JOHN
5:17-47
In John 5:17-47, Jesus
debates with the Jews concerning his miracle of healing on the Sabbath. This passage is quite rich, but we will be
concentrating particularly on what the passage contributes to our understanding
of the relationship of the works which Jesus does to his person and
relationship with the Father.
Indeed, this is the theme of
the entire passage. In verse 17, Jesus
defends the works which he does (including healing on the Sabbath and
commanding the healed man to take up his bed) by the relationship of his works
to the Father's works, and hence his relationship to the Father. Jesus states the relationship in two
parallel clauses, which are literally translated “My Father works until now and
I work.” It is quite probable that this
paratactic statement is meant to emphasize the parallelism of the activities,
and hence the equality of the work (John elsewhere is quite capable of showing
subordination, either by the use of clauses or participles). Perhaps a good dynamic equivalency would be
“Even as the Father works until now, so do I.”
This suggests that the relationship of the Father and Son is a close
intimacy with respect to the work which they share, and thereby suggests a
relationship of equality. It also
validates that which Jesus does. The
Father may have indeed "rested" on the Seventh day, but this does not
mean that he ceased from all activity.
God manifestly continues to sustain the universe on the Sabbath day, and
if the proper implications be drawn from Scripture, engages in a whole host of
other activities as well. One of the
implications drawn from this passage is that the work of redemption also
continues. However, what is in view in
this discussion is the relationship which is suggested.
Certainly there is nothing in
the phrase which contradicts this idea of equality. In fact, the Jews sought to kill him, not only because of
Sabbath-breaking, but because “he called God his [own, I)/dion]
Father, making himself out
to be equal to God.” In his use of the
singular (the Jews sometimes called God "our" Father) Jesus is in
fact claiming a special relationship with the Father, a relationship that can
only be characterized as Father-Son.
Surely Jesus’ comments on the parallel work of himself and the Father
contribute to the Jews' correct understanding of what is implied about their
relationship. Their response is that
Jesus is guilty of the death penalty for claiming equality with God, a charge
which would certainly be subsumed under the general heading of "blasphemy"
(cf. John 10:33-39). It may well be that the Jews felt that Jesus, in claiming
equality with the Father, was setting himself up as some sort of rival God, a
possibility to which the Jews, living in the context of a pagan environment,
would have been well sensitized. In the
rest of the passage, Jesus qualifies what he has said. He does not deny his equality with the
Father, but he attempts to teach the Jews that this relationship is a
legitimate one in which he himself plays a certain very definite role. And significantly, we note that Jesus’ work
is the Father's work. The work which
Jesus does (and this discussion is explicitly related to the healing miracle
which has just preceded) reveals a relationship of equality to and dependence
on the Father. This is in particular a
relationship of economic equality (the Father and the Son do the same sorts of
activities) with nevertheless ontological implications. At the same time, the relationship is one
best characterized by the relationship between Father and Son, a distinctly
personal role differentiation which implies a type of subordination.
Verses 19-29 explicate
this. Jesus’ relationship to the
Father, in terms of role, is one that is perfectly appropriate to a Son. Jesus is a dutiful, obedient Son who only
acts in accord with the purpose of his Father.
He does not act on his own, but he does that which he sees his Father
doing. The Father loves the Son and
shows (present tense, dei/knusin) to him all things which he does. The term all things (pa/nta)
should be underscored. There is nothing
in the context which might suggest a metaphorical usage of the term “all,” such
as when we say something like “I told you everything I did last Tuesday” when
obviously this does not mean absolutely everything. Rather, this pa/nta
is meant comprehensively, an interpretation which underscored by the
anarthrous usage of the substantive.
There is nothing that the Father withholds from the Son. There is an implicit (almost explicit) claim
to deity here. Only the Son of the
Father is capable of comprehending and doing all things that the Father himself
does. Indeed, what the Jews have seen
is only a tithe compared to what will be done.
This is emphasized by the
following. Note the types of works with
which the Son is entrusted (and of course, these logically are only a subset of
“all”). The works particularly
highlighted are works of an eschatological nature, the raising of the dead and
the final judgment. The Son is
responsible for what in the OT and in most of the inter-testamental literature
is seen as solely the provenance of the Father, the Day of the Lord. As the Father raises the dead and brings to
life whom he pleases, so the Son. As
the Son is the trusted agent of the Father in creation (1:3ff) so the Father
has entrusted all judgment to him. And
for what reason has the Father done this? So that the Son might receive the
same type of honor that is due to the Father.
Failure to honor the Son is failure to honor the Father. In other words, the Son does the works of
the Father, and therefore is to be honored to the same extent as the Father.
Indeed, the criterion for
obtaining eternal life and avoiding eschatological judgment is belief in
Jesus. Jesus is the one who controls
the resurrection. Here, the voice of
Jesus is emphasized. It is at Jesus’
speech that the dead will hear his voice and live. While time and space would fail us to exhaust the
Biblical-theological background of this, it will be noted that even as the
speech of the Father is efficacious (Cf. Gen 1; Isa 55:10-11; Jer 25:30-31;
Ezek 37:4-6, et al.) so also is the speech of the Son.
Note also that what is in
effect covenant relationship with the Son is what is in view. In other words, the same type of
relationship with Jahweh which saves in the OT is the type of relationship
which the believer must have in Jesus.
As in the OT one cleaves to Jahweh alone, abandoning vain idols and
hoping in him alone for salvation both material and spiritual (cf. Exod 6:6-8;
20:1-26), so the believer in the NT trusts only in Jesus, guarding himself from
idols (1 John 5:21).
