The Meaning of ''Equality with God'' in John 5:18

The context tells us what ''equality with God'' means. In John 5:18, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because they believed Jesus broke the sabbath just because he healed the sick man. Verse 16 said ''the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things (i.e. healing the sick) on the Sabbath''. But this wasn't the only reason why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. The other reason actually made the Jews to seek ''all the more to kill him'' and that's ''calling God his own father'' meaning ''making himself equal with God''.

When Jesus calls God his ''own Father'', Jesus is claiming to be God's ''own son''. The corollary of God being Jesus’ ''own father'' is that Jesus is God’s ‘own son’’. One of the earliest N.T. text indeed spoke of Jesus as God’s ‘’own son’’ (Grk. idiou huiou Romans 8:32 ). Jesus understood himself to be the ''only son of his kind'' (Grk. monogenes huios) (John 3:16, 18).

In just one verse earlier (v. 17), Jesus did call God ''my father'' (Grk. ho pater mou) and said that his father was ''working until now'' (Grk. heos arti egazetai) and he (Jesus) himself was also working: ''and I am working '' (Grk. kargo ergazomai). Jesus was claiming to be equal with God in doing good works (in context, the works were specifically referring to the healing of the sick man on sabbath). 

In Luke 6:34, the Greek word isos refer to ''the same thing'' (i.e. referring to the same ''amount'' in context). in John 5:18, the Greek word isos refer to ''the same thing'' (i.e. the same works) which the Father and the Son do. 

Jesus was not doing it alone. Jesus was ''[doing] the same thing [i.e. breaking the Sabbath, by healing the sick man] with God''. The Jews couldn't accept the words of Jesus because according to Jesus, he was not alone doing the works but that God himself as working (i.e. by healing the sick man, which was for the Jews, it meant breaking the sabbath) (v.17) and that he (Jesus) cannot do the works (i.e. healing the sick man/ break the sabbath) unless he sees the Father himself does it (v.19). The Jews saw it as Jesus speaking evil of God (i.e. blasphemy) that is why they sought all the more to kill Jesus.

Based on verse 19, Jesus claimed that he was able to do ‘’nothing’’ (Greek: ouden) about the Sabbath. He wasn’t changing the Sabbath, adding his own ideas to it. Jesus was merely obeying the sabbath ‘’in the same way’’ (Greek: homoia) or in the original way it was given by God.

''So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.'' (John 5:19 ESV)

Jesus believed that the Father himself would have broken the sabbath [of the current Jewish understanding]. Jesus was explaining that what he had done (i.e. healing the sick on a sabbath day) was something God himself would do if God were in such a scenario. This is why Jesus claimed that he could not have broken it (i.e. i myself can do nothing). Breaking the sabbath wasn’t something Jesus could have done without a basis. Jesus explained that he could not have done it if he didn’t see God himself doing it. God is doing good on sabbath days. This is what God showed Jesus and this is what Jesus will do. And this is what Jesus had done on the sabbath day.

Jesus did break the sabbath, the sabbath which the Jews themselves knew, not the sabbath which God himself knew. God knows exactly what the sabbath truly means. The sabbath wasn’t what the Jews think that it really was. Jesus was doing good on a sabbath day. That’s not breaking the sabbath but fulfilling it. For Jesus, the sabbath is not only a rest day but also a day to do good deeds.

John 5:1-19 (ESV):

5 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic[a] called Bethesda,[b] which has five roofed colonnades. 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.[c] 5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked.Now that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Jews[d] said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father[e] does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.

Conclusion 

According to the context (John 5:1-17, 5:19), Jesus was ''equal with God [in doing good works on Sabbath] in John 5:18.

Understanding ἁρπαγμὸν actively in Philippians 2:6

Understanding  ἁρπαγμὸν actively in Philippians 2:6

The Greek word ''harpagmon'' is a noun (derived from the verb ''harpazo [1]). BDAG defines ἁρπαγμός as "a violent seizure of property, robbery" [2]. 

Older English bible translations like the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), King James version (KJV) and the Tyndale Bible of 1526 translated ἁρπαγμὸν as ''robbery'' in Philippians 2:6 [3]. 

The purpose of writing this article was to scrutinise this definition of ''robbery'' in the context of Philippians 2:6.

Robbery = the act of emptying another of his possessions

There's also an emptying in the act of robbery. When a robber robs someone, he is literally emptying that someone (his victim) of his possessions. This connects robbery to v. 7. There's also a selfish component in robbery because the robber is using both his victims and his victim's possessions for his own interest/benefit. This connects robbery to vv. 3-4. This shows that the meaning ''robbery'' of ἁρπαγμὸν is contextually appropriate.

