João 5:23 Comentário

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.

That all men should honour the Son,.... This is the end of all judgment, and the exercise of all authority, and power being committed to him; namely, that he might have the honour given him by men that is due unto him: even as they honour the Father; that the same honour and glory may be given to the one, as to the other, which must never have been done was he not equal with him, since he gives not his glory to another, Isa 42:8. Indeed, all men do not honour the Father as they should; the Gentiles, who had some knowledge of God, glorified him not as God; and the Jews, who had an external revelation of the one, true, and living God, which other nations had not, yet were greatly deficient in honouring him, which made him complaining say, "if then I be a father, where is mine honour?" Mal 1:6. And Christians, who are favoured with a clearer revelation still of the Father of Christ, are much wanting in giving him his due glory; but in common he is honoured, though in an imperfect manner; nor is there so much danger of his losing his honour, as of the Son's losing his; the reason is this, though the Son is in the form of God, and equal with him, yet by taking upon him the form of a servant, by becoming man, he has veiled the glory of his divine person, and made himself of no reputation; and by reason of this was reckoned by many, or most, as a mere man: wherefore, by agreement, that judgment, power, and authority, which equally belonged to the Father, and the Son, the exercise of it is put visibly and openly into the Son's hands, that he might have his due honour and glory from all men, whether they will or not: from true believers in him he has it willingly, by their ascribing deity to him, by putting their trust in him, by attributing the whole of their salvation to him, and the glory of it, and by worshipping him: and he will be honoured by all men at the last day; they will be obliged to do it; for all judgment being committed to him, and he being Judge of all, every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord, to his own glory, and to the glory of God the Father; see Isa 45:23. He that honoureth not the Son; that denies his divine sonship, or his proper deity; that detracts from the dignity of his person or office; that shows no regard to him in point of salvation, or of obedience: honoureth not the Father which hath sent him; they are so the same in nature and perfections, in power, will, affections, and operations; and their interests and honours are so involved together, that whatever dishonour is done to one, reflects on the other: and indeed, whatever is done in a way of disrespect to the Son, as incarnate, and in his office capacity, highly reflects on his Father, that sent him in the fulness of time, in human nature, to obtain eternal redemption for his people, according to a rule often expressed by the Jews, "a man's messenger is as himself"; See Gill on Mat 10:40.

Then Peter says: "You do not perceive that you are making statements in opposition to yourself. For if our Jesus also knows Him whom you call the unknown God, then He is not known by you alone. Yea, if our Jesus knows Him, then Moses also, who prophesied that Jesus should come, assuredly could not himself be ignorant of Him. For he was a prophet; and he who prophesied of the Son doubtless knew the Father. For if it is in the option of the Son to reveal the Father to whom He will, then the Son, who has been with the Father from the beginning, and through all generations, as He revealed the Father to Moses, so also to the other prophets; but if this be so, it is evident that the Father has not been unknown to any of them. But how could the Father be revealed to you, who do not believe in the Son, since the Father is known to none except him to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him? But the Son reveals the Father to those who honour the Son as they honour the Father." [John 5:23]

It is only things of the same nature that are equal in honor. Equality of honor denotes that there is no separation between the honored. But the demand for equality of honor is combined with the revelation of Christ’s birth. Since the Son is to be honored as the Father, and since they do not seek the Son’s honor, even though he is the only God, he is not excluded from the honor of the only God. For his honor is one and the same as that of God.… He who does not seek the honor of the only God does not seek the honor of Christ also. Accordingly the honor of Christ is inseparable from the honor of God.

(vii. de Trin. c. 21) The conclusion then stands good against all the fury of heretical minds. He 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.

He who has not acknowledged the Son is unable to acknowledge the Father. This is wisdom, and this is the mystery of the supreme God. God willed that he should be acknowledged and worshiped through him. On this account he sent the prophets beforehand to announce his coming so that when the things that had been foretold were fulfilled in him, then he might be believed by people to be both the Son of God and God. Nor, however, must the opinion be entertained that there are two gods, for the Father and the Son are one.