John makes this relationship
between the Father and Son even more explicit.
The ga/r supplies the reason or ground for the
preceding thought. Vs. 26, “For just as
the Father has life in himself, so he grants to the Son to have life in
himself.” Godet comments:
Here is the boldest paradox which it is
possible to declare. Life in himself,
what in theology is called aseity, self existence, given to the Son.[1]
Broader systematic concerns
aside, why is the Son able to call the dead to life? The reason is that he has life in himself. This life is the same life that the Father
has, w(/sper being used here of a direct
equation. Since the Son has life, he
may give it to whom he will, and this life that he has is the same life as the
Father. The Father and the Son share
the same life. In view of such passages
as 1:1-18 and 8:58, which clearly teach the eternal pre-existence of the Son,
this life is not something which was given at a particular point in time, but
has been shared by the Son and the Father from all eternity.
This ontological relationship
frames the context for the functional as well.
Not only has the Son been granted life from the Father from all
eternity, but he also has been granted authority “because he is the Son of man.” Certainly, whatever one may consider the
origin of the “son of man” sayings in the synoptics, John here references the
apocalyptic vision of Dan 7 as the background for this statement. Not only is the reason for the granting of
this authority the relationship between the Father and the Son, but it is also
the role to which the Son has been called, the role of the judge of all the
earth. The Son of man will speak and
the dead will come forth from the grave, some to everlasting delight, others to
eternal torment.
Verse 30 perfectly restates
the theme statement of the passage (v 19) and supplies the transition for the
next statement (which, however, is not a new subject but another approach to
the same theme). The Son is not able to
act on his own, but instead seeks the will of the Father. The use of e)mo/n rather than
the pronoun mou emphasizes the possessive: “not my will.” The judgment that he hears from the Father he enacts. While this language certainly suggests the
obedience of the Son to the Father, it seems to suggest more than simple obedience,
especially considering the overall context of the chapter. To borrow the language of Paul in Col 1:15,
we see that the Son is the perfect image (ei)kw/n) of the Father, or in the language of
the author to the Hebrews, the perfect representation (1:3, xarakth/r)
of God. We might say that the Son
flawlessly represents the Father in terms of both the Father's will and his
activity.
The witness theme must be
understood in this context. All along,
Jesus' defense of the works that he does has been from the perspective of his
relationship with the Father. Now he
invokes witnesses, first the witness of John, a bona fide prophet. If John is a valid prophet, his witness must
be true, for a true prophet simply speaks as the mouthpiece of Jahweh, at the
risk of severe penalty for doing otherwise (Deut 18). But what if, for the sake of argument, John were a false
prophet? Significantly for our
purposes, Jesus has a greater witness.
God the Father witnesses directly on behalf of Jesus with out any
intermediary. As Carson correctly
points out, the evidence for this witness is Jesus himself.[2]
The argument is that if Jesus truly so
perfectly represents the Father in purpose and activity, then the works which
Jesus does will no doubt corroborate the interpretation which he gives to those
works. And this is exactly the reality
of the situation. “The very works which
the Father has given me to do give witness concerning me that the Father has
sent me.”
This section closes with the
witness of Scripture, and particularly Moses, a theme that does not directly
concern us here. However, it may be
noted that in the view of the Jews of this period, Scripture was the verbatim
words of God (cf. 10:34-35, in which Jesus reminds the Jews of what must be a
commonly held assumption). The
Scriptures give testimony to Christ.
Moses, the premier prophet of the Old Covenant, the author of the Torah,
the one with whom God spoke face to face, accuses (katagore/w
— note the unmistakable legal term) the Jews for their unbelief. Their guilt is compounded by the fact that
under normal circumstances they are willing to accept trustworthy human
testimony, but the most secure testimony of all, God's testimony, given through
John, the works of Jesus, and the Scriptures they reject. The implication is also present that the
words of Jesus as the revelator Dei (here his self interpretation) perfectly
coincide with his works. Both his words
and his works are given to him by the Father (7:16-18), represent the purpose
of the Father, and are in complete accord with one another.
A rapid survey of
thematically related passages will reveal the accuracy of this
interpretation. No where else in the
Gospel do the works of Jesus receive such exhaustive treatment, but the
relationship of Jesus to the Father is frequently referenced. In the passage closest to 5:17-47, 10:31-42,
the Jews attempt to stone Jesus because of blasphemy, because he has claimed a
special position of sonship with regard to the Father. As in John 5, Jesus does not correct them, but
corrects their misunderstanding of what this legitimate relationship with the
Father involves. Jesus brings up the
miracles he performs as evidence that what he says and does must be mutually
interpretative, and specifically that what he does confirms what he says. On his relationship with the Father see also
7:28-29; 16:15; 17:1-19. On the
relationship of works to character and nature, cf. the clear implications of
8:39-47.
In conclusion, we may note
that the works of Jesus are integrally related to the relationship that Jesus
has with his Father and the purpose for which he is sent. Jesus' works, which are particularly (although
not exclusively) his miracles are revelatory of this relationship. Through them the Father witnesses to the
true nature and purpose of the Son. The
relationship that the Son has with the Father is a relationship of equality and
complete dependence, but dependence nuanced in such a way as to perfectly
reveal the Father. The accent falls on
Jesus' perfect agreement with and work on behalf of his Father. Jesus, in fact, as the Son, has become the
premier prophet who perfectly reveals the person, will and activity of the
Father.
[1] Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978), p. 476.
[2] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 261-263.