"Because of this then, the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

The Issue: Whether the verse identifies Jesus as God

The Trinitarian Claim

Since this passage says that Jesus was making himself equal with God, Trinitarians claim this passage identifies Jesus as God.

What the Evidence will Show

The evidence will show Trinitarian reasoning to be complely fallacious. The evidence will also show the passage is not identifying Jesus as God but as God's Son.

Examination of the Evidence

Fallacious Logic

Here in this passage Trinitarians draw the conclusion that since Jesus was making himself equal with God, then he must also be God. However, it is quite plain to thinking people that being equal with another person does not mean you are that person. In the same way, if Jesus is equal with God that does not mean we should conclude he is God. Even further, it is quite clear that Jesus was making himself equal with God the Father. It would then be quite absurd to claim this equality with God the Father would mean he is God the Father.

The Greek word translated as "equal" simply means "the same as" and the Jews were very angry because being God's "own" son implied his origins were directly in God the Father himself and this would mean that Jesus had no earthly father but was claiming that God himself was his father. To claim he was God's Son made him "the same as" God in some sense. The Trinitiarian is imagining an idea into this text that is not found. He conveniently assumes the word "equal" means "equal in divine status" when the concept is nowhere to be found. And then he further assumes that this equality affords a right to be identified as "God."

Jesus said that, "no one has seen the Father," and he also said that if they saw him they had indeed seen the Father! At first glance, these two statements appear contradictory. He also explicitly explained they had seen the Father in the works he was doing not in what he was, which explains to us how he could say these two apparently contradictory things, and in fact, unless we want to make Jesus a liar, we cannot say they saw the Father in what he was since he tells us plainly no one has seen God. Therefore, we know Jesus is not talking about his nature but his identity. Also, we know he is not talking about positional status for he later says, "the Father is greater than I."

God is not being identified as Jesus

Notice very carefully the identity of God in this passage. Who is it? Is it Jesus? No, it isn't. Jesus is telling the Jews right here who God is and how he is related to God. He identified the entity known as "God", not as himself, but as his Father. And this is also what the Jews understood - that he was calling the person they themselves understood to be "God," his own Father, making himself God's own Son. The verse is about Jesus relationship TO God his Father. The reason the Jews were so angry with Jesus is that he was claiming their own God was his Father. These Jews all had earthly fathers. But Jesus was claiming his Father was God himself. To be God's own son afforded him a much higher status than these Jews who perceived themselves to be the legitimate sons of God and rulers of Israel. The Jews also later identify God as their Father (8:41). What irritated them here was that Jesus was claiming to be God's "own" Son. The identity of "God" was not Jesus but Jesus' Father and the Jews understood this completely. They simply were not perceiving that Jesus was claiming to be "God" but rather God's Son. The same situation occurs again in John 10. In fact, this is what John is explicitly telling us in this passage. Indeed, they finally charged him with claiming to be the "son of God" (19:7). The Jews here do not perceive that he is claiming to be "God" but God's son and that relationship made Jesus equal with God who is identified as the Father. If anything, this passage militates against Trinitarianism by identifying "God" simply as the Father of Jesus Christ and Jesus as the Son of that God.

Equality

So one might ask just how Jesus was equal with his Father. Instead of imagining whatever we like into the passage as Trinitarians do, let us inquire into the truth of this matter. The passage says that claiming to be God's son afforded Jesus equality with God. The Jews quite clearly are understanding that a son has equality with his Father in some sense. In what sense? The answer is found right here in this very context.

The Context

Let us review what was actually said:

The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Notice what happened here. Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Jews became angry because he had done these things on the Sabbath. Then Jesus says "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." Then we read that the Jews became even more angry because he not only broke the Sabbath, but in Jesus' last statement, he said God was his Father making himself equal with God. The key verse is verse 17, where Jesus claims his Father is working. Notice what follows verse 18:

Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

Jesus is responding to the Jews and is going back to the same theme he spoke in verse 17. Jesus' response in verse 19 tells us how he understood the Jewish charge. The Jews themselves called God their Father (8:41). They would not have been angry at another Jew for referring to God as his Father. But here Jesus is saying that his Father has been working until now and I have been working. This is what angered the Jews. As Jews under the Law, they were required to rest on the Sabbath. But they knew their God was not resting but still doing mighty works. For example, God did mighty works when He delivered them from Egypt. What was angering these Jews was the fact that Jesus was claiming an equality with God on this level. They could not work today but their God could. And Jesus was claiming he has the same right as God the Father to be working today. Hence, we can see that we are plainly told right here in this very account just HOW Jesus was equal with God his Father. In claiming to be God's own Son, he was claiming that he had the right to be working on the Sabbath just as his Father would have that right. Therefore, the Jews were not only angry that Jesus had broke the Sabbath, they were even more angry that he claimed that he had the right to do it.

Summation of the Facts

• The Jews were already angry because Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath.



• The anger of the Jews was heightened when Jesus justified this healing by saying that his Father was working until now and he too has been working. Now they were not only angry that he broke the Sabbath but angry that he had called God his own Father making himself equal with God.



• These Jews did themselves refer to God as their Father. There was nothing unusual about this. However, in justifying the healing, Jesus made it clear that he was claiming God was his father unlike the Jews who had earthly fathers.



• The equality in question is the Son's equality with his Father.



• The nature of this equality is illustrated by the context. As a Son of God the Father Jesus had the right to work on the Sabbath just as his Father did.

Call for Discernment

The Jews were angry because in claiming to be the God's son, Jesus was implying an equality with God who is identified as his Father. God is identified here and it is not Jesus but his Father. And with respect to position, God the Father is not equal to Jesus but greater than Jesus (14:28) in the time-frame of this very passage. The equality in question is illustrated in the context which shows that Jesus was claiming the same right as his Father to heal on the Sabbath because God was indeed his Father. Despite the context, Trinitarians eisegetically imagine an idea into the text which is foreign to this text. Hence, the Trinitarian claim is groundless.