Johannes 5:18 Kommentar

We have in the gospels a faithful record of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, Act 1:1. These two are interwoven, because what he taught explained what he did, and what he did confirmed what he taught. Accordingly, we have in this chapter a miracle and a sermon. I. The miracle was the cure of an impotent man that had been diseased thirty-eight years, with the circumstances of that cure (v. 1-16). II. The sermon was Christ's vindication of himself before the sanhedrim, when he was prosecuted as a criminal for healing the man on the sabbath day, in which, 1. He asserts his authority as Messiah, and Mediator between God and man (Joh 5:17-29). 2. He proves it by the testimony of his Father, of John Baptist, of his miracles, and of the scriptures of the Old Testament, and condemns the Jews for their unbelief (v. 30-47).

After this there was a feast of the Jews,.... After Christ had been in Samaria, which was four months ago, Joh 4:35, and had been in Galilee for that time, and had cured the nobleman's son, and had done other mighty works, the time came on for one of the three festivals of the Jews; either the feast of Pentecost, as some think; or as others, the feast of tabernacles; or rather, the feast of the passover, so called, in Joh 4:45 since John is very particular, in giving an account of the several passovers, in Christ's ministry: and Jesus went up to Jerusalem; according to the law of God, which obliged all the males to appear there at that time; and to show his compliance with it, and obedience to it, whom it became to fulfil all righteousness; and this he did also, that he might have an opportunity of discoursing, and doing his miracles before all the people, which came at this time, from the several parts of the land.

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.

(vii. de Trin. c. 15) The Evangelist here explains why the Jews wished to kill Him.

The Evangelist testifies that in calling himself God’s own Son, Jesus made himself equal to God. For the Jews are not presented as saying, “For this cause we sought to kill him.” Rather, the Evangelist, speaking for himself, says, “For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him.” Moreover, he has discovered the cause, [in saying] that the Jews were stirred with desire to slay him because, when as God he broke the sabbath and also claimed God as his own Father, Jesus ascribed to himself not only the majesty of divine authority in breaking the sabbath but also, in speaking of his Father, the right pertaining to eternal equality.

"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." And this he asserted not by words merely, but by deeds, for not in speech alone, but also yet oftener by actions He declared it. Why so? Because they might object to His words and charge Him with arrogance, but when they saw the truth of His actions proved by results, and His power proclaimed by works, after that they could say nothing against Him.

But they who will not receive these words in a right mind assert, that "Christ made not Himself equal to God, but that the Jews suspected this." Come then let us go over what has been said from the beginning. Tell me, did the Jews persecute Him, or did they not? It is clear to every one that they did. Did they persecute Him for this or for something else? It is again allowed that it was for this. Did He then break the Sabbath, or did He not? Against the fact that He did, no one can have anything to say. Did He call God His Father, or did He not call Him so? This too is true. Then the rest also follows by the same consequence; for as to call God His Father, to break the Sabbath, and to be persecuted by the Jews for the former and more especially for the latter reason, belonged not to a false imagination, but to actual fact, so to make Himself equal to God was a declaration of the same meaning.

Now the Jews were moved and indignant: justly, indeed, because a man dared to make himself equal with God; but unjustly in this, because in the man they understood not the God. They saw the flesh, the God they knew not; they observed the habitation, of the inhabitant they were ignorant. That flesh was a temple, within it dwelt God. It was not the flesh that Jesus made equal to the Father, it was not the form of a servant that He compared to the Lord; not that which He became for us, but that which He was when He made us.

(de Con. Ev. l. iv. c. x) The words, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, suppose Him to be equal to the Father. This being understood, it followed from the Father's working, that the Son worked: inasmuch as the Father cloth nothing without the Son.

