Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 5:18
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.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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 – , 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 , 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. God was his Fatherliterally,”His own [or peculiar] Father,” (as in Ro8:32). The addition is their own, but a very proper one.
making himself equal withGodrightly gathering this to be His meaning, not from the merewords “My Father,” but from His claim of right to act asHis Father did in the like high sphere, and by the same law ofceaseless activity in that sphere. And as, instead of instantlydisclaiming any such meaningas He must have done if it wasfalseHe positively sets His seal to it in the following verses,merely explaining how consistent such claim was with the prerogativesof His Father, it is beyond all doubt that we have here an assumptionof peculiar personal Sonship, or participation in the Father’sessential nature.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 Ps 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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Sought the more ( ). Imperfect active of , graphic picture of increased and untiring effort “to kill him” ( , first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause “they sought to kill him” in John 7:1; John 7:19; John 7:25; John 8:37; John 8:40. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years.
Not only brake the Sabbath ( ). Imperfect active of . He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of in this sense like (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge.
But also called God his own Father ( ). “His own” () in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by “My Father.” See Ro 8:32 for , “his own Son.”
Making himself equal with God ( ). is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means
equal . In Php 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ , “equal to God” (plural , attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be because in Joh 14:28 he says: “The Father is greater than I.” And yet he says in 14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in John 10:33; John 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Had broken [] . 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 [ ] . Properly, His own Father. So Rev.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,” (dia touto oun mallon ezetoun auton hoi loudaioi apokteinai) “Because of this then the Jews sought even more to kill him,” for revenge, as an expression of malice in their wicked hearts, because they could not answer His Scriptural, sound logical reason for the miracle of healing He had done on His Father’s sanctified sabbath.
2) “Because he not only had broken the sabbath,”(hoti ou monon eluen to sabbaton) “Because he not only broke the law of the sabbath,” in their blinded, prejudiced opinion, 2Co 4:3-4; Mar 5:20; Eph 4:18.
3) “But said also that God was his Father,” (alla kai patera idion elegen ton theon) “But also said that God (was) his own Father,” which He was, and He freely witnessed, and the Father had audibly witnessed that Jesus was His Son, Mat 3:16-17; Mat 17:5; Joh 17:1; Joh 17:5. And what they charged Jesus with doing, Jesus asserted that they were charging God with doing, being a breaker of His own law.
4) “Making himself equal with God.” (ison heauton poion to theo) “Making himself (to be) equal to God,” Joh 10:30; Joh 10:33; Php_3:6. Thus they added blasphemy as a charge against Him, in addition to the charge that He was a law-breaker. They recognized that He claimed to be the Son of God in a peculiar and exclusive sense, different from their claims to be sons of God through Abraham.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
. ‘This was why the Jews sought the more to kill Him (i.e. to plot His death) because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God ‘His own Father’ (patera idion) making Himself equal with God’.
Rather than recognise the logic of the situation they look for more reasons for attacking Him. They would not let the light in and so their hearts were darkened. Note that they recognised that He was claiming that God was His Father in a unique sense. That is why He always taught others to say, ‘OUR Father’ (not including Himself) while He Himself spoke of ‘My Father’. The Pharisees at least clearly recognised that claim, but for the wrong reasons. His claim that His right to work should be compared with God’s in relation to the Sabbath was sufficient for them in itself, but His reference to God as His Father confirmed the position. He was a blasphemer. They never stopped to ask themselves how a blasphemer could heal sick men. They simply glossed it over.
So the incident ends with a clear conclusion, that in it Jesus has made Himself out to be equal with God. This is apparent from His claim to rights over the Sabbath as a result of His co-working with the Father, and the fact that He can call God His own Father. They recognised the implication, but failed to recognise the consequence of the healing having taken place.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 5:18. God was his Father, Our Lord’s vindication offended the Jews exceedingly, as he claimed a peculiar, proper, and most high relation to God the Father, and, by asserting that he acted like God, set himself on a level with God. The original , is emphatical, and should be rendered his own Father;his Father in a peculiar manner, as Heylin reads it. The whole nation of the Jews thought God to be their Father, ch. Joh 8:41. They could not therefore have accounted it blasphemy in Christ, to use the same phrase, had they not interpreted it in so high and appropriating a sense.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 5:18 . ] because He said this, and as in Joh 5:16 . “Apologiam ipsam in majus crimen vertunt,” Bengel.
