John 5:18; 10:33 - The Jews Sought the More to Kill Him

 John 5:18; 10:33 - The "Cause" to Kill Jesus

For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. -- John 5:18, American Standard Version.

The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. -- John 10:33, American Standard Version.

Some time ago one claimed, in a post that no longer exists, that John did not say that it was the Jews who were claiming that Jesus was equal with God, but rather that they only took issue with Jesus calling God his father. This would seem to seek to separate "called God his Father" from "making himself equal to God." It appears to be saying that the Jews objected to Jesus' referring to God as his father, but did not equate this with being equal to God, but that rather it is John himself (not the Jews), who supplies the information that it is making himself equal with God, and that "the idea that it was just their [the Jews'] opinion is merely an assumption not found in the text."

Did John say that the reason that the Jews gave for killing Jesus is accurate? Would this not make make what Jesus said in John 10:32 incorrect? Actually, the ending phrase of John 10:32 gives the reason -- from the perspective of their argument -- as to why the Jews were objecting to Jesus' referring to his God as his Father. In view of the Jews' claim recorded in John 10:33, wherein they stated that Jesus was a man making himself out to be God (or a god), the default reasoning is that John was simply defining the Jewish "cause" to kill Jesus in John 5:18. Indeed, it really doesn't make sense to say that they were only objecting to Jesus referring to God as his Father, without there being some reason for such objection based on Jewish law, and such a reason would have to be such that it would offer a "cause" for killing Jesus.

Of course, the Jewish leaders could have been speaking of "god" in a more general way as the angels are referred to as "gods" (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7), or similar to the way the sons of the Most High are "gods". (Psalm 82:6) Jesus, by claiming to have come down from heaven from God was indeed claiming to have been such a god -- a mighty spirit being -- before he became flesh with a glory a little lower than the angels. (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:9) John wrote of this in John 1:1, where John spoke Jesus as "the Word" before being made flesh. John used the Greek for "God/god" of Jesus, but obviously not with the meaning of being the "one God" from whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) If this is what is meant in John 5:18, then the final statement is partly true, for Jesus was such a divine being before he became flesh, but it was not true at the time the Jews were making their accusation because Jesus did not have that divine glory while he was in the days of his flesh. -- John 17:5; Hebrews 5:7.

See our Links to Studies Related to John 1:1

See also our study: 
Who Are the Gods?

Nevertheless, since Jesus is not Jehovah, the "one God" from whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), Jesus' calling his God his Father would not make him equal to the exclusive glory of the Most High, nor equal to the Supreme Being, as possessing the glory of being "one God" from whom are all. If this is what is meant, such an assumption would be that made by the Jewish leaders, for Jehovah is called "our Father" in 1 Chronicles 29:10; Isaiah 63:16; 64:8, without any thought that this makes the people of Israel equal to Jehovah.

Jehovah Himself confirms his being a Father to Israel as recorded in Jeremiah 3:19; 31:9.

Likewise, Jesus instructed his followers to refer to God as "our Father" (Matthew 6:9) and many times referred to his God as being the Father of his disciples (Matthew 5:16,45; 6:1,4,6,8,15,18; 7:11; 10:20,29; 18:4; John 20:17, etc). Paul spoke of God as "our Father" (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; Philemon 1:3) without any thought that such makes one equal to God.

Jesus, however, was just not a son of God, he was "the" Son of God, the only one who was begotten directly from God, being the firstborn (first to be brought forth) of God. (Colossians 1:15) Whether the Jews understood this or not, the Bible does not say, but Jesus' parable indicates the Jews did know he was the heir sent from God but did not want to accept him as such. -- Matthew 21:38.

For more regarding Jesus as the firstborn creature, see:
Studies Related to Jesus as Firstborn

However, the one to whom we originally responded claims that John, by his statement recorded in John 5:18, was not just reporting any reason of the Jews for killing Jesus, but that John evidently meant that the Jews were simply "balking at what Jesus was saying". We have no reason to imagine and assume such. Indeed, we are not sure how one could read John 5:18 and come to such a conclusion, for it is plainly stated: "for this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because ..., but also". John does indeed record two different legal causes that the Jews were claiming for killing Jesus. 

It was claimed that John calls Jesus "God" throughout his gospel, evidently by "God" meaning the Supreme Being, and a list of scriptures is given where, evidently, it is alleged that John calls Jesus "God", although when we look at those scriptures, we do not find what is being claimed: John 1:1; 1:18; 5:18; 5:23; 8:58; 9:38; 10:33, 36; 12:41 and 20:28. Other scriptures are given for comparison: Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:19; 2:9.

Most of the scriptures we have examined in studies online. One can go to our Scriptures Examined page, and follow the links to find studies related to these scriptures.

We do not believe that John ever intended anything he wrote to mean that he was saying that Jesus is the Supreme Being, the "one God" from whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) In a very, very few instances, the Greek word for "God" is applied to Jesus, but obviously not with the meaning of Supreme  Being, but with a more general meaning of a mighty one. In Biblical Hebraic usage, the Hebrew/Greek words that are often translated as "God/god" can be used in other ways than simply designated the Supreme Mighty One or false gods. See our study on the Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God".

Hebrews 2:9 and the Alleged Incarnation

 It is claimed that Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was made for a while “lower than the angels” at his incarnation, which word in trinitarian terminology is used to mean the doctrine that the alleged second person of the alleged trinity assumed human form in the person of Jesus Christ and is therefore completely both God [Supreme Being] and man [human being], possessing two alleged natures at once. Do  we find anything of such an idea in Hebrews 2:9? No, at all!