Paul used the conjunction ἀλλὰ (''but'') [4] for to contrast what Christ thought [5] about being equal with God (''not a robbery'') [6] and to what Christ did (''emptied himself'').

not a robbery ( = not emptying another)

but emptying one's self

The robber is someone who:

(a) empties another (his victim) of his possessions, [7]

(b) for his own benefit [8]

Jesus is someone who:

(a) empties himself of his possessions, giving them to others [9]

(b) for the benefit of others

Notes

[1] The primary sense of the Greek verb ''harpazo'' is the active sense (''to take away by force''). The main idea behind this word is the ''taking away of something or someone violently (with force and suddenly)''. The Greek New Testament always used the active sense of ''harpazo''.

According to the ''New American Standard New Testament Greek Lexicon'', the verb ''harpazo'' was used in the New Testament 14 times (carry off 1, caught 4, snatch 2, snatched...away 1, snatches 1, snatches away 1, snatching 1, take...away...by force 1, take...by force).

Here are some examples of the verb ''harpazo'' from the Greek New Testament.

harpasai = ''take away his belongings'' (Matthew 12:29 GNT)

harpasei = ''steals away'' (Matthew 13:19 NABRE)

harpazein = ''seize'' (GNT), ''take him by force'' (NASB) John 6:15

harpasei = ''will snatch'' (John 10:28 NASB)

harpazein = ''to snatch'' (John 10:29 NASB)

herpasen = ''snatched'' (Acts 8:39 NASB)

harpagesometha = ''caught up'' (1 Thessalonians 4:17 NASB)

harpazontes = ''snatching'' (Jude 1:23 NASB)

''harpazo'' refers to someone taken forcibly out from a place to a new one, violently removing that person from the original place to a new one. This is the frequent Greek New Testament usage of ''harpazo''.

The Greek verb ''harpazo'' in the Greek New Testament always refers to the active sense of ''taking away by force, stealing, snatching, and catching up''.

[2] BDAG, 133.

[3] who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God (YLT)

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (KJV)

Which beynge in the shape of god and thought it not robbery to be equall with god (Tyndale Bible of 1526)

[4] ''The adverb 'but' is used after a negative for introducing what is true instead''[ ].

Compare the following examples:

''His death was not a tragedy, but a release from pain and suffering.''

''He did not think it a robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself.''

[5]  The subject ὃς (who) , its antecedent being Ἰησοῦ (Jesus), did the action of ἡγέομαι (to lead/ to think/consider). This is the only verb in the verse and it was in the aorist (ἡγήσατο) which means that its tense (time) could refer to the past, present or future: [who] thinks, [who] thought, [who] will think. The context determines if what specific tense was used. If there is no main verb in the text, the aorist verb refers to all time (i.e. the action is true, in past, present and future).

[6] The Greek text of Philippians 2:6 translated into English, following exactly the Greek word-order:

Philippians 2:6 (NA27)

ὃς                ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ                         ὑπάρχων

who,        in the form of God                existing

οὐχ            ἁρπαγμὸν

not            a robbery

ἡγήσατο               τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

considered         to be equal with God

1.) ''not a robbery'' (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν). 

This is what Jesus thinks about his being equal with God (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) in Phil. 2:6.

2.) The verse did not say ''not equal with God'' (οὐχ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ). 

The object τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ deemed ἁρπαγμὸν belongs to the subject in question. The infinitive εἶναι (to be, to exist) in the phrase τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ shows that the subject himself exist as ἴσα θεῷ (equal with God). The subject is doing ἡγήσατο while being/ when he is existing as ἴσα θεῷ (equal with God).

[7] A robber literally empties another person (the victim) of his valuable possessions. The opposite of emptying another person of his things (robbery) is the emptying of one's self of one's own things, giving them to the needy (charity).

Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. Eph 4:28 (NRSV)

[8] The robber will use the stolen things (valuable possessions of his victims) for his own benefit. This selfish aspect of robbery connects ''harpagmon'' with vv. 3-4, increasing the evidence that ''robbery'' is the mostly likely the meaning that inhabits ''harpagmon'' in Philippians 2:6.

Typically, a robber will cause physical damages, physical death, poverty, psychological trauma etc. to his victims.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (John 10:10 NRSV).

The robber uses the victims (people) and the victim's possessions (valuable things) for his own interest/benefit.

