Smoodock's Blog

Jesus responded in his own defense against his persecutors that God is not subject to the Law of Moses. Moreover, the name of God, I AM (YHWH), is more like a verb than a noun. In other words, God is active, not complacent. He may have rested from or ended his work of creation on the seventh day, but he didn’t rest from doing good on the seventh day. He continues even to our own day to uphold all things by the word of his power (Psalm 75:3). Furthermore, he continues every day to provide all things for his creatures (Genesis 1:29-30), and he ceaselessly works out his labor of love for mankind, namely his redemptive work in those he has created (Psalm 7:9, 11). This understanding is also known and believed by the Jews, including the authorities of Jesus’ day. Therefore, Jesus reasoned, if he was doing the work of God, evidenced in the miracle (John 5:8-9), which even the authorities had to admit they couldn’t do, accusing Jesus of wrongdoing would be the same as accusing God of wrongdoing, because God performed that work through Jesus! In other words, Jesus identified himself as the Arm of the Lord (Exodus 6:6; 15:16; Isaiah 53:1), continuing the work of God that no man could do (John 5:17).

If we consider the purpose of the law of any land, it was instituted for the benefit of the people. In other words, people are not born in order to serve the law, but laws are formed for the benefit of the people. Nevertheless, there will be folks, some in authority, who will consider only the letter of the law, and thereby require the punishment of folks who break the law. Thus, not coming to a full stop at a four way stop sign, but drifting through the intersection when no other cars are in sight, is considered to be an infraction of the law. Nevertheless, the safety considerations, concerning which the law was implemented in the first place, were not violated.

What the Jewish authorities held up as important was the letter of the Law (John 5:18), and, technically speaking Jesus did break the Law. How so? One cannot interpret the rest of the verse to mean Jesus claimed equality with the Father, if he didn’t break the letter of the Law. The logic of the last phrase is dependent upon the accuracy of the first. Therefore, Jesus broke the Sabbath in the literal sense. However, even the Law of Moses permitted breaking the Sabbath for the purpose of the work of God. Indeed, the priests broke the Sabbath every week, through slaughtering animals, cutting them up and sacrificing them in the service of the Temple. Yet, they were blameless, because this was the thing God required (Numbers 28:9-10; Matthew 12:5).

Nevertheless, although doing the work of God was not forbidden on the Sabbath, the authorities sought to destroy Jesus, not only for breaking the Sabbath, but also for saying God was his Father. Jesus phrased his reply (John 5:17) in such a manner that he differentiated his relationship with God from theirs. By claiming God was uniquely his Father (not in the sense of creation nor in the sense of the Jews being God’s people), Jesus was claiming equality with God. Obviously, his claim wasn’t that he was omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. Those qualities he had given up, when he took on the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6-7). Nevertheless, he was the same person who was equal with God, when he was in the form of God (Philippians 2:6), prior to his taking flesh to himself (John 1:14). Therefore, he had the same right to authority over creation, since, even as man, he was still the Creator, and the Father was bound by his own integrity to perform whatever Jesus desired. So, the Father’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence served the work of Jesus, who was sent by the Father to do the Father’s will (John 4:34).