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).
Smoodock's Blog 
13 responses to “How Could Jesus Be Equal with God?”
Thank you Eddy for remaining cordial and for explaining why you would like me not to comment on your site. In my first comment, I should have been more specific, by saying I agreed with Dave White when he said “Good teaching this morning Eddie. I agree that Jesus was God but that he gave up his God-like qualities while on the earth. I think folks often think of Jesus as a little version of God, but not so. It is remarkable that in his humanity he declines to go against his Father in any way. It is in that way we are to be like Him.” Eddy I do agree with Dave White’s statement right up to the very last sentence. The reason being, is because of the Trinity and the advocacy of the Holy Spirit who intercedes with God the Father for the sake of the poor and the downtrodden. Yes it is remarkable that in the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus says to the Father… “Father, if You are willing, take away this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.” And yet, to further explain my point, similarly a human bride and a human bridegroom about to be the Husbandman, the Father of the Bride’s offspring would have a similar conversation. Would she not say, If this wedding cup is not your will, please take it from me, Yet not My will, but Yours be done.” Granted, this is where many Christians would disagree with me because I see Jesus in the Garden as the Holy Spirit praying to Christ the Holy Father. The remarkable thing for me is that the Holy Father [in his human form] stayed the course and Jeremiah 1:11 was indeed accomplished and we Christians can agree…Christ is Risen Indeed. Please do not edit my comment. If you disagree with my comment, simply say so. Moreover, if it be your will, not my will but yours, I will stop commenting on your posts. You asked me before to stop commenting and I did until Dave White posted his first reply.
Greetings Linda, first of all, let me say that I don’t mind you commenting on my website, but as I explained above, your “comments” are not comments. Instead, you preach a sermon on what you believe to be true. That’s fine, if it is on your website, or if you are invited to explain yourself on mine, but I have repeatedly asked you not to do so. Permitting you to do so would lend credence to your doctrines, which I don’t believe are Christian, Gnostic, perhaps, but Gnosticism has nothing to do with the Gospel. I won’t have it on my website.
If you agree with someone on my website, fine. If you wish to comment, make sure it is a comment about what was said. I won’t permit Gnosticism on my website in any form. If folks who comment to me wish to discuss that kind of thing, fine. Get each other email addresses and discuss anything you desire to your hearts’ content, but not on my website.
God is not the “Father of the Bride” — He is the Father of the Son of Man, Jesus. The wedding has to do with the faithful of Israel (the bride) and the Son of Man. You are making the wedding of God and mankind similar to pagan mythology. God does not marry literal women or literal men, period. The wedding is symbolic of the reunion of God and mankind, as it had been in Eden before the rebellion. To become the bride of Christ would be like partaking of the Tree of Life. Your version of this has nothing to do with the Biblical record.
I haven’t and I do, and I did. Have a good day, Linda.
Thank you for stating what you believe quite plainly. As for your comment on Gnosticism. I do not agree with the Gnostic Gospels either. If you or others want to see my comments on the Gnostic Gospels and how modern people have used them and mythology (or tradition) to shed light on the Canon, they can read my Master’s Project Thesis (Mary Magdalene: her image and relationship to Jesus) that is available on my website. Now that I am clear as to your beliefs and how you do not want people to think you condone or agree with what I have said because you let me “preach” or offer something you believe is not Christian and is off the mark or off topic…I will do my best to keep within the parameters you have set forth when commenting on your site.