All of these selfish traits mentioned in Philippians 2:3abc -4d are present in a robber:

(a) kenodoxian - self-conceited

(b) erithea - self-interest, one's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others. Acting for one's own benefit, regardless of the harm it causes.

(c) tapeinophrosyne - thinking of one's self as being better than others

(d) me ta heauton ekastoi skopountes- looking of one's own interest only.

[9] ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν - to empty one's self (of riches).

It's possible that the self-emptying in Phil. 2:7 had a socio-economic meaning. The paradigm for this understanding is Luke 1:53 wherein the Lord sent the rich away with nothing [lit. ''empty'', Grk. ''kenous'']. In Luke 18:22, the Lord asked the rich ruler to empty himself of his possessions (''sell all that you own'', NRSV) and part of this emptying of one's own riches was giving them to the poor. Jesus, as the Lord, owned all things (1 Corinthians 10:26). Jesus was rich and he became poor (i.e. emptied himself of his riches, giving them to others) in 2 Cor 8:9.

''For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.'' (2 Corinthians 8:9 NRSV)

Paul also spoke of supporting the weak, quoting the Lord Jesus' word ''it is more blessed to give than to receive''. Psalm 35:10 spoke of the Lord delivering the weak from those who ''despoil'' (NRSV) or ''rob'' (NASB) them. The Lord saves the weak from robbery and following the Lord's words, Paul spoke of supporting the weak through giving. 

''In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'' (Acts 20:35 NRSV)


''All my bones will say, “Lord, who is like You,

Who rescues the afflicted from one who is too strong for him,

And the afflicted and the poor from one who robs him?” (Psalm 35:10 NASB)

''Primitive Hellenistic-Palestinian Community'' of Christians in Jerusalem as the Origin of the Christ-Poem in Philippians 2

It is still not clear if Philippians 2:9-11 is really a hymn, specifically a Jewish hymn (a psalm) but it's most probably just a poem [1]. 

The Christ-poem, even if originally composed in Aramaic, still heavily used Hellenistic ideas specifically in the use of Hellenistic phraseology (the form of a god/ equal to god'') as well as in the use of hellenistic theology of a god's ''metamorphosis'' into a man (being in the form of a god...becoming in the likeness of men). The latter part of the passage (Philippians 2:9-10) alluded Hebrew scriptures in Greek (LXX) at least two from psalms (97:9,  132:8) and one from Isaiah (45:23) through Romans 14:11. This shows that the Christ-poem was composed with a Semitic influence. 

Philippians 2:9-11 is a poem which is of Semitic origins as well as of Greek origins. The parallelism of Philippians 2:6-11 was a Semitic influence whilst the terms morphe theou and iso theo as well as its concept of a god's metamorphosis into a man (huparchon en morphe theou....genomenon en homoimati anthropoi) were of Hellenistic influence. Crispin-Louis Fletcher (2017) also spoke of these Hellenistic influences in Philippians 2:6-7 [2].  

Philippians 2:9 and Psalm 138:3 both used the same word ''name'' [Grk, ''onoma''] that is ''above'' [Grk, ''uper''] everything in the context of exaltation. ''You have exalted your [name] [above] every thing'' (Psalm 138:2). 

The first portion of the carmen christi contains Hellenistic phraseology such as morphe theou and iso theo (v. 6). The phrases ''form of God'' and ''equal to God'' were both absent in Hebrew scripture. The Septuagint did have ''equal to God'' in 2 Maccabees 9:12 which is not considered part of the Hebrew scripture. On the other hand, the ''form of God'' was present in the writing of a hellenistic Jew, Philo of Alexandria (On the Embassy to Gaius Chapter 14, 110). [3] In this case, if Philippians 2:6-11 were a pre-Pauline composition originally written in Aramaic [4], the Jewish Palestinian Christians were actually using Hellenistic phraseology translating them into Aramaic. Based on this evidence, it's highly likely was that Paul was writing to Christians of Hellenistic-Jewish origin. 

