18 διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.
Decades ago I purchased an old reprint of Grimm-Thayer because it was as big as BAGD and I could read the type. Today when I was working on Jesus’ healing of the man at the pool in Jn 5, I looked up the article on ἴσος in Thayer where he cites John 5:18 “to claim for one’s self the nature, rank, authority, which belong to God.”
Here’s the definition as given in the BDAG:
ἴσος, η, ον (s. three next entries; Hom.+) pert. to being equivalent in number, size, quality, equal
It also gives us a number of examples, one of which is “ἴσα εἶναί τινι be equal with someone Phil 2:6”. Jesus is sharing equality with the father, and so too in John 5:18. (at the very least the Jews recognized it as such). We could then ask, in what way is Jesus equal with God? Well, he heals the sick, forgives sin, receives worship, is greater then the angels. I think we could validly see this as making Jesus’ nature equal to God’s nature. However, I’m not interested in debating our friend Isaac, so I will not be answering any replies that might come form him.
Perhaps I misread it, but the context tells me that ἴσον doesn’t mean “equivalent to” or “the same as” here. (Although it seems an open question whether John is claiming this, or the Jews.)
If saying that πατέρα ἴδιον τὸν θεόν means that you have made yourself ἴσον τῷ θεῷ, then ἴσον isn’t really “the same.” Here it feels closer to our English idiom “on a level with.”
Perhaps you could massage that into Thayer’s statement, but it feels forced.
Doesn’t it mean exactly the same as “making himself equal to God”? Of course one might argue over what precisely that means (or meant), but that’s something best left to social historians and theologians (and Thayer). Let’s not confuse semantics with exegetics.
BDAG/BADG both cite Thucydides 3.14.1 to illustrate what? Apparently ἴσα εἶναί but I don’t see it illustrating anything relevant to Phil 2:6.
’Αἰσχυνθέντες οὖν τάς τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐς ὑμᾶς ἐλπίδας
καὶ Δία τὸν Ὀλύμπιον, ἐν οὗ τῷ ἱερῷ > ἴσα > καὶ ἱκέται > ἐσμέν> ,
ἐπαμύνατε Μυτιληναίοις ξύμμαχοι γενόμενοι, καὶ μὴ προῆσθε
ἡμᾶς ἴδιον μὲν τὸν κίνδυνον τῶν σωμάτων παραβαλλομένους,
κοινὴν δὲ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ κατορθῶσαι ὠφελίαν ἅπασι δώσοντας,Respect, therefore, the hopes placed in you by the Hellenes, and that Olympian Zeus, in whose temple we stand as very suppliants; become the allies and defenders of the Mitylenians, and do not sacrifice us, who put our lives upon the hazard, in a cause in which general good will result to all from our success, and still more general harm if we fail through your refusing to help us; 3.14.2 but be the men that the Hellenes think you, and our fears desire.’
I looked at this for a while but couldn’t figure out what the lexicon was doing with it.
Let’s not confuse semantics with exegetics.
Wise counsel, and I will endeavor to follow it here, though I am afraid that it may be difficult.
I suppose the question is best illuminated by considering the following: Does this language/thought still make sense if it were applied to, say, the Emperor of Rome?
If not, then we can go no farther, and likely Thayer is right.
However, perhaps a first-century speaker would have easily understood the thought and sentence when applied to the Emperor. It would have to mean something like “by saying that he’s the Emperor’s son, he’s claiming to be on the Imperial level,” not “by saying that he’s the Emperor’s son, he’s claiming to have the power and authority of the Emperor.” If this is the case, I’d say that Thayer is wrong.
I guess it’s just the use of ισα ειναι, which they have in common. Of course, the parallel would be closer if ικεται were ικεταις. One for the Thucydides thread, perhaps?
Let me propose a different approach.
The Jews took Jesus’ calling God his father—his own father—as tantamount to making himself equal to God. We don’t have to accept the equation between the two, which is fabricated and malicious. (For didn’t Jesus take care never to say he was equal to God?) It’s like an attack ad, it’s like accusing someone who supports trials for Guantanamo detainees of being a terrorist.
(And this is only what John says, of course, launching his own attack ad against the Jews.)
As an example of religio-political spin (and mediated at that), it makes a very poor basis for theological enquiry. In such context, any attempt to add specification to “equal to God” is perfectly futile.
This is a sober post. Interesting , the OPoster forgets to mention that these individuals also accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18). Why not take this charge as being true also ? It’s best to take their accusations with a grain of salt.
So I have a language question, pardon my ignorance.
How would one change the wording of the Greek to make it equivalent to “he was saying that his father was God (the same as making himself God)” ? Would the declension of ἴσος need to change? What else?
"he was saying that his father was God” would need τον πατερα, not πατερα ιδιον (which is predicate).
“(the same as making himself God)” could be something like ο εστιν ισον (or το αυτο) τω εαυτον ποιειν θεον—lit. “which is equal to (or the same as) making himself God.” There ισον would be neuter. In the gospel sentence it’s masculine, agreeing with εαυτον (εαυτον object of ποιειν, ισον predicative). It goes “… he said God was his own father, (thereby) making himself equal to God.”
"he was saying that his father was God” would need τον πατερα, not πατερα ιδιον (which is predicate).
Ah, I read too many old books. I meant “his father was God” in the sense that God was his father, not that Joseph was God. Sorry for the distraction there! I realize that it introduces ambiguity if I use that word ordering.
But for the real meat of it:
“(the same as making himself God)” could be something like ο εστιν ισον (or το αυτο) τω εαυτον ποιειν θεον
Yes, that sounds a lot better. I thought that the ὁ ἐστίν could possibly drop out, but the rest feels much more correct, with the article setting off the phrase. And even if the ἐστίν was unspoken, it would still force the ποιεῖν infinitive.