Joh 5:17-18, 10:30, 36 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 17. My Father . God. Worketh hitherto . Worketh until now , or till this time. God has not ceased to work on the Sabbath. He makes the sun to rise; he rolls the stars; he causes the grass, the tree, the flower to grow. He has not suspended his operations on the Sabbath, and the obligation to rest on the Sabbath does not extend to him. He created the world in six days, and ceased the work of creations; but he has not ceased to govern it, and to carry forward, by his providence, his great plans on the Sabbath. And I work . "As God does good on that day; as he is not bound by the law which requires his creatures to rest on that day, so I do the same. The law on that subject may be dispensed with, also, in my case, for the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." In this reply it is implied that he was equal with God from two circumstances: 1st. Because he called God his Father, . 2nd. Because he claimed the same exemption from law which God did, asserting that the law of the Sabbath did not bind him or his Father, thus showing that he had a right to impose and repeal laws in the same manner as God. He that has a right to do this must be God. (n) "My father"

John 5:17-18

Verse 17. My Father. God.

Worketh hitherto. Worketh until now, or till this time. God has not ceased to work on the Sabbath. He makes the sun to rise; he rolls the stars; he causes the grass, the tree, the flower to grow. He has not suspended his operations on the Sabbath, and the obligation to rest on the Sabbath does not extend to him. He created the world in six days, and ceased the work of creations; but he has not ceased to govern it, and to carry forward, by his providence, his great plans on the Sabbath.

And I work. "As God does good on that day; as he is not bound by the law which requires his creatures to rest on that day, so I do the same. The law on that subject may be dispensed with, also, in my case, for the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." In this reply it is implied that he was equal with God from two circumstances:

1st. Because he called God his Father, Jn 5:18.

2nd. Because he claimed the same exemption from law which God did, asserting that the law of the Sabbath did not bind him or his Father, thus showing that he had a right to impose and repeal laws in the same manner as God. He that has a right to do this must be God.

(n) "My father" Jn 9:4, 14:10 Verse 18. The more to kill him. The answer of Jesus was fitted 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 fitted to enrage them, and he doubtless knew that it might endanger his life. We may learn from his answer, That we are not to keep back truth because it may endanger us.

2nd. 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.

3rd. 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 Jn 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, Nu 15:35, Lev 24:11-14.

(p) "making himself equal with God" Zech 13.7, Jn 10:30,33, Php 2:6

John 10:30

Verse 30. I and my Father are one. The word translated "one" is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were united in the same object--that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this remark. Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and others. Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:

1st. The question in debate was not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils--that is, that he had supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to omnipotence.

2nd. The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy (Jn 10:31,33), and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, Jn 10:33.

3rd. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. Jn 10:34, also on Mt 10:35-37.

4th. He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner, Jn 10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.

(e) "I and my father" Jn 17:11,22

John 10:36

Verse 36. Whom the Father hath sanctified. The word sanctify with us means to make holy; but this is not its meaning here, for the Son of God was always holy. The original word means to set apart from a common to a sacred use; to devote to a sacred purpose, and to designate or consecrate to a holy office. This is the meaning here. God has consecrated or appointed his Son to be his Messenger or Messiah to mankind. See Ex 28:41, Lev 8:30.

And sent into the world. As the Messiah, an office far more exalted than that of magistrates. I am the Son of God. This the Jews evidently understood as the same as saying that he was equal with God. This expression he had often applied to himself. The meaning of this place may be thus expressed: "You charge me with blasphemy. The foundation of that

charge is the use of the name God, or the

Son of God, applied to myself; yet that same term

is applied in the Scriptures to magistrates. The use

of it there shows that it is right to apply it to

those who sustain important offices. And especially

you, Jews, ought not to attempt to found a charge

of blasphemy on the application of a word to the

Messiah which in your own Scriptures is applied to

all magistrates."

And we may remark here,

1st. That Jesus did not deny that he meant to apply the term to himself.

2nd. He did not deny that it was properly applied to him.

3rd. He did not deny that it implied that he was God. He affirmed only that they were inconsistent, and were not authorized to bring a charge of blasphemy for the application of the name to himself.

(h) "hath sanctified" Isa 11:2,3, 49:1,3, Jn 6:27