Are there two separate reasons given for wanting to stone Jesus?

Question

Beginning in Chapter 5, John details how the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. First, the intent is described: for making Himself equal to God (5:18). Then the manner of death they picked up stones to throw at him (8:59). Finally:

³¹ The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. ³² Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” ³³ TThe Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (John 10) [NASB]

³¹ ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν ³² ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε ³³ ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν

I believe a main point John makes is they picked up stones again πάλιν, and in so doing, the motive behind the first attempt to stone is given. However, I am curious whether John intends the reader to understand two separate reasons:

1. Blasphemy: referring to Before Abraham was, I am (8:58)
2. Make yourself God: referring to both My Father is working until now, and I am working. (5:17) and I and the Father are one (10:30).

Answer 1

The second reason for picking up the stones is the same as before. He was claiming to be the divine Messiah, Son of God. They eagerly pushed him- v24 tell us plainly if you're Christ, so we can stone you.

The conjunction και has the usual connecting in the sense of coordinate, continuative: and, adjunctive: also. However, it can also have an ascensive sense. This use expresses a final addition or point of focus in a list or argument. It is commonly translated "even". Sometimes και can be translated contrastively "but". NET John 1:17 when law is contrasted with grace. The use of kai is more frequent than the usual usage of and in English. It can be left untranslated such as here in John 10:33.

You can translate και as even to show ascensive sense. For even because you being a man make yourself God.

As in 1 Corinthians 2:10: “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, καιeven the depths of God.”

The use of kai does not necessarily mean giving an additional idea in the adjunctive also sense. So we can simply keep "and" or leave it untranslated. Consider these translations:

New Catholic Bible: The Jews answered, “We are not going to stone you for any good work you have done, but for blasphemy. Even though you are a man, you are claiming to be God.”

DLNT The Jews answered Him, “We do not stone You for a good work, but for blasphemy— even because You, being a human, are making Yourself God

Conclusion: John 5:18 gives two reasons, breaking the Sabbath and claiming to be God. In John 10:33 context there's only one reason has been mentioned, that is blasphemy. Breaking Sabbath can't be said as slandering or blaspheming God. Blasphemy is the only reason in this context that is claiming to be Messiah/God.

Answer 2

In John 5, "making himself equal with God" was more subtle. It didn't get the public to pick up stones.

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. (John 5:18, ESV)

In John 8:28 and 8:58 what Jesus said translated ἐγώ εἰμι the public directly understood Jesus claiming to be God so they picked up stones. See What did Jesus likely say in John 8:58?

By that time the Jews did not pronounce the divine name YHWH (consonants with vowels forgotten). When reading scripture they would say Adonai (Lord) when they came to YHWH. Thus, they understood Jesus as claiming to be God.

Answer 3

In order to place this question in context, I have listed in the appendix 1 below all the examples in the Gospels where the Jews determined to kill Jesus and why.

Their reasons all boil down to just two:

• Jesus was accused of blasphemy, ie, being God or being equal with God
• Jesus undermined the Jew's authority by showing that there was no basis for their spiritual pride and arrogance - these occurred more often that the above reason.

In the specific case of the examples in John 5, 8 and 10 (#3, #4, and #5) in the list of appendix 1 below, all are associated with the charge of blasphemy in various ways: either being equal to God, being one with the Father, or acting directly by God's power by unity with Him, etc.

These were all different aspects of the same charge of blasphemy, ie, the claim to be God. For example, claiming (apart from being the "I AM") to have existed before Abraham, effectively makes Jesus either divine or something that the Jews could not grasp (and unstated).

APPENDIX 1 Intentions to Kill Jesus

Here is a list of the nine or ten times the Gospels record that Jesus said or did something that the Jews regarded worthy of Jesus' death. This does not include Herod's attempt to kill Jesus soon after His birth.

1. Luke 4:16-30 - Jesus quotes Isa 61:1, 2 to begin His ministry

It appears that when Jesus said that he would no perform miracles in Nazareth because for the same reason that Elijah got help from outsiders they wanted to kill Him. Thus, they would not accept a hometown prophet.

This wounded their spiritual pride and they tried to kill Jesus (V28-30) but Jesus escaped.

2. Matt 12:1-14; Mark 2:23-3:6; Luke 6:1-11 - Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath and heal on the Sabbath

Again, Jesus' claims outraged their confected spiritual pride and they wanted to kill Him.

