- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
John 5:18(DRB) Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.
The verse appears to be the narrator's comment. It could be read as an assessment of the Jew's thinking which may be right or wrong. But if it is right then the implication is that the Lord broke the sabbath as understood by the Jews. It would also imply that the Jews saw his statements in the previous verses as a claim to be equal to God. If this is right then the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he was claiming to be God and was only a man according to their thinking.
The narrator's comment is expressing John's thinking since he is the narrator. Since this is the case then it may imply that John believed that Jesus was breaking the Jews' sabbath rules and that Jesus was claiming to be equal to God. Perhaps John was thinking that breaking the Jews rules about sabbath is not breaking God's commandment to observe the sabbath day. This would be consistent with some dialogues recorded elsewhere in the gospels.
Modern anti-trinitarians will have some interpretation to support their perspective.
A commentary observes :
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.
Another commentary remarks: 18. As St Augustine acutely remarked: The Jews understood what the Arians did not understand. The Arians denied the equality of the Son with the Father, which those blind Jews, those murderers of Christ understood from the words of Christ himself.
The verse appears to be the narrator's comment. It could be read as an assessment of the Jew's thinking which may be right or wrong. But if it is right then the implication is that the Lord broke the sabbath as understood by the Jews. It would also imply that the Jews saw his statements in the previous verses as a claim to be equal to God. If this is right then the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he was claiming to be God and was only a man according to their thinking.
The narrator's comment is expressing John's thinking since he is the narrator. Since this is the case then it may imply that John believed that Jesus was breaking the Jews' sabbath rules and that Jesus was claiming to be equal to God. Perhaps John was thinking that breaking the Jews rules about sabbath is not breaking God's commandment to observe the sabbath day. This would be consistent with some dialogues recorded elsewhere in the gospels.
Modern anti-trinitarians will have some interpretation to support their perspective.
A commentary observes :
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.
Another commentary remarks: 18. As St Augustine acutely remarked: The Jews understood what the Arians did not understand. The Arians denied the equality of the Son with the Father, which those blind Jews, those murderers of Christ understood from the words of Christ himself.
Last edited:
