“will show him greater works,”-we must carefully bear this in mind. We must remember that they are expressions accommodated to our weaker capacities. They are intended to explain the relation between two divine Beings, who are one in essence, though two Persons,-one in mind and will, though two in manifestation,-equal in all things as touching the Godhead, though the Son is inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. There must needs be immense difficulty in finding words to convey any idea of the relation between these two Persons. Hence the language used by our Lord must be cautiously handled, with a constant recollection that we are not reading of an earthly father and son, but of God the Father and God the Son, who though one in essence as God, are at the same time two distinct Persons.
Augustine wisely remarks, “There are times when speech is deficient, even when the understanding is proficient. How much more doth speech suffer defect, when the understanding hath nothing perfect!”
Augustine and Bernard both remark, that it is far “greater work” to repair ruined human nature, than to make it at first, and to re-create it, than to create it.
v21, v22.-[As the Father raiseth up the dead, &c.] Our Lord here proceeds to tell the Jews one of His mighty works which He had come to do, in proof of His divine nature, authority, and commission. Did they find fault with Him for making Himself equal with God? Let them know that He had the same power as God the Father to give “life” and quicken the dead. Let them know furthermore, that all “judgment” was committed to Him. Surely He who had in His hand the mighty prerogatives of giving life and judging the world, had a right to speak of himself as equal with God!
When we read “the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them,” we must either understand the words to refer generally to God’s power to raise the dead at the last day,-which the Jew would allow as an article of faith, and a special attribute of divinity,-or else we must understand it to apply to the power of spiritually quickening men’s souls, which God had from the beginning exercised in calling men from death to life,-or else we must simply take it to mean that to give life, whether bodily or spiritual, is notoriously the peculiar attribute of God. The last view appears to me the most probable one, and most in harmony with what follows in after verses.
When we read “the Son quickeneth whom he wills,” we have a distinct assertion of the Son’s Authority to give life at His will, either bodily or spiritual, with the same irresistible power as the Father. The highest of all gifts He has but to “will” and to bestow. The Greek word translated “quickeneth,” is very strong. It is, literally, “makes alive,” and seems to imply the power of making life of all kind, both bodily and spiritual.
Burkitt remarks, that it is never said of any prophet or apostle, that he did mighty works “at his will.”
When we read “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son,” we must understand that in the economy of redemption, the Father has honoured the Son by devolving on Him the whole office of judging the world. It cannot of course mean that judgment is work with which the Father from His nature hath nothing to do, but that it is work which He has completely and entirely committed to the Son’s hands. He that died for sinners, is He that will judge them. Thus it is written,-“He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained.” (Act 17:31.)
Burgon remarks, “There is an original, supreme, judicial power; and there is also a judicial power derived, given by commission. Christ, as God, hath the first together with the Father: Christ, as man, hath the second from the Father.”
I think it highly probable that the “all judgment committed to the Son,” includes not merely the final judgment of the last day, but the whole work of ordering, governing, and deciding the affairs of Gods kingdom. “To judge” is an expression constantly used in the Old Testament in the sense of “to rule.” The meaning then would be, that the Father has given to the Son the office of King and Judge. The whole administration of the Divine government of the world is put into the hands of the Son, Christ Jesus. Everything connected with the rule of the church and world, as well as the last judgment, is placed in the Son’s hands.
We should carefully mark the distinction between “quickening” and “judging” in the language of these two verses.
(a.) It is not said that “the Father quickeneth no man,” but hath committed the power of giving life to the Son. Had this been said, it would have contradicted the texts “no man can come unto Me except the Father draw him,” and “the Spirit giveth life.” (Joh 6:44; 2Co 3:6.) Quickening is the work of all three Persons in the Trinity, of one as much as another.
(b.) It is said that judgment is the special work of the second Person of the Trinity. It is not the peculiar office either of the Father, or the Spirit, but of the Son. There seems a fitness in this. He who was condemned by an unjust judgment, and died for sinners, is He whose office it will be to judge the world.
(c.) It is said that “the Son quickeneth whom he will.” The power of giving life is as much the prerogative of the Son as of the Father, or of the Spirit. Surely this teaches us that to place the election of God the Father, or the work of the Spirit, before men, as the first and principal thing they should look at, is not good theology. Christ, after all, is the meeting-point between the Trinity and the world. It is His office to quicken as well as pardon. No doubt He quickeneth by the Spirit whom He sends into man’s heart. But it is His prerogative to give life as well as peace. This ought to be remembered. There are some in this day who in a mistaken zeal put the work of the Father and the Spirit before the work of Christ.
v23.-[That all men should honour the Son, &c.] By these words our Lord teaches us that the Father would have the Son to receive equal honour with Himself. We are to understand distinctly that there is no inferiority in the Son to the Father. He is equal to Him in dignity and authority. He is to be worshipped with equal worship. If any man fancies that to honour the Son equally with the Father, detracts from the Father’s honour, our Lord declares that such a man is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, “He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him.” It was the mind and intention of the Father that the Son, as the Mediator between God and man, should receive honour from all men. The glory of His beloved Son is part of the Father’s eternal counsels. Whenever therefore any one through ignorance or pride, or unbelief, neglects Christ, but professes at the same time to honour God, he is committing a mighty error, and so far from pleasing God, is greatly displeasing Him. The more a man honours Christ, and makes much of Him, the more the Father is pleased.