3. John 5:1-18 - Healing at the pool of Bethesda

In V18, it appears that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, not because of the healing but because He told a man to pick up his bed on the Sabbath. Again, this wounded their spiritual pride and undermined their authority.

However, there is a subtlety here - Jesus' defense against the charge of Sabbath breaking involved Him essentially saying that because He and the Father are always working, including on Sabbath, the healing was legal. Thus, there was also a component of blasphemy in this as well because Jesus claimed to be making Himself equal with God, because it was OK for God to be working on Sabbath.

4. John 8:48-59 - Jesus claimed to be the "I AM"

There are possibly two components to this answer of Jesus - His claim to be the "I AM" of the OT and His claim to pre-existence before Abraham and thus greater than Abraham; but this is not explicit.

5. John 10:22-39 - Jesus claims to be equal to God

There are two attempts to kill Jesus here:

• A. John 5:22-31 - This is a clear instance of Jesus claiming equality of God by an allusion to the Shema in Deut 6:4
• B. John 5:32-39 - Again, Jesus' claim at complete unity with God makes Him equal with God and thus guilty of Blasphemy

6. John 11:45-57 - Raising of Lazarus

In this case, the Jews' hatred was based upon the undeniable fact that Jesus was undermining their authority and privileged position

7. Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-48 - Final Cleansing of the Temple

This is another instance where the Jews' hatred of Jesus was based upon the fact that Jesus was undermining their authority and privileged position

8. Matt 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19 - "Kingdom taken from you"

Yet another case where the Jews' hatred of Jesus was based upon the fact that Jesus was undermining their authority and privileged position

9. Matt 26:57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; John 18:19-24 - Accused of blasphemy

It was at this trial that Jesus accused of blasphemy because of two components of His reply:

• Jesus claims to be the "I AM" in Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70
• Jesus claims to be the prophesied coming divine king in Matt 26:64

At Jesus' trials before the high Priest and partial Sanhedrin, we observe three things:

• Jesus' arrest was the result of the accumulated and growing hatred of Jesus, primarily based upon Jesus' necessary undermining of the fake authority of the Jewish leadership
• In order to get "an almost" valid reason to execute Jesus, the Sanhedrin fastened upon Jesus supposed crime of blasphemy (Matt 26:64, 65)
• This charge of blasphemy mysteriously morphed into sedition between the Sanhedrin and Pilate's trial

APPENDIX 2 - Jesus' "I AM" Claims

Here is a list of Jesus' explicit "I AM" claims in the Gospels which allude to many such in the OT applied to God.

• Matt 14:27, Mark 6:50 – “Be encouraged. I am.” [To the frightened disciples in the boat.]
• Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70 – “Jesus replied, ‘I am’”. [He was then accused of blasphemy by the Jews and condemned.]
• John 4:26 – “Then Jesus said, ‘I am.’” [To the Samaritan woman at the well. There is a reasonable case for this being identification, but that is a matter of taste.]
• John 6:20 – “But then [Jesus] said to them, ‘I am. Fear not.’” [To the frightened disciples in the boat.]
• John 8:24 – “If you do not trust/believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
• John 8:28 – “When you will lift up the Son of Man, then you will trust/know that I am.”
• John 8:58 – “Truly, truly, I say to you; before Abraham existed, I am.” [The Jews then tried to stone Him for blasphemy.] Note that this and the previous two mean that Jesus, in the space of this chapter of John 8 uses the unpredicated “I am” idea in the present (v24), future (v28) and past sense (v58). V24 & 28 appears to be tied to believers’ salvation as well.
• John 13:19 – “From now [on] I tell you before the occurrence, that you may believe when it occurs that, I am.”
• John 18: 5, 6, 8 – “He said to them, ‘I am.’ …Therefore, when He told them, ‘I am’, they fell backward to the ground.” [This occurred when the Jews tried to arrest Jesus in the garden. It could be reasonably argued that this is a case of identification. However, the fact that the arresting mob fell backward suggests that much more is intended here.]

Significantly, according to Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, one of the distinguishing characteristics of false christs is their claim to be “I AM”. Unfortunately, there has been a historical parade of charlatans making such false claims.

Answer 4

Both reasons are about the same: “My Father is working until now and I work”, here “now” expresses eternity, for in the dimension of time, the changeless eternity is expressed only by “now” in virtue of the latter having no past no future, but representing an in itself self-complete, changeless instance.