''Just as it is helpful to acknowledge the rich combination of influences on Philippians 2:6-11, it is also illuminating to acknowledge the impact these influences had on the early church. The church we know today originated in a melting pot of cultures which practiced both monotheistic and polytheistic religions. Greco-Roman influences are present and influential in New Testament texts, intertwined with the Semitic background. By knowing this exchange between cultures, one can see more clearly the various influences and pressures that shaped the early church, and how the church has evolved into its present form in the modern day.'' ( Paul's Poetic License: Philippians 2:6-11 as a Hellenistic Hymn, Anna Groebe, 2013). [5]

References

[1] ''As many have now seen, Phil 2:6–11 (along with 3:20–11) is a traditional hymnic piece that uses Greco-Roman language for divine rulers to express a kind of “imperial Christology.” Whilst the second half (vv. 9–11) cites biblical prophecy (Isa 45:23), the first half lacks scriptural language. Instead it employs Greco-Roman language, especially the conventional terminology for the gods’ self-transformations; stories of gods taking on a new "form (μορφή)" to visit human communities in disguise. Besides the shared language that has been noted especially by German scholars (D. Zeller, U. B. Müller and S. Vollenweider, cf. A. Y. Collins), there are other ways in which verses 7–8 employ the distinctive terminology of divine self-transformations that have hitherto escaped commentators' notice. Together, Phil 2:6–11 and 3:20–11 also echo distinctive themes of those stories, for example in the combination of divine self-transformation (2:6–8) and the gods' transformation of human beings (3:21). Christ is a divine ruler who comes to earth in a way that is comparable to the poetic vision of Octavian as a self-transforming God who comes to earth as Rome’s saviour in Horace Odes 1:2 (lines 42ff). However, in other ways Christ’s divine self-transformation is like no other: he empties himself and lives a whole human life, dying on a cross (see vv. 7a, 8a–c), things that the pagan gods never do.'' (https://www.academia.edu/35135373/Incarnation_Ruler_Cult_and_Divine_Desire_in_Philippians_2_6_11)

[2] ''In my most recent post on Christology I began to speak about the “incarnation” Christology found famously in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, 2:6-11.  There are a lot of other things I want to say about this passage, all of them relevant to the issues I’ve been discussing.  The first and most important thing is that it has been widely recognized by scholars for a very long time that this passage is something that Paul appears to be quoting, that it is not simply part of the prose letter.  Moreover, it is frequently called (probably wrongly) a “hymn” (that’s probably wrong because – as I’ve been told by an expert in the field of ancient music, it doesn’t actually scan as music).   But in any event, it is highly structured in a balanced fashion and thus seems to be more like a poem than like prose.  The reasons for thinking that Paul is quoting rather than composing it are pretty compelling''. (https://ehrmanblog.org/the-pre-pauline-poem-in-philippians-2-for-members/)

[3] ''Is it fitting now to compare with these oracles of Apollo the ill-omened warning of Gaius, by means of which poverty, and dishonour, and banishment, and death were given premature notice of to all those who were in power and authority in any part of the world? What connexion or resemblance was there between him and Apollo, when he never paid any attention to any ties of kindred or friendship? Let him cease, then, this pretended Apollo, from imitating that real healer of mankind, for the form of God is not a thing which is capable of being imitated by an inferior one, as good money is imitated by bad'' (On the Embassy to Gaius, Chapter 14, verse 110).

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book40.html

[4] ''Fitzmyer retrojects the Greek of Phil 2:6–11 into (mostly) Second Temple Aramaic, which he suggests supports a Palestinian provenance.'' (Christ’s Enthronement at God’s Right Hand and Its Greco-Roman Cultural Context, D. Clint Burnett , 2021, page 115)

[5] https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=honrstudent

Jesus the Lord God in Revelation

 The Greek word proskuneo is translated into English as worship in verse 14, which means to genuflect, bow down, that even human kings receive. Proskuneo is not the only word for worship or the only word related to the act of worship. The word sacrifice is also a word used for religious worship and Jesus is a recipient of sacrifice in the NT. In fact, prayers and singing a new song are all worship offered to God too. 

Jesus is already worshiped via offering incense (prayers) to him, and via singing a new song to him, in verse 8.

and then Jesus is worshiped together with the Father in verse 13 wherein all creatures in every place worship both the Father and the Son as having the exact same blessing, honour, glory and might for ever and ever:

Revelation 5:8 

when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

Revelation 5:13 

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

Jesus is the one who shows his revelation (which God gave him) to his (Jesus') servants and he did it so by sending his angel. This is parallel to Revelation 22:6. The Father is probably the referent due to parallel in 22:6 but in the same text (22:16), it was explicitly Jesus , the only Lord in the NT, which means that to be consistent, he's the same Lord mentioned in 22:6. Now the context of Revelation 1:1 strongly supports Jesus as the referent. Ergo, all 3 verses have only one angel-sender and he's Jesus, the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets.

Revelation 1:1

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Revelation 22:6

And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show His servants the things that must come to pass in quickness.”

Revelation 22:16

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

In Revelation 1:8, Jesus speaks here because in immediate context (just one verse earlier), the one coming is Jesus and also in its parallel it is Jesus who speaks:

Revelation 1:8

7 Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 22:12-13, 22:20-21 New Revised Standard Version

12 “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 20 The one who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen.Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.

