Sorry, but I find that hard to understand.
It doesn’t say “the sabbath as interpreted by them” (even though we would argue that), which is why I would hold that John is reporting from the Pharisees’ perspective, including their understanding of Jesus’ statement about His Father.
Wait, the Law of the Sabbath was not binding on the Jews? That’s new to me. I’d say they took it too strictly, yes, but I read your comment as saying it’s not binding at all. Or did you mean the interpretations of the Pharisees?
I’m sorry for being slow-witted.
First of all. I’m not making any of this up. None of this comes from personal opinion.
Second you have read the second part of my comments very incorrectly. You need to read again what I said was binding on the Jews and what wasn’t. In case you haven’t heard by now because I often bring it up ad nauseum is that I am Hebrew. I therefore would never teach something like the conclusion you’ve jumped to.
It’s sounds like these people have you stressed to the point that you are overly anxious. For what I’ve read for your posts this is not like you. You are usually level-headed. Take a breath, it’s going to be okay.
Now, first, the text can be interpreted as I wrote. This is based on a consensus of scholars, and can even be seen in the footnote of the RSVCE. The 2nd edition has a footnote to John 5:18 clarifying that John was saying that Jesus “broke the sabbath: i.e., broke the sabbath as interpreted by them.” Since this can be lost in the English sense, a translator would not be incorrect in offering it either in the text (likely in brackets) or as a footnote as the RSVCE does.
The Good News Translation, Catholic Edition renders this part of the verse “not only had he broken the Sabbath law, but he had said that God was his own Father and in this way had made himself equal with God.” This rendition is straight forward in merely reporting what was happening. This is all this comment of John’s is doing.
But you have to accept that this is not a situation where you are right and those you are speaking with are wrong. John is indeed commenting on the Sabbath laws as interpreted by the Pharisees, but he isn’t saying that he agrees with it or that he is describing their inner thoughts or views.
As to the second point, I merely stated that neither Jesus or any Jew was bound to a false interpretation of Sabbath resting laws. Jesus never violated these genuine laws. Jewish Christians also observed the valid Sabbath laws too. (Acts 21:20-24) But there were excessive interpretations that the Pharisees often demanded during the period of the Second Temple that Jesus condemned, like those associated with his healing the sick on the Sabbath.
These were not binding on any Jew, and Jesus taught this in commanding the man he healed to carry his mat (pallet) away after being healed. Such carrying of the mat broke the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law but was not truly binding under the circumstances. Jesus was equal with God, thus if he commands you to carry your mat away on the Sabbath, you carry your mat away. God’s definition of the Sabbath is binding, not interpretations originating with mortals.–John 5:1-18.
Now even if John 5:18 is from the Pharisees’ perspective and only that, so what? You are arguing with a book that concludes with an apostle calling Jesus God. (John 20:28) if a person does not accept the teaching of the apostles and offers a length of excuses to avoid accepting that truth from the mouth of the Apostle Thomas, what makes you think they are going to listen to you?
As it is written: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.” (Luke 17:31) If they do not believe the testimony of the apostles, neither will they be convinced by you. So why are you worried about what stubborn people want to blindly believe?