Evangelical Christians should mark the doctrine of this verse, and remember it. They are sometimes taunted with holding new views in religion, because they bring forward Christ so much more prominently than their fathers or grandfathers did. Let them see here that the more they exalt the Son of God and His office, the more honour they are doing to the Father who sent Him.
To the Deist and Socinian, the words of this verse are a strong condemnation. Not honouring Christ, they are angering God the Father. The Fatherhood of God, out of Christ, is a mere idol of man’s invention, and incapable of comforting or saving.
Alford remarks, “Whosoever does not honour the Son with equal honour to that which he pays to the Father, however he may imagine that he honours or approaches God, does not honour Him at all; because he can only be known by us as ‘the Father who sent his Son.’ “-Barnes remarks, “If our Saviour here did not intend to teach that He ought to be worshipped and esteemed equal with God, it would be difficult to teach it by any language.”
Rollock remarks, “The Jews and Turks in the present day profess to worship God earnestly, not only without the Son, but even with contempt of the Son Jesus Christ. But the whole of such worship is idolatrous, and that which they worship is an idol. There is no knowledge of the true God except in the face of the Son.”
Wordsworth remarks, “They who profess zeal for the one God do not honour Him aright, unless they honour the Son as they honour the Father. This is a warning to those who claim the title of Unitarians, and deny the divinity of Christ. No one can be said to believe in the Divine Unity who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.”
The entire unity of the three Persons in the Trinity, is a subject that needs far more attention than many give to it. It may be feared that many well-meaning Christians are tritheists or worshippers of three distinct Gods, without knowing it. They talk as if God the Father’s mind towards sinners was one thing, and God the Son’s another,-as if the Father hated man, and the Son loved him and protected him. Such persons would do well to study this part of Scripture, and to mark the unity of the Father and the Son.
After all, that deep truth, “the eternal generation” of God the Son, whatever proud man may say of it, is the foundation truth which we must never forget in trying to understand a passage like that before us. In the Trinity “none is afore or after other. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Ghost eternal. The Father is God: the Son is God: the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal: not three Gods, but one God.”-As Burgon remarks, “There never was a time when any one of the three Persons was not;” and it might be added, there never was a time when the three Persons were not equal. And yet the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity, and the Holy Ghost proceeded from all eternity from the Father and the Son.
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Joh 5:16. And for this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath day. The man whose cure had been the occasion of the action taken by the Jews now passes from view. For the second time Jesus and the Jews are brought face to face. He had appeared in the temple (Joh 2:14) to put an end to the abuses they bad permitted or fostered, and to vindicate the holiness of His Fathers house. Then He offered Himself to Israel as the Son of God; He declared Himself the antitype of their temple, the idea of which (as Gods dwelling-place) had its fulfilment in Himself alone. As by supernatural influence on those who trafficked in the Holy Place He had then challenged the attention of the rulers of Israel, so now by a wonderful sign He fixed on Himself the eyes of all (Joh 7:21). This time it is not on the temple that He lays His hand, but on the law, the cherished commandment of the sabbath. It is not as one who with authority checks abuses which none could defend, though from them many derived gain, that our Lord now appears in Jerusalem: He comes as one who claims to be above the law, having the right, as Lawgiver, to set aside its letter. As the temple had its idea fulfilled in Himself, so was it with the sabbath. As to the Son of God Gods house belonged, so to the Son of God belonged that Rest of God of which the sabbath was a type; and the sabbath cannot be broken by the Son of God. This is the light in which the following verses teach us to regard the whole narrative. The choice of the sabbath day for the miracle is the kernel of the paragraph. Had the Jews been teachable and free from prejudice, had they taken the miracle as the starting-point of their reasonings, they would have been prepared for hearing the ground of the claims of Jesus thus to regulate their law. How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? (Joh 9:16) was in truth a convincing argument, and by yielding to its force they would have been led to Jesus as humble seekers after truth. But because He did these things, wrought such works and showed that He would persevere with them, they became and continued to be His persecutors.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 16. For this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the Sabbath day.
(for this cause), resumes what precedes, and, at the same time, is explained by the phrase which closes the verse: because …The word (persecute), indicates the seeking of the means to injure. In favor of the authenticity of the following words in the T. R.: and they sought to kill him, the (yet more), of Joh 5:18, can be alleged. But it is still more probable that it is these words in Joh 5:18 which have occasioned this interpolation. The imperfect (He did), malignantly expresses the idea that the violation of the Sabbath has henceforth passed with Him into a rule: He is accustomed to do it. This idea is entirely lost in the inaccurate translation of Ostervald and of Rilliet: because He had done this. The plural (these things), refers to the double violation of the Sabbath, the healing and the bearing of the burden.
Let us notice here two analogies between John and the Synoptics: 1. In the latter also, Jesus is often obliged to perform His miracles as it were by stealth, and even to impose silence on those whom He has healed. 2. It is on occasion of the Sabbatic healings wrought in Galilee, that, according to them also, the conflict breaks out (Luk 6:1-11).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 16
Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus. It was with this design that they inquired, (John 5:12;) but the man, in giving them the information, did not intend this result. He spoke (John 5:15) to honor Jesus, not to betray him, as is indicated by the form of his expression. If the latter had been his design, he would have told the Jews that it was Jesus who directed him to take up his bed and walk, not that it was Jesus who had made him whole.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
"These things" seem to refer to Jesus’ acts of healing the man and commanding him to take up his mat and walk. Rather than worshipping Him, or at least considering His claims, the Jewish authorities persecuted Jesus for doing what they considered to be work on the Sabbath. Their persecution initially took the form of verbal opposition, as the following verses clarify.