"He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him." Seest thou how the honor of the Son is connected with that of the Father? "What of that?" saith one. "We see the same in the case of the Apostles; 'He,' saith Christ, 'who receiveth you receiveth Me.'" But in that place He speaketh so, because He maketh the concerns of His servants His own; here, because the Essence and the Glory is One with that of the Father. Therefore it is not said of the Apostles "that they may honor," but rightly He saith, "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father." For where there are two kings, if one is insulted the other is insulted also, and especially when he that is insulted is a son. He is insulted even when one of his soldiers is maltreated; not in the same way as in this case, but as it were in the person of another, while here it is as it were in his own. Wherefore He beforehand said, "That they should honor the Son even as they honor the Father," in order that when He should say, "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father," thou mightest understand that the honor is the same. For He saith not merely, "he that honoreth not the Son," but "he that honoreth Him not so as I have said" "honoreth not the Father."

"Shall we then," saith some one, "also call Him Father?" Away with the thought. He useth the word "Son" that we may honor Him still remaining a Son, as we honor the Father; but he who calleth Him "Father" doth not honor the Son as the Father, but has confounded the whole. Moreover as men are not so much brought to by being benefited as by being punished, on this account He hath spoken thus terribly, that even fear may draw them to honor Him. And when He saith "all," His meaning is this, that He hath power to punish and to honor, and doeth either as He will. The expression "hath given," is used that thou mayest not suppose Him not to have been Begotten, and so think that there are two Fathers. For all that the Father is, this the Son is also, Begotten, and remaining a Son. And that thou mayest learn that "hath given" is the same as "hath begotten," hear this very thing declared by another place. "As," saith Christ, "the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself." "What then? Did he first beget and then give Him life? For he who giveth, giveth to something which is. Was He then begotten without life?" Not even the devils could imagine this, for it is very foolish as well as impious. As then "hath given life" is "hath begotten Him who is Life," so, "hath given judgment" is "hath begotten Him who shall be Judge." That thou mayest not when thou hearest that He hath the Father for His cause imagine any difference of essence or inferiority of honor, He cometh to judge thee, by this proving His Equality. For He who hath authority to punish and to honor whom He will, hath the same Power with the Father. Since, if this be not the case, if having been begotten He afterwards received the honor, how came it that He was afterwards thus honored, by what mode of advancement reached He so far as to receive and be appointed to this dignity? Are ye not ashamed thus impudently to apply to that Pure Nature which admitteth of no addition these carnal and mean imaginations?

And immediately, then, after the judgment mentioned, all which the Father, not judging any man, hath given to the Son, what shall be? What follows? "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." The Jews honor the Father, despise the Son. For the Son was seen as a servant, the Father was honored as God. But the Son will appear equal with the Father, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. This we have, therefore, now in faith. Let not the Jew say, "I honor the Father; what have I to do with the Son?" Let him be answered, "He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father. Thou liest every way; thou blasphemest the Son, and dost wrong to the Father. For the Father sent the Son, and thou despisest Him whom the Father sent. How canst thou honor the sender, who blasphemest the sent?"

Behold, says some one, the Son has been sent; and the Father is greater, because He sent. Withdraw from the flesh; the old man suggests oldness in time. Let the ancient, the perpetual, the eternal, to thee the new, call off thy understanding from time to this. Is the Son less because He is said to have been sent? I hear of a sending, not a separation. But yet, saith he, among men we see that he who sends is greater than he who is sent. Be it so; but human affairs deceive a man; divine things purge him. Do not regard things human, in which the sender appears greater, the sent less. Notwithstanding, things human themselves bear testimony against thee. Just as, for example, if a man wishes to ask a woman to wife, and, not being able to do this in person, sends a friend to ask for him. And there are many cases in which the greater is chosen to be sent by the less.

Consider how different it is in the case of things human, from which you wish to deduce examples for things divine. A man that sends remains himself behind, while only the man that is sent goes forward. Does the man who sends go with him whom he sends? Yet the Father, who sent the Son, has not departed from the Son. Hear the Lord Himself saying, "Behold, the hour is coming, when every one shall depart to his own, and ye will leave me alone; but I am not alone, because the Father is with me." How has He, with whom He came, sent Him? How has He, from whom He has not departed, sent Him? In another place He said, "The Father abiding in me doeth the works." Behold, the Father is in Him, works in Him. The Father sending has not departed from the Son sent, because the sent and the sender are one.

"Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him." This is a truth, and is plain. Since, then, "all judgment hath He given to the Son," as He said above, "that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," what if there be those who honor the Father and honor not the Son? It cannot be, saith He: "Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him." One cannot therefore say, I honored the Father, because I knew not the Son. If thou didst not yet honor the Son, neither didst thou honor the Father. For what is honoring the Father, unless it be in that He hath a Son? It is one thing when thou art taught to honor God in that He is God; but another thing when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father. When thou art taught to honor Him in that He is God, it is as the Creator, as the Almighty, as the Spirit supreme, eternal, invisible, unchangeable, that thou art led to think of Him; but when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father, it is the same thing as to honor the Son; because Father cannot be said if there be not a Son, as neither can Son if there be not a Father. But lest, it may be, thou honorest the Father indeed as greater, but the Son as less, as thou mayest say to me, "I do honor the Father, for I know that He has a Son; nor do I err in the name Father, for I do not understand Father without Son, and yet the Son also I honor as the less," the Son Himself sets thee right, and recalls thee, saying, "that all may honor the Son," not in a lower degree, but "as they honor the Father." Therefore, "whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him." "I," sayest thou, "wish to give greater honor to the Father, less to the Son." Therein thou takest away honor from the Father, wherein thou givest less to the Son. For, being thus minded, it must really seem to thee that the Father either would not or could not beget a Son equal to Himself: if He would not, He lacked the will; if He could not, He lacked the ability. Dost thou not therefore see that, being thus minded, wherein thou wouldst give greater honor to the Father, therein thou art reproachful to the Father? Wherefore, so honor the Son as thou honorest the Father, if thou wouldest honor both the Father and the Son.

(xxi. s. 13) First indeed, the Son appeared as a servant, and the Father was honoured as God. But the Son will be seen to be equal to the Father, that all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. 1But what if persons are found, who honour the Father, and do not honour the Son? It cannot be: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him. It is one thing to acknowledge God, as God; and another to acknowledge Him as the Father. When thou acknowledgest God the Creator, thou acknowledgest an almighty, supreme, eternal, invisible, immutable Spirit. When thou acknowledgest the Father, thou dost in reality acknowledge the Son; for He could not be the Father, had He not the Son. But if thou honour the Father as greater, the Son as less, so far as thou givest less honour to the Son, thou takest away from the honour of the Father. For thou in reality thinkest that the Father could not or would not beget the Son equal to Himself; which if He would not do, He was envious, if He could not, He was weak. (Tr. xxiii. s. 13). Or, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; has a reference to the resurrection of souls, which is the work of the Son, as well as of the Father. But the resurrection of the body is meant in what comes after: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent Him. Here is no as; the man Christ is honoured, but not as the Father Who sent Him, since with respect to His manhood He Himself saith, My Father is greater than I. (Tr. xxi. s. 17). But some one will say, if the Son is sent by the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Leave thy fleshly actions, and understand a mission, not a separation. Human things deceive, divine things make clear; although even human things give testimony against thee, e. g. if a man offers marriage to a woman, and cannot obtain her by himself, he sends a friend, greater than himself, to urge his suit for him. But see the difference in human things. A man does not go with him whom he sends; but the Father Who sent the Son, never ceased to be with the Son; as we read, I am not alone, but the Father is with Me. (c. 16)

(iv. de Trin. c. 28. [xx.]) It is not, however, as being born of the Father, that the Son is said to be sent, but from His appearing in this world, as the Word made flesh; as He says, I went forth from the Father, and am come into the world: (John 16:28) or from His being received into our minds individually, as we readl, Send her, that she may be with me, and may labour with me.