Revelation 1:7-8 New Revised Standard Version 7 Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen. 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

The one who is to coming or is coming in the immediate context is pierced (v. 7) and he refers to Jesus. The Father is also the one ''who is and who was and who is to come'' in verse 5. This shows that both Jesus and the Father are described as the one ''who is and who was and who is to come''. Jesus is the Almighty, the Alpha and the Omega in Revelation 1:8. Jesus is also Alpha and Omega in Revelation 22:13: 

Revelation 22:12-13, 22:20-21 New Revised Standard Version

12 “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 20 The one who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.

It's highly likely that Jesus was the person speaking in Revelation 22:12 because he's the One to repay each one for what they've done in Revelation 2:23 and also because of the prayer offered to him as Lord in v. 20. The prayer in v. 20 ("Come, Lord Jesus!") allude to the earliest prayer known to the earliest churches (from the Aramaic speaking Jews/ the primitive Palestinian Jews) which is Maranatha ("Our Lord, come!"). This is evidence from earliest NT texts (the Pauline corpus) that Jesus is Lord God because everyone of them in every place were calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2). In the OT, everyone's calling on the name of the Lord (Adonay).   

Jesus is called Almighty in the Bible (Revelation 1:8). That doesn't mean Jesus is the Father. In Revelation 20:6, every priest is offering to both God the Father and Jesus as a unit/jointly. They are considered one even when they are distinguished. Jesus is the one who's together with the Father is being served by priests (Rev 20:6), the very hallmark of what worship means in the OT as only deities are being served by priests.

Revelation 14:4 New Revised Standard Version 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been redeemed from humankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,   

Revelation 20:6 New Revised Standard Version

6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years.

The Sonship of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Jesus talked more about his equality with God in other areas in the subsequent verses (5:19-30). 

Not only did Jesus doing the same thing with God (i.e. healing the sick on sabbath) in 5:1-7, 5:19 but he also will be doing the same thing (i.e. greater works, raising the dead and judging all men ) with God in 5:19-30.

In verse 20, Jesus Christ said that God the Father shows the Son everything he is doing which logically entails that the Son does everything in the same way (Grk. homoios) God the Father does everything, based on verse 19.

In verse 20, Jesus also said that God the Father will show greater works than these (i.e. the healing of the sick man sabbath). In the context, the greater works refers to the (i) raising the dead, (5:21, 5:25, 5:26, 5:28) and (ii) judging all men (5:22, 5:23, 5:27, 5:30). And both are equally mentioned in 5:29.

Equality with God (in raising the dead)

Jesus will resurrect the dead just as (i.e. equally as/ precisely the same way as) God will do it (5:21).** ''

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.'' (John 5:21 ESV) 

Equality with God (in receiving honor from everyone)

''All'' (Grk. pantes) will honor the Son ''just as'' (Grk. kathos, meaning, ''equally as/ precisely the same way as'') they honor the Father (v. 23). Verse 23 uses the phrase "for this reason" (Grk. hina), showing the reason why everyone will honor the Son and that's because the Son has been given ''all judgment'' (i.e. all of what the Father himself opined in righteousness) according to verse 22. The Father himself ''judges no one'' (v. 22a). Jesus is also the "the Son of Man" (Grk. huios anthropou) (v. 27b) in addition to being "the Son" (Grk. ho huios) (v. 19) of his "own father" (Grk. patera idion) (v. 18). The reason why the Father gave to the Son the authority to ''execute judgment'' (5:27a) is because Jesus is the Son of Man (v. 27b). In judging all men, Jesus does the judging by means of reporting what God the Father himself had told him (''As I hear, I judge'', v. 30). This is similar to what a prophet does. A prophet reports what God has told him.

''For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.'' (John 5:22-23, 5:27, 5:30 ESV)

In ancient Jewish literature, ''the son of man'' (Aramaic: bar enosh) refers to one who is a human being.

A “son of man” is, of course, an idiomatic way of designating a human being in ancient Semitic languages (Hebrew & Aramaic), and “sons of man” the plural equivalent. [1]. 

In Daniel 7:13-14, a divine figure (a celestial being, not a human being) was described as ''One Like a Son of Man''. Some ancient Jews deemed this divine figure as the translated patriarch, Enoch. They had this speculation that the Enoch had been transformed into an angel, was named ''The Lesser YHWH'', sat on the throne of God in heaven, and became the one who will execute all judgment in behalf of God [2].