Hebrews 2:9: but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all. — Jay Green’s Literal Translation.

In context, we find how all had been subjected to man, although, as yet, we do not see all as having been put under man's dominion. (Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8:5-8; Hebrews 2:7,8) Evidently, as scriptures elsewhere related, the subjection of all to man has been delayed due to Adam's disobedience. -- Romans 5:12-19.

Although we do not yet see all subjected to man, we are able to see that Jesus was made man, having the crown of glory that is a little lower than the angels, as Adam had before Adam sinned. When Adam sinned, he fell short of the glory he had. (Romans 3:23) Jesus, however, was born  into this world without the condemnation of Adam, since God prepared a body for Jesus apart from that condemnation. -- Hebrews 10:5.

If Jesus, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God, he had the price necessary to offer to God to buy back what Adam had lost for himself and the whole race that has descended from him. And this relates to what is written in Hebrews 2:9. There we find that the man, Christ Jesus, gave himself in sacrifice to God; he died for every man. The price needed to redeem man was not, as many claim, the sacrifice of God Almighty Himself to Himself, but rather what was needed to offset what Adam had done was another sinless man who, unlike Adam, remained obedient.

What the trinitarian has to imagine, assume and add to this verse is that it is really saying that Jesus, while he was a little lower than the angels, was at the same time the Most High, above the angels and all creation. They do this by imagining and assuming their “hypostatic union” doctrine and imagining and assuming their “incarnation” doctrine, and then adding those imagined assumption to the scripture and reading those imagined assumptions into the scripture.

The trinitarian, and many others, would then negate the human sacrifice of Jesus by the claim that Jesus is still a man, being, as they would imagine and assume, 100% Supreme Being and 100% human being at the same time. Of course, no such thought is ever presented anywhere in the Bible.

Jesus is not described in Hebrews 2:9, or anywhere else in the Bible, as an incarnation; like the added-on trinitarian dogma itself, the added-on incarnation doctrine has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into Hebrews 2:9, as well as any other scripture that might be presented to allegedly support the added-on doctrine, and then by use of the added-on assumptions of the incarnation doctrine, the added-on assumption of the alleged “hypostatic union” are also imagined, assumed and added to the scritpure, so as to make the scripture appear to harmonize with the added-0n trinitarian dogma, or some other dogma about Jesus.

Colossians 1:15 - Firstborn of the World?

Exodus 4:22 – The Firstborn Nation, Israel

 

John 13:18,19, Ani Hu and Ego Eimi

<><><><> 

{John 13:18} I do not speak about all of you. I know whom I have chosen. Yet, that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'The one who eats bread with me lifts up his heel against me.'
{John 13:19} Now I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe that I am he. -- Restoration Light Improved Version.

Many use John 3:19 as a proof text that Jesus is EHJEH of Exodus 3:14, or some claim that in some way that Jesus was saying that he is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Some use the Christianized Septuagint of some verses where Jehovah expresses himself as being the one who is the one related to the context, using the Hebrew phrase often transliterated as "ani hu" (literally, I - he, with verb supplied in the English and, "I am he"), which is translated into the Greek of the Christianized LXX with the phrase transliterated as EGO EIMI in such verses as Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 48:12. Noting that the phrase ANI HU is only used by Jehovah in the Old Testament, it is imagined and assumed that when Jesus used the phrase EGO EIMI of himself, that this has to mean that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah who spoke through his prophets, Moses and Isaiah. This idea, however, is contrary to Hebrews 1:1,2, which shows that "God" who spoke through his prophets Moses and Isaiah was only one person, and that this same God now speaks through His Son.

Does the fact the Old Testament only shows Jehovah as using ANI HU of himself mean that no one else could have used that phrase, if such a person had a reason to do so? Obviously, not. More than likely, no situation was ever arisen in which anyone else would have to use the phrase ANI HU. As yet, we have found no scripture that presents any similar phrase used by anyone to identify themselves as being the one referred to, thus it would appear that no similar situation had arisen where anyone else had any need to use the phrase ANI HU of themselves.

But one needs to consider the context. What was Jesus speaking of? In verse 18, he speaks of one among the disciples who would betray him, and he quotes Psalm 41:9 of that one. Did Jesus claim to be Jehovah by quoting Psalm 41:9? Obviously not. Rather, he was claiming to be the servant of Jehovah, the one whom Jehovah anointed and sent. Of course, Jesus was speaking of Judas as the one who "lifts up his heel against me." Thus, when Judas did betray Jesus, Jesus was neither shocked nor alarmed by Judas's behavior because he knew beforehand who would betray him. Nevertheless, but it must have nonetheless been heartbreaking for our Master. 

At any rate, Jesus went on to say that he was telling them this before it happened so that his other disciples would know that he was the one whom he claimed to be. There is no indication that he was claiming to be Jehovah who spoke through the prophets of old. Rather he was claiming to Jehovah's Son, whom Jehovah and anointed, sent and raised up as the prophet like Moses. 

Some claim that, while EGO EIMI is used of others in the New Testament, it was when Jesus used this term that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. The fact is that Jesus used the phrase many times when the Jesus did not seek to kill Jesus. Indeed, the scriptures record only one instance where the Jews sought kill Jesus after he used the phase EGO EIMI, and in this instance it was obviously because Jesus was claiming to have lived before Abraham. 

In this short study, however, it was our goal to mostly discus John 13:18,19. We have links to many other related studies on our page, "Ehjeh and I am".

Luke 1:35 -- Did Gabriel Reveal a Triune God?

Colossians 2:2,3 - Mystery of the Trinity?

- Revelation 1:1-18 - Is Jesus Revealed as Being God?