CHAPTER VIII. That the Son being God and of God by Nature, and the Exact Image of Him Who begat Him, hath equal honour and glory with Him. A cause and reason of the things already enumerated, is now evident, viz., that the Son ought to be honoured in Equality and likeness with the Father. For recapitulating a little, and carried back to a recollection of the preceding, you will view accurately the force of the passage. He said then that God was His Father, making Himself Equal with God; then again He began showing that He was of Equal strength and skill, saying, For what things soever He doeth, these doeth also the Son likewise. That He is both Life and Life-giving by Nature, as is He too Who begat Him, He showed plainly, adding, For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son too quick-eneth whom He will. But that He will be also Judge of all, the Father in all things co-approving and consenting, He declared, saying, For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. What then is the cause of these things? what induced the Only-Begotten to say all this? That all men (He saith) should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. For if He hath all things whatever the Father hath, as far as appertains to God-befitting Dignity, how is it not fitting that He to Whom nothing is lacking to Identity of essence should be crowned with equal honours with Him? What then do they say to this too who pervert all equity, as saith the Prophet Isaiah? |262 "If (he says) by reason of its being said, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, ye suppose that one ought to magnify the Son with equal honours with the Father, ye know not that ye are stepping far away from the truth. For the word As does not altogether introduce equality of acts, in respect of those things it is affixed to, but often marks out a kind of likeness, just as (he says) the Saviour counsels, saying, Be ye therefore merciful as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful. Shall we then be as merciful as the Father, on account of the as? And again Christ says to His Father of His disciples: Thou hast loved them, AS Thou hast loved Me. But we will not grant that the disciples are loved just as the Son, on account of the as. Why then dost thou multiply words, and distort what is said into blasphemy, though it introduces no obligation on the hearers to honour the Son in equal measure with the Father?" What then is our answer to these things? With bitter words do the fighters against God bay at us, but without are dogs, as Paul saith, without are evil workers, without the right faith are the concision. For we are sons of the truth and children of the light. Therefore we will glorify the Only-Begotten together with God the Father, not with any difference, but in equality of honour and glory, as God of God, and Light of Light, and Life of Life. And overmuch enquiry into what is to be received as faith, is not without hazard: nevertheless we must test the force of the As, lest our opponents be overwise in their own conceits. When therefore As is applied to things unlike in their nature, it does not wholly introduce absolute equality, but rather likeness and resemblance, as ye yourselves acknowledged above; but when it is applied to things in all respects like to one another, it shows equality in all things and similitude and whatever else is found to have the same force with these. Just as if I say, Bright is the sun in Heaven, bright too is silver which is of the earth, yet is the nature of the things mentioned diverse. Let |263 any of the rich, of the earth, be supposed to say to his household servants, Let the silver shine as the sun. In this case we very justly say that earthly matter attains not to equal brightness with the sun, but to a certain likeness and resemblance, although the word As be used of it. But let Peter and John (suppose) of the holy disciples be brought forward, who both in respect of nature and of piety towards God, fail not of an accurate likeness one to another, let the As be applied, some one saying of them, as here, Let John be honoured by all, even as Peter, will the As here be powerless, so that equal honour ought not to be paid to both? But I do not suppose that any one will say such a thing: for he will see that there is nothing to prevent it. According to this analogy of idea, when the As is applied to the Father and the Son, why should we shrink from crowning Both with equal honours? For He having considered before, as God, things to come, and having carefully viewed the envious opposition of thine unlearning hath brought in the As, not bare and bereft of the aid befitting it, but having strengthened it beforehand with convenient proofs, and shown afore that He is God by Nature (for He made God His Father): having again fore-shewn that He is both God the Creator and of a truth Life, and having before introduced Himself, altogether glorying (so to say) in the Attributes of God the Father,----He afterwards seasonably subjoins That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father too. Then what objection still appears, what is there to hinder, that He, in Whom are Essentially the Properties and excellencies of the Father, should attain to an equal degree of honour? for we shall be found honouring the very Nature of God the Father, full well beaming forth in the Son. Wherefore He proceeds, He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent Him. For the charge of dishonouring the Son, and the force of blasphemy against Him, will mount up unto none other more truly than the Father Himself, Who put forth the Son as it were from the |264 Fount of His Own Nature, even though He be seen throughout the whole Holy Scriptures as everlastingly with Him. "Yea (saith the opponent) let the charge from dishonouring the Son go to whatsoever you please, or rather let it reach even unto God the Father Himself. For He will be angry, and that with reason, yet not wholly so, as though His Very Nature were insulted in the Son, according to our just now carefully finished argument, but since He is His Image and Impress, formed most excellently after His Divine and Ineffable Essence, He is with reason angry, and will wholly transfer the wrong to Himself. For it were indeed most absurd, that he who insulted the Divine Impresses, should not surely pay the penalty of his sin against the Archetype. Just as he who has in-suited the images of earthly kings, is punished as having indeed transgressed against the ruler himself. And in like manner shall we find it decreed by God in respect of ourselves also: for Whoso (saith He) sheddeth man's blood, for his blood shall he be poured forth: because in the Image of God He made man. Seest thou then hereby very clearly (saith he) that if the Image be wronged, and not altogether the Divine Nature, God the Father deems it right to be angry? In this way then let that which is said by Christ be conceived of and adapted, He that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father." Shall then the Only Begotten be classed with us as external to the Essence of the Father? how then will He yet be God by Nature, if He altogether slip out of the bounds of the Godhead, situate in some nature of his own and of other sort than that wherein the Father is? and we do wrong, it seems, in bringing into one count of Godhead, the order of the Holy Trinity. We ought, we ought at length to worship the Father as God, to impart some glory of Their Own to the Son and the Spirit, severing them as it were into different natures, and defining severally to Each the mode of His Existence. Yet do the Divine Scriptures |265 declare unto us One God, classing with the Father the Son and the Spirit, so that through Their Essential and exact sameness the Holy Trinity is brought unto one count of Godhead. The Only-Begotten is not then alien from the Nature of Him who begat Him, but neither will He be a whit conceived of as Son in truth, if He beamed not forth from the Essence of the Father (for this and no other is the definition and mode of true son ship in all) but if there be no Son, God's being Father will be wholly taken away too. How then will Paul be true in saying of Him, Of Whom every family in Heaven and earth is named? For if He have not begotten of Himself in God-befitting manner the Son, how shall the