Thus, if both Father and the Son act “now”, this means that They Both act changelessly and eternally, which means that activity of Both is one activity. If so, then the Father and the Son are one in virtue of Their activity being always mutual and inseparable, for Father can do anything only through and together with the Son. When the Lord says “on My own I can do nothing, but what the Father shows Me”, does it mean that Father does some things independently from the Son, and other things He shows to the Son and They do them jointly? Stupid even to entertain such absurdity! Of course Father cannot but “show” all His actions to the Son and do all His deeds and actions through and jointly with the Son.

Therefore the Son is co-eternal with the Father and co-uncreated. Therefore, before Abraham was, the Son is, which present tense expresses the “now of eternity” and the divine atemporality.

This sounded a blasphemy of duo-theism for some Jews who took stones against Him for that reason.

Answer 5

There are definitely two reasons given why they want to cast stones at Jesus. Therefore the word "and" is appropriate since both of them in their minds deserve stoning.

In the first one the Jews are incensed that Jesus told the man who had been healed of his infirmity to pick up his pallet and walk on the Sabbath. Not only did Jesus break the Sabbath they said but said His own Father also is God, making himself equal to God.

He then explained to them that it was His Father who is working and therefore he was working also. This now doubly incensed them because not only is He working on the Sabbath, but said his own Father also is God, making Himself equal to God.

"The charge of equality with God brings out a clear statement of the relationship of the Son to the Father. Of Himself the Son is unable to do anything. He does not claim divine power independent of the Father. Neither does He claim to exercise His own will. That is God's prerogative. (Verse 30) As He has neither the ability nor the will of the Father, the charge of making Himself equal with God was false.
He did not exercise His own will and because He did nothing except by the power and sanction of the Father, and was sent and commissioned by Him. He is entitled to all the honor due to the Father, for only thus can the Father receive the homage of His creatures. The healing of the impotent man was done by the power and will of the Father. If it was a desecration of the Sabbath , then the Father was responsible. Concordant Commentary"

I can do nothing of myself. According I am hearing am I judging; And my judgment is just, seeing that I am not seeking my will, but the will of Him who sends me. John 5:30

And because of this were the Jews persecuting Jesus, and seeking to kill him, because these things he was doing on a sabbath. And Jesus answered them, ‘My Father till now doth work, and I work;’ Because of this, then, were the Jews seeking the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

He tells them plainly He only does what the Father does, He is a doing the works of God in the flesh. God the Father is doing His work through His Son who is expressing the Fathers will and desire.

In the second verse OP is referring to is John 10:31-33 It is where the Jews want to stone Him for blasphemy, and that you being a man are making yourself God.

“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” John 10:32-34

In the very next verse Jesus answers them from a quote from Psalm 82.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that "I said you are gods'? And he said those were gods to whom the word of God came (And the scripture cannot be annulled) , are you saying to Him Whom the Father hallows and dispatches into the world that "You are blaspheming," Saying that I said, "I am the Son of God"?

"The term "gods" is translated "judges" in Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9 where it refers to men. But our Lord does not appeal to this, but to Psalm 82:6 where the context clearly excludes men. The mighty spiritual powers of wickedness who overrule the affairs of mankind are called sons by God Himself. Even Satan is called a son of God. (Job 1:6) He is called the god of the eon (2Co.4:4) Now if God said to him and his host, "Ye are gods", Not withstanding the fact that they failed to right the wrongs of earth, how much rather shall He have called Him God Who shall disposses them? To Him God says (Psa. 82:8)

Rise, oh God! Judge the earth, For thou shall be allotted all nations.

He had been undoing the deeds of these sons of God and doing all that was foretold of Him before their very eyes. And yet they thought they were not blind! Concordant and Commentary"

In both of these accusations The Lord sets them straight.

He was not deserving of one stone.

Answer 6

I'm going to address this question by going to the trial record first and work backwards. At Matthew 26:61 one of the false witnesses states, "This man stated, I am able to destroy this temple of God and rebuild it in three days."

Remember Jesus said those words about three years ago and the Apostle John said at John 2:21, "But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

Now, It seems to me whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understanding Jesus is not the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus said that caused them to say he was claiming to be God that so upset them?

What did Jesus say at John 5:17-18? And btw, Jesus called God His Father at Luke 2:49 when he was twelve years old. Moving on to John 8:56-59, Jesus claiming to exist before Abraham "sprang" into existence.

Now to John 10:30. Jesus says, "I and the Father "We" are one." Here Jesus was claiming He was one in nature/essence. The Jews clearly understood what Jesus meant from John 10:33 saying, "You being a man make yourself out God."