Another ancient Jewish tradition was preserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible (in the Old Greek (OG), not the Septuagint (LXX) that the divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14 was God's very own theophany ('' the one like the Son of Man, coming ''as the Ancient of Days''). [3] 

Another Jewish traditon was contemporary to the apostles and that's Philo's the concept of the Logos [4]. Philo followed an ancient tradition of God having two divine powers: (1) the creative power, and the (2) ruling power. For the former, Philo refers to as ''God'' (Grk. theos) and for the latter, Philo referred to as ''Lord'' (Grk. Kyrios) which was both exemplified by the Logos of God. This Logos was the ''second God'' and as such its associated with the other Jewish tradition of the ''second Power'' ( = ''the second Yahweh'') which was referring to the divine Son of Man. Under the concept of the Logos, Yahweh is seen as totally transcended and does not do things directly but does everything through the Logos. This concept was also found in John. The prologue of John introduced Jesus as the Logos through whom God does everything. In John 5, God the Father judges ''no one'' ( recall that under the Logos concept, Yahweh is seen as totally transcended and does not do things directly) but gave it all to the Son, the Son himself will execute the judgment (here the Son was seen as the Logos through whom the Father had given the activity of judging).

In the Hebrew bible and other ancient Jewish texts, the term ''son of God'' was used both to angels and humans. The Qumran Jews who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 300 B.C.E. - 1st century C.E.) believed that that Yahweh is the father of all gods. This posits that all gods were the ''sons of God'', God being the ''Most High'' (Deuteronomy 32:8 , Psalm 82:6 DSS). These gods were the angels as seen in the Septuagint (Deuteronomy 32:8 LXX). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint were both very ancient, older than the Masoretic text but the latter agreed with the former in Psalm 82:1, 82:6 in having the ''gods'' as the ''sons of the Most High'. This shows that the original Israelites believed in lesser gods with Yahweh being the high god. The concept of the high god and lesser gods were ubiquitous in the Ancient Near East (ANE) where Israel also existed [5]. 

The other Jewish meaning of ''son of God'' refers to a human being. To call a man God's son is to believe that he's ''righteous'' [6].  In John 8:42, the Jews said they had one father who was God and that they were not illegitimate children. The same concept was applicable to John 5:18 because based on the context, Jesus was claiming to be the ''son of man'' (Greek: bar enosh) in the sense of ''human being'' who was 'God's son'' (i.e. righteous) imitating what his own father (i.e. God) was doing i.e. good works (v. 19). However, Jesus used the articular huios (Grk. ho huios) which meant that Jesus was not merely speaking of himself as one of the sons of God (one of the righteous people) but specifically as ''the Righteous One'' (cf. 1 John 2:1). This showed that Jesus was claiming to be the Anointed One (''The Messiah'') in John 5:18. 

The other meaning of ''son of God'' (its meaning in association with being a divine being) is also applicable in John 5:18 because ''the son of man'' being linked to ''the Logos was God'' in John's prologue (1:1-3). Recall that in ancient Jewish understanding, being the Son of Man was also referring to a divine being: 'The Second YHWH'', which was in turn related to the Jewish Logos concept, the Logos being ''the Second God'' and being ''God'' in Philo. Scholars call the unifying concepts of the Son of Man being the Lesser Yahweh/Second Yahweh and the Logos being the Second God as ''Second Power'' [7]. The Gospel of John seemed to adopt the other variant of Jewish tradition about the Son of Man (identifying him *as the Ancient of Days* i.e. God himself, not *as Enoch*) since a totally divine Logos in John 1:1-3  required a consistent identification of a totally divine Son of Man in 5:17-30.  

In John 5, Jesus was equal with God in all these areas because of his unique sonship:

(1) Jesus was a human Messiah (''The Son'') who imitates the good things God the Father does (v. 19).

(2) Jesus was a divine Messiah (''The Son of Man'') whose function as judge (vv. 22, 27, 30) reflect also his identity as the totally divine Logos (John 1:1-3, 1:17-18). This showed us that in the latter part of the first century C.E., Jesus was already deemed as eternally divine. 

In John 5,  Jesus is seen as divine based on his being ''the Son of Man''. The term ''Son of God'' in reference to Jesus was used in its purely Jewish sense (which refers to a man who is 'righteous'). Jesus, by being both Son of God and Son of Man simultaneously, is truly the ''only son of his kind'' (Grk. monogenes huios John 3:16, 18). 