beginning of Fatherhood be in Him, going through in imitation to those who are in Heaven and earth? But God is in truth Father: the Only-Begotten therefore is by Nature Son, and is of a surety within the bounds of the Divinity. For God will be begotten of God even as man (for example) of man, and the Nature of God the Father, Which transcends all things, will not err by bearing fruit not befitting It. But since some blasphemously and foolishly say, that it is not the Nature of God the Father That is insulted in the Son, when He does not receive due honour from any, but that He is angry reasonably and rightly, at His Own Image being dishonoured in Him; we must ask them in what sense they would have the Son be and be called the Image of the Father. Yea rather let us forestalling their account, determine beforehand the Nature of the Image, according to legitimate reasoning: for so will the result of our enquiries be clear and more distinct. Therefore one and the first mode of image is that of sameness of nature in properties exactly alike, as Abel of Adam, or Isaac of Abraham: the second again is that consisting in likeness of impress, and accurate impression of form, as the King's delineation in wood, or made in any other way, most excellently and skilfully, as respects him. Another image again is taken in respect of habits and manners, and conversation and inclination to either good or bad, as for instance |266 it may be said that the well-doer is like Paul, him that is not so like Cain (for the being equally good or bad, works likeness with either, and with reason confers it) Another form of image is, that of dignity and honour and glory and excellence, as when one for instance succeeds another in a command, and does all things with the authority which belongs to and becomes him. An image in another sense, is in respect of any either quality or quantity of a thing, and its outline and proportion: for we must speak briefly. Let then the most critical investigators of the Divine Image teach us, whether they think one ought to attribute to the Only-Begotten the Essential and Natural Likeness, and thus say that the Only-Begotten Word proceeding from the Father is an Image of Him in the same sense as Abel is of Adam, who retained in himself the whole nature of his parent, and bore the count of human nature all-complete? or will they be vexed at this, compelled to confess the Son truly God of God by Nature, and turning aside according to their custom to fight against the truth, advance to the second kind of image, which is conceived to exist in mere form, impress and outline? But I suppose they will shrink from saying this. For no one, even if he be a very prater, will suppose that the Godhead can be estimated in respect of size, or circumscribed by outline, or meted by impress, or that the Unembodied will wholly undergo what belongs to bodies. Do they say then that He is conformed to Him in respect of manners and habits and will, and are they not ashamed to dress Him in this image? for how is He yet to be conceived of as God by Nature, Who has Likeness to Him in will only, but has another Being separately of Himself? For they will surely acknowledge that He subsists. Then what is there in Him more than in the creature? For shall we not believe that the angels themselves hasten to perform the Divine Will, who are by nature other than God? But what, when this is conceived of as belonging to us too? for does not the Only-Begotten teach us foolishly to jump at things above our nature, and to aim at impossibilities, saying, Be ye merciful, as your Father also which is in Heaven is merciful? For this were undoubtedly to say that we ought to gain the likeness of the Father by identity of will. And Paul too was an imitator of Christ, of the (as they babbling say) Image of the Father in will only. But they will shift their ground (I suppose) from these miserable conceptions, and as though thinking something greater and better, will surely say this, "The Only-Begotten is the Image of God the Father, in respect of identity of will, in respect of God-befitting Dignity and Glory and Power, in respect of Operation in creation and working miracles, in respect of reigning and ruling over all, in respect of judging and being worshipped by angels and men and in short by all creation. By all these He showing us the Father in Himself, says that He is not of His Person, but is the Impress of His Person." Therefore as we said just now, the Son is none of these by nature, but is altogether separate from all of them according at least to your most foolish reasoning, and is neither Very God, nor Son, nor King, nor Lord, nor Creator, nor Mighty, nor in respect of His own "Will is He by Nature Good: but in boasts solely and only of what is God-befitting is He seen. And as is the application of tints to paintings on tablets, beautifying them by the variety to the eye, but having nothing true: so as to the Son too, the beauty of the Excellencies of God the Father decks Him around with bare names only, but is as it were applied from without like certain tints: yea rather the Divine Nature is outlined in Him, and appears in bare type. Next, how will ye not be shown to be fighting outright with all the holy Scriptures, that ye may with justice hear, Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, YE are always resisting the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do YE too, for when do they not call the Son Very God, or when do they bear Him forth from the Essence of His Father? which of them has dared to say that He is by Nature neither Creator nor King nor Almighty nor to be worshipped? For the Divine Psalmist says as to the Only-Begotten Himself, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: Thomas again the most wise disciple in like wise calls Him God alike and Lord. He is called Almighty and Creator by every voice of saint, and as having not according to you the Dignity from without, but as being by Nature what He is said to be, and therefore is He worshipped both by the holy Angels and by us, albeit the Divine Scripture says that we ought to worship none other, save the Lord God Alone. If then they hold that the God-befitting Dignity in Him is acquired and given, and think that they ought to worship such an one, let them know that they are worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and making out to themselves a new and fresh God, rather than acknowledging Him Who is really so by Nature. But if while they say that the Son is external to the Essence of God the Father, they yet acknowledge Him to be Son and Very God and King and Lord and Creator, and to have Essentially in Himself the Properties and Excellencies of the Father, let them see whither there is risk that the end of those who thus think will be. For nothing at all will be found of sure faith in the Divine Nature, since the nature of things originate also is now capable of being whatever It is conceived to be. For it has been proved according to the most feeble reasoning of our opponents, that the Only-Begotten not being of the Divine Nature, hath yet truly in Himself Its Excellencies. Who will not shudder at the mere hearing the blasphemy of the doctrines? For all things are now overturned, when the Nature That is above all things descendeth so as to be classed with things originate, and the creation itself contrary to reason springs up to the measure above it, and not designed for it. Therefore let us swimming away from the absurdity of such doctrines, as from a ship sinking in the sea, hasten to he Truth, as to a secure and unruffled haven, and let us ackowledge the Son to be the Image of God the Father, not plaistered over so to say with perishable honours, nor adorned merely with God-befitting titles, but Essentially Exact according to the likeness of His Father, and unalterably being by Nature That which He That begat Him is conceived to be, to wit Very God of God in truth, Almighty, Creator, Glorified, Good, to be worshipped, and whatever may be added to the things enumerated as befitting God. For then showing Him to be Like in all things to God the Father, we shall also show Him true, in saying that if any will not honour the Son, neither doth he honour the Father Which hath sent Him: for as to this our enquiry and the test of the things just now investigated had its origin.