] neither potius nor amplius (Bengel: “modo persequebantur, nunc amplius quaerunt occidere”); but, as according to its position it necessarily belongs to ., magis, “they redoubled their endeavours.” It has a reference to in Joh 5:16 , so far as this general expression includes the desire to kill. Comp. for the , Joh 7:1 ; Joh 7:19 ; Joh 7:25 , Joh 8:37 ; Joh 8:40 , Joh 11:53 .
, . . .] patrem proprium . Comp. Rom 8:32 . They rightly interpreted 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 .
, . . .] not an explanation, nor exactly (B. Crusius) a proof of what precedes, which the words themselves of Jesus, , supply; but what Jesus says of God’s relation to Him ( ), 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 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 (Phi 2:6 ), however, lies in the background as an indistinct notion in the minds of His opponents.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18. ] The ground of the charge is now shifted; and by these last words ( Joh 5:17 ), 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
to kill Him. Note three attempts on the Lord’s life, all connected with His claim to Deity, here; Joh 8:58, Joh 8:69; Joh 10:30, Joh 10:31.
because He not only. The 1611 edition of the Authorized Version reads “not only because He”.
had broken = was breaking.
said also that God was His Father = -also called God His own Father.
God. App-98.
His = His own.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18.] The ground of the charge is now shifted; and by these last words (Joh 5:17), occasion is given for one of our Lords 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.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 5:18. ) 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.-, the more) There is a gradation: lately they were persecuting Him; now further they seek to kill Him.-, 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.- , His own: equal) His own Fathers 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.-, 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 5:18
Joh 5:18
For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.-This claim to have the right to do what God did placed himself on an equality with God and more infuriated the Jews so they now sought to kill him. [They did not undertake to put him to death at once, but began preparing the way for his death. More than two years later he was condemned to death for the claim of being the Son of God.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
his Father
(Greek – ,” his own Father). The Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be God. Cf. Joh 10:33.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the Jews: Joh 7:19
broken: Joh 7:22, Joh 7:23, Mat 12:5
God was: Joh 5:23, Joh 8:54, Joh 8:58, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:33, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:23, Zec 13:7, Phi 2:6, Rev 21:22, Rev 21:23, Rev 22:1, Rev 22:3
Reciprocal: Mat 9:5 – Arise Mat 12:14 – went Mat 26:63 – the Christ Mar 9:7 – This Mar 14:61 – the Son Mar 14:64 – General Luk 2:34 – for a Joh 8:53 – whom Joh 10:31 – General Joh 10:36 – I am Joh 14:28 – Father Joh 19:7 – because Col 1:17 – and by
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
A new cause for murderous hatred was furnished the Jews by the answer of Jesus. They pretended to be outraged at his claim of being the Son of God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The Apologists Bible Commentary
John 5
18For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but was also calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
CommentaryThis passage contains John’s explanation of what the title “The Son of God” meant in 1st Century Judaism. Notice that John is not quoting the Jews – he is explaining what “calling God his own Father” meant in that context. “The Jews” do not see the underlying unity between the two issues: they speak in terms of “not only, but also.” But they do understand where the radical break between them and Jesus is located. In their own words: he not only makes (the law of) the sabbath non-binding, thus “breaking” it, but also, by calling God his Father, makes “himself equal with God” – for them the most direct kind of blasphemy. Jesus’ reply, which begins in v. 19, is a response to both charges (Ridderbos , p. 191). To be equal with God suggested, they thought, two gods and therefore polytheism. To make oneself “equal with God” was a claim of arrogant independence. In the Talmud four persons were branded as haughty because they made themselves equal to God: pagan rulers Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and the Jewish King Joash (BKC ).
Grammatical Analysisalla kai patera idion elegen ton qeon ison eauton poiwn tw qew ALLA KAI PATERA IDION ELEGEN TON THEON, ISON EAUTON POIN Ti THEi but also Father [his] own said {the}God, equal [to] himself making to {the}God The phrase ISON …Ti THEi is appositional to PATERA IDION ktl., and is thus a definition or clarification. John is defining PATERA IDION (“His own Father”), saying it meant “making Himself equal with God.” ISON ?Pertaining to that which is equal, either in number, size, quality, or characteristics – ‘equal, equivalent, same’ (Louw & Nida ). Similarly, BAGD . ?To claim for oneself the nature, rank, authority, which belong to God, Jn 5:18 (Thayer ). This text illustrates a couple of semantic issues. The complement comes first and is anarthrous ; the object comes second and is articular . The same rule applies for distinguishing subject from predicate nom[inative] apply here. If one simply followed word order, the meaning would be “he was calling his own father God”! Further, the complement is thrown forward for emphasis and to render it definite…. The wording here is a concise theological statement (Wallace , pp. 185 – 186).
Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses Objection: Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the equation of “His own Father” and “equal with God” is based on the misconceptions of the hypocritical religious leaders. The religious leaders had many misconceptions about Jesus, surely they cannot be trusted on this crucial point. Response: Why is John clarifying “His own Father” in the first place? John knows that his readers may not understand why the Jews sought to kill Jesus. If he thinks his readers may be confused about this point, it doesn’t seem credible that he would not also state that the Jews were mistaken – John makes it clear elsewhere when the Jews were mistaken (cf., John 2:21). Why not here? Further, Witnesses posit that John’s audience would readily understand John 1:1c as declaring that Jesus was “a god.” If so, the idea of angels being “sons of God” must have been widely understood to mean that angels are “gods.” Further, if these first century “biblical monotheists” were comfortable with the idea of functional godhood as taught by the OT scriptures, and if Jesus actually appeals to this concept in John 10 (as Witnesses suggest), then the idea that men could be “gods” was also widely acknowledged and accepted. So, if Jesus referred to God as His Father, wouldn’t the Jews have more readily understood Him to mean that He was an angel or a functional god? Perhaps the Jews were so out of touch with the OT, that they had come to some sort of hyper-monotheistic understanding of God that precluded angelic or functional godhood – but then, surely John would have known this, and would not have assumed that passages like John 1:1c and John 20:28 would be “clearly” understood to reference Christ as a secondary “god.” In other words, there is a logical inconsistency between arguing on the one hand that the Jews would misconstrue Jesus’ words in this verse to mean equality with God, but – on the other hand – arguing the Jews would understand other verses which call Jesus THEOS (“God”) to mean a secondary god or angelic being.
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary
Joh 5:18. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. The Jews do not fail to see that the argument rested on the first words, My Father. He who could thus speak, and who justified His works by the works of God, was calling God His own Father in the highest sense which these words can bear, and was claiming equality with God. It has been objected that, though the brief assertion of Joh 5:17 does really imply all this, it is not probable that so momentous an inference would have been drawn from words so few. But it is sufficient to reply that, whilst John gives to us the exact substance of the words of Jesus and the impression which they made upon the hearers, we have no reason to suppose that all the words spoken are recorded. The meaning which we gather from those that stand written before us probably could not be conveyed by spoken words without repetition and enlargement. The thought of the condensation which must have taken place in the record of these discourses of our Lord is that which fully justifies the devout readers effort to catch every shade of meaning and follow every turn of expression.The answer Jesus has given does but repel the Jews. We are told what the persecution of Joh 5:16 meant,even then they had sought His life, for now they sought the more to kill Him. From this point onwards we have the conflict that nothing could reconcile, the enmity of the Jews which would not and could not rest until they had compassed the death of Him who had come to save them.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
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 (for this reason), is explained by the (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 (they persecuted). This suffices to explain the (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. , 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 secondthat of blaspheming. It was, first of all, the word (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).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was {c} his Father, making himself equal with God.
(c) That is, his alone and no one else’s, which they gather from his saying, “And I work”, applying this word “work” to himself which properly belongs to God, and therefore makes himself equal to God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Jewish leaders did not miss the force of what Jesus was claiming, namely, equality with the Father. Liberal interpreters who say that Jesus never claimed to be God have a difficult time with this passage. John here noted that these Jews had already been trying to do away with Him. These claims increased their efforts.
To the contemporary western mind the idea of "son" connotes a different person, but the ancient eastern mind thought of a "son" as the extension of his father. The word connoted identification with rather than difference from. The ancients considered a good son as one who followed in his father’s footsteps exactly.
Jesus was equal with God in His essence. Both the Father and the Son are deity. However Jesus was not equal with the Father in His subsistence. The Son was subordinate to the Father in this respect. This distinction is one that the Jewish leaders struggled with and that Jesus proceeded to clarify partially.
"It would seem that in their eyes God could exalt a man to be as God, but whoever made himself as God called down divine retribution on himself. They saw Jesus in the latter category." [Note: Beasley-Murray, p. 75.]
The emphasis in this section of the text is on Jesus being an extension of His Father and the legitimacy of His continuing His Father’s work even on the Sabbath.