References

[1] https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/the-son-of-man-an-obsolete-phantom/

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Metatron 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/09/the-mystery-of-enoch/

[3]  https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424522

https://www.duq.edu/assets/Documents/theology/_pdf/faculty-publications/The_Son_of_Man_and_the_Ancient_of_Days_O.pdf

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004386112/BP000018.xml

[4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo/

[5] https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=lts_fac_pubs

[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259680

[7] https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=facsch_papers 

The Meaning of εἷς κύριος (one Lord) in 1 Corinthians 8:6

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I noticed that through Jesus all things came to be and through whom we live

I notice that the phrase ''one lord'' in relation with the creation of all things recalls the ''one lord'' of the Old Testament (''the lord is one'', Deut. 6:4, and ''you are the only lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, with all the stars. You made the earth and everything on it, the seas and everything in them; you give life to everything. The heavenly army worships you.'', Nehemiah 9:6). Paul's applying to Jesus the exact same description of ''one lord'' which belongs to the only the true god.

This is all true,

• Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not Jesus
• Jesus, as the one lord, is god, because based on context, Paul relates Jesus with the ''many lords'' who are ''the so-called gods...on earth'' in verse 5. Paul is consistent that the many lords are gods and that his one lord is god.
• The Father, as the one god, is lord, specifically the one lord of the Shema.
• In this verse, Paul equally applies to both the Father and Jesus the 2 exact same prepositional phrases (''from him are all things'') and (''through him are all things'') from Romans 11:36, a doxology praising the lord god as Creator, which means that Paul regarded the Father (one god) and Jesus (one lord) as Creator in the text in question.

This is precisely an equality relationship as the very definition of ''one god'' and ''one lord'' features monotheism ( recalling the Shema: ''the lord our god, the lord is one'') in contrast to the polytheism of the many gods and many lords, the lords being gods on earth, based on context (vv. 4-6). Based on their contexts, both Acts 2:36 and Philippians 2:9-11 show that the risen Jesus was ''made lord'' by god (the father). 1 Corinthians 8:6 tells us that Jesus is already lord in the creation of all things, before he became in the likeness of humans (Philippians 2:6-7) so that Jesus and the Father are both ''uncreated'' in contrast to ''all created things''.

Notes

both Jesus, and Paul are right. ​​​​

Mark 12

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

1 Corinthians 8:6

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha!

In Hebrew, Adonai (my Lord/Lord) is the oral/written substitute of the Tetragrammaton. In Greek, it's kyrios (Lord).

The Shema Yisrael in Hebrew has the Tetragrammaton ( = YHWH). When a Jew prays the Shema, he does not utter the Tetragrammaton but rather, he utters Adonai instead. And a Greek speaking Jew utters Kyrios instead.

Adonai literally means ''my lords'' but when used to the God of Israel, it's used in the singular (''my Lord'' or ''the Lord''). When the Greek speaking Jews translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek around the 3rd century B.C.E, they did not transliterate the divine name but rather, they wrote its substitute kyrios instead. Kyrios means a lot of things (''sir'', ''lord'', ''master'', ''owner'' etc.) and its exact meaning can be determined only by its context. Kyrios, corresponding to Adonai (''my Lord/ Lord''), means ''Lord''.

In the Bible, Yahweh is called ''Lord'' because (i) he is the ruler or leader of all who rule/lead others (rulers, kings, judges etc.) and because (ii) he created all things.

Why did God's people chose ''Lord'' as the oral/written substitute for the divine name?

In Deuteronomy 10:17, Yahweh was called ''Lord of lords''. This means that Yahweh is the ruler or leader of all who rule/lead others (rulers, kings, judges etc.). Yahweh was also called ''Lord'' because he created all things. In Matthew 11:25, Jesus says to the Father: “I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth … ” and in Acts 17:24, Paul says: “The God who made the world and everything in it, he is the Lord of heaven and earth … ”.

 kurios heis estin ([the] lord is one) in the Shema Yisrael in Greek is semantically the same with eis kurios (one lord) in 1 Corinthians 8:6. 

Paul applies the Shema to Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:6. In the Septuagint, the Shema reads: (akoue, Israel, kyrios o theos hemon, kurios heis estin) (Listen, Israel, [the] Lord our God, [the] Lord is one). It's now widely accepted among scholars that the phrase ''heis kyrios'' (one Lord) is derived from and alluded to the Shema' clause ''kurios heis estin'' ([the] Lord is one).

In the LXX Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), the adjective heis (one) is a predicate conjoined to the noun kurios (lord) by the copula estin (is), In 1 Corinthians 8:6, heis (one) now modifies kurios (lord). Only the grammatical syntax changed.The clause ''the Lord is one'' is semantically identical to the phrase ''one Lord''. In other words, ''The Lord is one'' means that there is ''one Lord''.

