3.

In that place¹ then He did all on the Sabbath day by words only, and added nothing more, but refuted their charges by what was done in the Temple and from their own practice. But here where He commanded a work to be done, the taking up a bed, (a thing of no great importance as regarded the miracle,² though by it He showed one point, a manifest violation of the Sabbath,) He leads up His discourse to something greater, desiring the more to awe them by reference to the dignity of the Father, and to lead them up to higher thought. Therefore when His discourse is concerning the Sabbath, He maketh not His defense as man only, or as God only, but sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other; because He desired to persuade them both of the condescension of the Dispensation, and the Dignity of His Godhead. Therefore He now defendeth Himself as God, since had He always conversed with them merely as a man, they would have continued in the same low condition. Wherefore that this may not be, He bringeth forward the Father. Yet the creation itself "worketh" on the Sabbath, (for the sun runneth, rivers flow, fountains bubble, women bear,) but that thou mayest learn that He is not of creation, He said not, "Yea, I work, for creation worketh," but, "Yea, I work, for My Father worketh."

Ver. 18. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."

And this he asserted not by words merely, but by deeds, for not in speech alone, but also yet oftener by actions He declared it. Why so? Because they might object to His words and charge Him with arrogance, but when they saw the truth of His actions proved by results, and His power proclaimed by works, after that they could say nothing against Him.

But they who will not receive these words in a right mind assert, that "Christ made not Himself equal to God, but that the Jews suspected this." Come then let us go over what has been said from the beginning. Tell me, did the Jews persecute Him, or did they not? It is clear to every one that they did. Did they persecute Him for this or for something else? It is again allowed that it was for this. Did He then break the Sabbath, or did He not? Against the fact that He did, no one can have anything to say. Did He call God His Father, or did He not call Him so? This too is true. Then the rest also follows by the same consequence; for as to call God His Father, to break the Sabbath, and to be persecuted by the Jews for the former and more especially for the latter reason, belonged not to a false imagination, but to actual fact, so to make Himself equal to God was a declaration of the same meaning.³

And this one may see more clearly from what He had before said, for "My Father worketh, and I work," is the expression of One declaring Himself equal to God. For in these words He has marked⁴ no difference. He said not, "He worketh, and I minister," but, "As He worketh, so work I"; and hath declared absolute Equality. But if He had not wished to establish this, and the Jews had supposed so without reason, He would not have allowed their minds to be deceived, but would have corrected this. Besides, the Evangelist would not have been silent on the subject, but would have plainly said that the Jews supposed so, but that Jesus did not make Himself equal to God. As in another place he doth this very thing, when he perceiveth that something was said in one way, and understood in another; as, "Destroy this Temple," said Christ, "and in three days I will raise It up" (c. ii. 19 ); speaking of His Flesh. But the Jews, not understanding this, and supposing that the words were spoken of the Jewish Temple, said, "Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days?" Since then He said one thing, and they imagined another, (for He spake of His Flesh, and they thought that the words were spoken of their Temple,) the Evangelist remarking on this, or rather correcting their imagination, goes on to say, "But He spake of the Temple of His Body." So that here also, if Christ had not made Himself equal with God, had not wished to establish this, and yet the Jews had imagined that He did, the writer would here also have corrected their supposition, and would have said, "The Jews thought that He made Himself equal to God, but indeed He spake not of equality." And this is done not in this place only, nor by this Evangelist only, but again elsewhere another Evangelist is seen to do the same. For when Christ warned His disciples, saying, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matt. xvi. 6 ), and they reasoned among themselves, saying, "It is because we have taken no bread," and He spake of one thing, calling their doctrine "leaven," but the disciples imagined another, supposing that the words were said of bread; it is not now the Evangelist who setteth them right, but Christ Himself, speaking thus, "How is it that ye do not understand, that I spake not to you concerning bread?" But here there is nothing of the kind.

"But," saith some one, "to remove this very thought Christ has added,

Ver. 19. "The Son can do nothing of Himself.'"

Man! He doth the contrary. He saith this not to take away, but to confirm,⁵ His Equality. But attend carefully, for this is no common question. The expression "of Himself" is found in many places of Scripture, with reference both to Christ and to the Holy Ghost, and we must learn the force of the expression, that we may not fall into the greatest errors; for if one take it separately by itself in the way in which it is obvious to take it, consider how great an absurdity will follow. He said not that He could do some things of Himself and that others He could not, but universally,