Further, what said the evangelist as he went on? "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father;" not in any ordinary manner, but how? "Making Himself equal with God." For we all say to God, "Our Father which art in heaven;" we read also that the Jews said, "Seeing Thou art our Father." Therefore it was not for this they were angry, because He said that God was His Father, but because He said it in quite another way than men do. Behold, the Jews understand what the Arians do not understand. The Arians, in fact, say that the Son is not equal with the Father, and hence it is that the heresy was driven from the Church. Lo, the very blind, the very slayers of Christ, still understood the words of Christ. They did not understand Him to be Christ, nor did they understand Him to be the Son of God: but they did nevertheless understand that in these words such a Son of God was intimated to them as should be equal with God. Who He was they knew not; still they did acknowledge such a One to be declared, in that "He said God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." Was He not therefore equal with God? He did not make Himself equal, but the Father begat Him equal. Were He to make Himself equal, He would fall by robbery. For he who wished to make himself equal with God, whilst he was not so, fell, and of an angel became a devil, and administered to man that cup of pride by which himself was cast down. For this fallen said to man, envying his standing, "Taste, and ye shall be as gods;" that is, seize to yourselves by usurpation that which ye are not made, for I also have been cast down by robbery. He did not put forth this, but this is what he persuaded to. Christ, however, was begotten equal to the Father, not made; begotten of the substance of the Father. Whence the apostle thus declares Him: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." What means "thought it not robbery"? He usurped not equality with God, but was in that equality in which He was begotten. And how were we to come to the equal God? "He emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant." But He emptied Himself not by losing what He was, but by taking to Him what He was not. The Jews, despising this form of a servant, could not understand the Lord Christ equal to the Father, although they had not the least doubt that He affirmed this of Himself, and therefore were they enraged: and yet He still bore with them, and sought the healing of them, while they raged against Him.

(Tr. xvii. s. 16) i. e. not in the secondary sense in which it is true of all of us, but as implying equality. For we all of us say to God, Our Father, Which art in heaven. (Matt. 6) And the Jews say, Thou art our Father. (Isaiah 63:16) They were not angry then because He called God His Father, but because He called Him so in a sense different from men.

(Tr. xvii. s. 16) So, the Jews understood what the Arians do not. For the Arians say that the Son is not equal to the Father, and hence sprang up that heresy which afflicts the Church.

(Tr. xvii. s. 16) The Jews however did not understand from our Lord that He was the Son of God, but only that He was equal with God; though Christ gave this as the result of His being the Son of God. It is from not seeing this, while they saw at the same time that equality was asserted, that they charged Him with making Himself equal with God: the truth being, that He did not make Himself equal, but the Father had begotten Him equal.

The mind of the Jews is wound up unto cruelty, and whereby they ought to have been healed, they are the more sick, that they may justly hear, How say ye, WE are wise? For when they ought to have been softened in disposition, transformed by suitable reasoning unto piety, they even devise slaughter against Him Who proves by His Deeds, that He hath in no whit transgressed the Divine Law by healing a man on the sabbath. They weave in with their wrath on account of the sabbath, the truth as a charge of blasphemy, snaring themselves in the meshes of their own transgressions unto wrath indissoluble. For they seemed to be pious in their distress that He being a Man, should say that God was His Father. For they knew not yet that He Who was for our sakes made in the form of a servant, is God the Word, the Life gushing forth from God the Father, that is, the Only-Begotten, to Whom Alone God is rightly and truly inscribed and is Father, but to us by no means so: for we are adopted, mounting up to excellency above nature through the will of Him That honoured us, and gaining the title of gods and sons because of Christ That dwelleth in us through the Holy Ghost. Looking therefore to the Flesh alone, and not acknowledging God Who dwelleth in the Flesh, they endure not His springing up to measure beyond the nature of Man, through His saying that God was His Father (for in saying, My Father, He would with reason introduce this idea) but they deem that He Whose Father God properly is, must be by Nature Equal with Him, in this alone conceiving rightly: for so it is, and no otherwise. Since then the word introduces with it this meaning, they perverting the upright word of truth are more angry.

If he had simply called God his father, they would have not grumbled. But he called him his own Father as if he proceeded directly from him and was equal to him.