The Greek speaking Jews applied the title kyrios (Lord) to Yahweh in the Shema. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul applied to Jesus Yahweh's own identity as kyrios (Lord). In this case, the generic sense of  ''Lord'' ( = ruler) was applied to Jesus Christ but his dominion encompasses ''all created things''. In other words, the lordship of Jesus Christ is precisely the kind which Yahweh himself possesses. 

In Romans 15:6, Paul spoke of the ''Father'' as the ''God'' of our ''Lord'' Jesus Christ. In this text, we can see that Jesus is ''Lord'' of every creature except the Father. (This is congruent with 1 Corinthians 15:27 wherein Paul says that ''everything'' -- except God -- was put under Jesus' feet). Jesus Christ is deemed as ''uncreated'' (not part of ''all created things'' which are subjected to his (Jesus') lordship) in his lordship. Jesus Christ, as the uncreated Lord, has the Father as his own God which only shows functional, not ontological, subordination between them. 

In the Bible, Jesus Christ is identified as the ''one Lord'' of the Shema because (i) he is the ruler or leader of all who rule/lead others (rulers, kings, judges etc.) and because (ii) he created ''all created things''.

1. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul applies to the Father and Jesus two prepositional phrases from Romans 11:36.
2. Paul did not apply ‘’ex’’ and ‘’eis’’ to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 like he did to God in Romans 11. 
3. It is also equally true that Paul did not apply ‘’di’ and ‘’eis’’ to the Father in 1 Corinthians 8:6 like he did to God in Romans 11. 
4. What Paul did is apply only one prepositional phrase for each. Paul applied ‘’ex’’ to the Father and ‘’di’’ to Jesus like he did to God in Romans 11. This means that Paul was identifying the Father and Jesus as Creator like he did to God in Romans 11.

Paul is relating the ''many lords'' (the so-called gods on earth, Gaius, Caesar Augustus, etc.) with the ''one Lord'' (the God of Israel, Yahweh) whom he identifies to be Jesus Christ. 

1 Corinthians 8:5 (NRSV)

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords

Paul tells his readers about ‘’the so-called gods…on earth’’ in 1 Corinthians 8:5. Who are these so-called gods on earth? In the same verse, they refer to the many lords. The so-called gods on earth were the many lords on earth. In the days of Jesus (AD 27) and of Paul (AD 30-50), the emperors were the many lords on earth, the gods on earth. The emperors were called Dominus (lord) and Deus (god).

 Paul put the Emperors (e.g. Nero, Ceasar, Gaius etc) and Jesus into the same category of κυριος ("lord"). In 1 Cor 8:5-6, Paul relates the many lords being gods on earth to Jesus Christ, who is also lord and hence, a god on earth. But Paul had in mind a specific lord, the lord mentioned in Shema Yisrael in Greek (i.e. the god of Israel, "God") and he identified Jesus Christ as that lord. Ergo, 1 Cor 8:5-6 is about many lords (Greco-Roman gods) contrasted against the one Lord (the God of Israel). This is a statement about polytheism (the many lords = "gods" on earth) and monotheism (one Lord = "God", based on the Shema: lord our God, lord is one).

The phrase "one Lord" (heis kyrios) is semantically the same as "the Lord is one" (kyrios estin heis) which is precisely what the Shema is saying. By identifying Jesus as the one Lord of the Shema, Paul is identifying Jesus as God, specifically as the God of Israel, Yahweh. Paul identifies the many lords as the so-called gods on earth. Examples of these divine lords were Gaius, Caesar Augustus and more in the first century A.D. but for Paul and his brethren, there's only one divine Lord and he's Jesus Christ. 

Paul conflated these two figures: ''the Father'' and ''Jesus Christ'' to the one figure (the one ''Lord God'') mentioned by the Shema Yisrael. In my analysis, Paul's beliefs can be described as semi-modalistic/proto-orthodoxy.

In the very same letter, Paul regarded the Holy Spirit as one Spirit whom Paul deemed to be responsible for people confessing Jesus as one Lord and the Father as one God.  

The absence of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not mean that the Holy Spirit does not feature in Paul's theological beliefs. In the very same letter, Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as ''one Spirit'' (1 Corinthians 12:13) who causes one to confess ''Jesus is Lord'' (1 Corinthians 12:3). Paul shows his readers that in 1 Corinthians 12:3 and 12:13, the one Spirit is integral to knowing the one God and one Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6.