[Our opponents] say that the word as does not altogether always introduce equality of acts in those things to which it is affixed but often marks out a kind of likeness, as in, “Be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful.” Does this, they say, imply that we are just as merciful as the Father because of the word as?… What then is our answer to this?… When “as” is applied to things unlike in their nature, it does not wholly introduce absolute equality but rather likeness and resemblance. But when it is applied to things in all respects alike, it shows equality in all things and similitude. So, for instance when speaking of the brightness of the sun in heaven and the brightness of silver here on earth, their natures are diverse.… In this case, we rightly say that earthly matter cannot attain to equal brightness with the sun but only to a certain likeness and resemblance, even though the word as is used. But take the example of the holy disciples Peter and John, who, both in respect to nature and piety toward God, do not fail as accurate likenesses of one another. And then say, “Let John be honored by all, even as Peter.” Is the “as” here powerless so that equal honor should not be paid to both?… According to this analogy then, when the “as” is applied to the Father and the Son, why should we shrink from crowning both with equal honors?

So that we, hearing that the Father is the cause of the Son, would not begin to understand that He produced Him as He did the creatures, and thereby introduce a diminishment of honor, for this reason He says that between the Father and the Son there is no difference. For he who has the power to punish and reward as he wishes has power equal to the Father; therefore He must also be honored just as the Father: "that," He says, "all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." Since the Arians think to honor the Son as a creature, it turns out that they honor the Father as a creature as well. For they either do not honor Him at all, and therefore must be ranked with the Jews, or, if they honor Him as a creature, and He must be honored as the Father is, then they are decisively convicted of honoring the Father as a creature as well. And otherwise, judging by the addition, how do those who do not honor the Son honor the Father? For He adds: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either," that is, who does not honor Him in the same way as the Father. If anyone says that He is a creature, the most excellent of all creatures, and thinks that such honor is falsely and vainly attributed to Him (as the Son), that person decidedly dishonors the Father who sent Him.

