John 5:18 — John's own Christology or Misunderstanding of the Jews?

Question

(Biases on the table: I am a Christian and believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, namely, the eternal Λογος of God Rev 19:13 (who is distinct from the Father προς τον θεον, but of the same nature και θεος [εστιν], hence the terms Father and Son), as I believe John incontrovertably teaches in his Prologue: John 1:1; 14.)—There is a similar question here, but I'm asking a slightly different question.)

---

Overview

According to the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition, John 5:18 reads (translation mine):

διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.

Now because of this the Jews wanted all the more to kill him, for he not only broke the Sabbath, but even called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.¹

To me, this lacks any sort of 'said they' after 'he not only broke the Sabbath,' if we are to believe John is describing a false opinion of the Jews, instead of their reaction to a truth about Jesus which John himself holds to.

Take, for example, two verses prior (5:16), where John uses the exact same structure of something indubitably true and recorded as true in the text itself:²

καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐποίει ἐν σαββάτῳ.

And because of this the Jews persecuted Jesus: for these things he was doing on the Sabbath.

Assumption: I'm assuming no one will reject the fact that Jesus 'did these things on the Sabbath,' since John says He did (5:15).

---

Question

Given the above assumption: what is missing/present —according to those who hold that John doesn't believe Jesus is equal to the Father— in the latter verse, that is not in the former? OR Are there other instances where John refers to the false opinion of the Jews in this way (i.e. giving no clear indication that what they percieved about Jesus was false)?

I hope the question is clear; if not, I can clarify.

As always: thanks in advance.

---

^Footnotes

^{1 I chose 'even' over 'also' because of the preceding ου μονον .. αλλα. No other reason.. for those who are really picky.}

^{2 We're calling him John; this isn't about the identity of the author at all.}

Answer 1

Thanks for your well researched question. First of all, the "these things" that he did were healing miracles, not "breaking the Sabbath" by working as a doctor as the Jews suggested. I don't believe John is saying Jesus actually broke the Sabbath, but was being accused of doing so because he healed on the Sabbath. The miracle described involving the blind man is the antecedent to "these things" not "breaking the Sabbath."

The verses you are considering have an important run-up you didn't quote:

Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
-- John 5:17 (KJV)

And then the verse after needs to be mentioned to give the one you quoted context:

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
-- John 5:19 (KJV)

From these verses, Jesus himself says he takes his cues from the Father having been 'seeing' him, which must be understood to mean perceive, understand, know by the Spirit of the Father (given without measure to Jesus). The Father doesn't work from 9-5 on the Sabbath, but He does heal people on the Sabbath (it is lawful to break sabbath to save life, etc.).

So, to try to answer clearly: Jesus didn't break the Sabbath according to the Old Testament definition of breaking the Sabbath, and didn't make himself "equal to God" by saying he was God's Son, which is also a common O.T. trope (Israel is his firstborn, etc.). I'll let Jesus answer: "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

So there you have it. If Jesus was God's absolute equal then Jesus never would have said this. He would have said, "I'm God" not "God is my father." Paul would have called him "the invisible God" not "the image and likeness of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). Thomas can say, "my lord and my God" while bowing at the feet of Jesus because this is much like bowing down at the Temple where God's presence abides.

John 1 says, "God was the Word" not "the Word was God." That might seem like the same thing to the casual reader, but it's not: it the Father Yehovah who is the Creator, and his Son is "the firstborn of all creation." Everything begins with the Spirit of God, and then he Speaks His Word - brings His Spirit into corporeal form. The Word was inherent in the Spirit of God, and is "begotten" by being spoken into being from the foundation of Creation. Jesus is actually the God-bearer, not Mary!

Answer 2

First of all Jesus Christ did not break or violate the Sabbath. If He did then He sinned because He transgressed the law of God 1John 3:4. Secondly, the Jews knew exactly what Jesus was claiming when they said, "He was calling God His own Father making Himself equal with God." The question is not whether or not the Jews correctly or incorrectly understood Jesus. What was it that JESUS SAID that caused them to say he was claiming to be God, or equal to God? They wanted to stone Him at John 8:59. They wanted to stone or kill Him and accuse Him of blasphemy at John 10:30-39. Also at John 19:7. "The Jews answsered Him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because (or why?) He made Himself out the Son of God." If the Jews misunderstood Jesus why did they bring up the law at Leviticus 24:16? Read the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66. At vs63 the high priest Caiaphas ask Jesus to swear as to His identity. "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us WHETHER (1) Are you the Christ/Messiah and (2) the Son of God." At Luke 22:70 Jesus says, "Yes, I am." Vs65, Then the high priest tore his robes saying. "He has blasphemed! So what was the blasphemy? Claiming to be the Messiah is not a blasphemy offense. Many other people down through the ages even today claim to be the Messiah. The blasphemy is that Jesus Christ was the one and only Son of God as in there are not others. Even the Jews claimed to be sons of God and none of them were accused of blasphemy. Also notice at John 20:30,31, Many other signs Jesus also performed etc. vs31, but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is (1)the Christ/Messiah and (2) the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. This is exactly what the high priest ask Jesus to swear too.

Answer 3

This whole question seems to be based on this assumption: "John is describing a false opinion of the Jews".

But that assumption isn't true, so the question becomes moot.

---

The "opinion of the Jews" was:

• he not only broke the Sabbath
• but even called God his own Father
• making himself equal to God

The third point naturally follows from the second (even if not taken literally, the "son of" expression is common in Hebrew, meaning having the same attributes).

Jesus did call God his Father (about 30 times in John's gospel alone), so the second point isn't an opinion.

So the only thing that could be an opinion is the first point, that Jesus broke the Sabbath.

From the Jews' point of view, not simply as their opinion, Jesus did break the Sabbath.

By the time of Jesus, many extra rules and regulations had been added to God's commandments. These rules were designed so that if one obeyed these extra rules, it would guarantee that God's rules were being obeyed, and it would be obvious to everyone that they were. That was their purpose.

Even today, modern Jews don't eat meat and dairy at the same meal. This expanded rule guarantees that there won't be even the slightest chance that they might be violating Exodus 34:26 ("… Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.").

(Modern non-religious examples are laws that require that our car tires stop turning at a stop-sign, or that deli meats be kept at 165°F. Each one is far more than is required, wasting time and fuel in one and overcooking the food in the other, but if obeyed strictly they will guarantee safety.)

While Jesus didn't break God's Sabbath laws, he did publicly violate the expanded laws regarding the Sabbath. This was an observed fact, not an opinion.

Matthew's gospel was written for a Jewish audience, just as Mark's was for Romans and Luke's for Greeks. But John's was written later, not for any specific audience. He did not need to explain about the difference between the letter of God's laws and the Jewish practice at the time. It was enough for the readers to know that the Jews persecuted him because he broke the standard laws of their society.