But they, incited by envy, sought to kill Him not only because He called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. By calling Himself the Son, He necessarily made Himself equal in honor with God. For every son is of one and the same nature as his father. Where is Arius in all this? Truly, he is blind in broad daylight. Calling Christ the Son of the Father, he did not accept His consubstantiality with the Father, but regarded the Son of the uncreated Father as a creature. He should have learned at least from the Jews, who persecuted the Lord because He called Himself the Son of God, and from this it necessarily followed that He was equal to God. If the dignity of the Son were not important and He did not make Himself equal to God through it, then why would they have persecuted Him?

Then (v 18), the Evangelist mentions the persecution of Christ, which resulted from his teaching: for it was because of his teaching that the Jews tried all the harder, i.e., with greater eagerness and a higher pitch of zeal, to kill him. For in the law two crimes were punished by death: the crime of breaking the Sabbath—thus anyone who gathered wood on the Sabbath was stoned, as we see from Numbers (15:32); and the crime of blasphemy—so we read: "Bring the blasphemer outside the camp... and let all the children of Israel stone him" (Lv 24:14). Now they thought it was blasphemy for a man to claim that he was God: "We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy: because although you are a man, you make yourself God" (below 10:33). It was these two crimes they imputed to Christ: the first because he broke the Sabbath; the second because he said he was equal to God. So the Evangelist says that the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father. Because other just men had also called God their Father, as in "You will call me 'Father'" (Jer 3:19), they do not just say that he called God his own Father, but added what made it blasphemy, making himself equal to God, which they understood from his statement: My Father works even until now, and so do I. He said that God was his Father so that we might understand that God is his Father by nature, and the Father of others by adoption. He referred to both of these when he said: "I am going to my Father," by nature, "and to your Father," by grace (below 20:17). Again, he said that as the Father works, so he works. This answers the accusation of the Jews about his breaking the Sabbath: for this would not be a valid excuse unless he had equal authority with God in working. It was for this reason they said he made himself equal to God. How great then is the blindness of the Arians when they say that Christ is less than God the Father: for they cannot understand in our Lord's words what the Jews were able to understand. For the Arians say that Christ did not make himself equal to God, while the Jews saw this. There is another way to settle this, from the very things mentioned in the text. For the Evangelist says that the Jews persecuted Christ because he broke the Sabbath, because he said God is his Father, and because he made himself equal to God. But Christ is either a liar or equal to God. But if he is equal to God, Christ is God by nature. Finally, the Evangelist says, making himself equal to God, not as though he was making himself become equal to God, because he was equal to God through an eternal generation. Rather, the Evangelist is speaking according to the understanding of the Jews who, not believing that Christ was the Son of God by nature, understood him to say that he was the Son of God in the sense of wishing to make himself equal to God; but they could not believe he was such: "because although you are a man, you make yourself God" (below 10:33), i.e., you say that you are God, understanding this as you wish to make yourself God.

The man who had been diseased thirty-eight years healed on the Sabbath day, Joh 5:1-9. The Jews cavil, persecute Christ, and seek to kill him, because he had done this cure on the Sabbath, Joh 5:10-16. Our Lord vindicates his conduct, and shows, from the testimony of the Father, the Scriptures, John the Baptist, and his own works, that he came from God, to be the light and salvation of the world, vv. 17-39. He reproves the Jews for their obstinacy, Joh 5:40; hatred to God, Joh 5:41, Joh 5:42; pride, Joh 5:43, Joh 5:44; and disbelief of their own law, Joh 5:45-47.

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 Num 15:32; Lev 24:11, Lev 24:14, Lev 24:16.

THE IMPOTENT MAN HEALED--DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE PERSECUTION ARISING THEREUPON. (John 5:1-47) a feast of the Jews--What feast? No question has more divided the Harmonists of the Gospels, and the duration of our Lord's ministry may be said to hinge on it. For if, as the majority have thought (until of late years) it was a Passover, His ministry lasted three and a half years; if not, probably a year less. Those who are dissatisfied with the Passover-view all differ among themselves what other feast it was, and some of the most acute think there are no grounds for deciding. In our judgment the evidence is in favor of its being a Passover, but the reasons cannot be stated here.

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.