764 Then when he says, so that all men may honor the Son, he gives the effect which results from the power of the Son. First, he gives the effect. Secondly, he excludes an objection (v 23b). 765 He says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, according to his human nature, because in the incarnation the Son emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, under which form he was dishonored by men, as is said below (8:49): "I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me." Therefore, judgment was given to the Son in his assumed nature in order that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. For on that day "they will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory" (Lk 21:27); "They fell on their faces and worshipped, saying: 'Blessing and glory, and wisdom and thanks, and honor, power and strength, to our God'" (Rv 7:11). 766 Someone might say: I am willing to honor the Father, but do not care about the Son. This cannot be, because Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. For it is one thing to honor God precisely as God, and another to honor the Father. For someone may well honor God as the omnipotent and immutable Creator without honoring the Son. But no one can honor God as Father without honoring the Son; for he cannot be called Father if he does not have a Son. But if you dishonor the Son by diminishing his power, this also dishonors the Father; because where you give less to the Son, you are taking away from the power of the Father. 767 Another explanation, given by Augustine, is this. A twofold honor is due to Christ. One, according to his divinity, in regard to which he is owed an honor equal to that given the Father; and with respect to this he says, that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Another honor is due the Son according to his humanity, but not one equal to that given the Father; and with respect to this he says, Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Thus in the first case he significantly used "as"; but now, the second time, he does not say "as," but states absolutely that the Son should be honored: "He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me," as we read in Luke (10:16).

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.

That all men should honor the Son, etc. - If then the Son is to be honored, Even As the Father is honored, then the Son must be God, as receiving that worship which belongs to God alone. To worship any creature is idolatry: Christ is to be honored even as the Father is honored; therefore Christ is not a creature; and, if not a creature, consequently the Creator. See Joh 1:3. He that honoureth not the Son - God will not receive that man's adoration who refuses to honor Jesus, even as he honors him. The Jews expected the Messiah as a great and powerful Prince; but they never thought of a person coming in that character enrobed with all the attributes of Godhead. To lead them off from this error, our Lord spoke the words recorded in these verses.

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.

honour the Son as . . . the Father--As he who believes that Christ in the foregoing verses has given a true account of His relation to the Father must of necessity hold Him entitled to the same honor as the Father, so He here adds that it was the Father's express intention in making over all judgment to the Son, that men should thus honor Him. honoureth not the Father--does not do it in fact, whatever he may imagine, and will be held as not doing it by the Father Himself, who will accept no homage which is not accorded to His own Son.