Now getting back to the trial record the high priest Caiaphas ask Jesus vs63, (after the testimony of the false witnesses), "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether (1) You are the Christ/Messiah and (2) the Son of God."

In other words, the high priest is asking Jesus to swear as to His identity. At Luke 22:70 Jesus says, "Yes, I am."

At Matthew 26:44 the high priest reacts, "Then the high priest tore his robes saying. "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy:"

As a side note! If the Jews did not understand anything Jesus was saying why would the high priest quote the law of blasphemy at Leviticus 24:16?

I think it's pretty clear that the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus is claiming to be God (without actually saying the words "I am God") and the Jews understood the claim.

Answer 7

Leviticus 24:16

anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

John 10:

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

Are there two separate reasons given for wanting to stone Jesus?

There were a thousand illegal reasons why they wanted to stone Jesus but there was only one legal reason: blasphemy.

Answer 8

The reason is in John 8:40-44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. If their father is the father of lies, is their accusation truthful? Do we believe their accusations instead of Jesus unequivocal "the Father is greater than I" statement?

John 8:40-44 ASV

40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham. 41Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. 43Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof

Jesus’ statements in John 5:19 show that he had been sent by God. He is not God and that he admitted that he could do nothing on his own, but only what the Father willed:

John 5:19 ASV Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.

Does John 5:19 make sense if Jesus is the Almighty God and as God he did only what he was directed to do? Consider Psalm 135:6 ASV Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath he done, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps; and Isaiah 46:9-10 ASV Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; God says he does what he pleases while Jesus said he "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner."

Further reading of John chapter 5 reveals that Jesus did not claim to be God. Jesus claimed to have been sent by God which the Jews refused to accept, John 5:37-38,43.

John 5:37-38 ASV And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not.

John 5:43 ASV I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Blasphemy: referring to Before Abraham was, I am (8:58)

The Jews have already sought to kill him before this, John 7:1 John 7:25

John 7:1 ASV And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.

John 7:25 ASV And the men from Jerusalem were saying, “Is This not he whom they seek to kill?"

Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible in explaining John 8:58 tells us that Jesus was proclaiming himself by these words (ego eimi) to be "the promised Messiah." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 61, 1977 ed., Baker Book House.

Are the words "I am" God's name? What sense would John 8:58 make if it is. Consider Jesus saying, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was YHWH?

Others say that IAM is YHWH. Let's see. Is the angel Gabriel YHWH too? Luke 1:19. Did Peter said YHWH is prepared to to to prison with Jesus? Luke 22:33 Is YHWH a man under authority, Matthew 8:9.

Luke 1:19 ASV And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak unto thee, and to bring thee these good tidings

Luke 22:33 ASV And he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death

Make yourself God: referring to both My Father is working until now, and I am working. (5:17) and I and the Father are one (10:30)

The equality topic shown in the context was that Jesus was claiming the same right as his Father (my Father is working) to heal/ do good on the Sabbath. John 7:22-23 shows that the forefathers of the Jews circumcised on the Sabbath. Matthew 12:9-14 also show that it is lawful to do good on a sabbath.

Examining the context of John 10, we find that those that put faith in Jesus did not believe the accusation that Jesus was making himself equal to God. John 10:40-42 "everything John said about this man Jesus, (not God) was true. John 10:40-42

John 10:40-42 ASV And he went away again beyond the Jordan into the place where John was at the first baptizing; and there he abode. And many came unto him; and they said, John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there

Jesus enemies used this as an excuse, for they had long been seeking an excuse to kill him. (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6; 11:18, John 5:18; 7:19,20; 8:37) as was already pointed out in John 7:1 Jesus enemies were seeking to kill him. They have proven themselves liars in (John 7:19,20) when they were confronted by Jesus. In Luke 6:7 we find the Jewish leaders were watching him that they might find an accusation against him. In Luke 11:54, we see that they were lying in wait for him, and seeking to catch him in something he might say, that they might accuse him.

Matthew 12:14 ASV But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

Mark 3:6 ASV And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him

Mark 11:18 ASV And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.

Luke 6:7 ASV And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find how to accuse him.

Luke 11:54 ASV laying wait for him, to catch something out of his mouth.

John 7:19-29 ASV Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me? The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon: who seeketh to kill thee?

In John 10:33, Jesus accusers denied that they were seeking to stone him because of his good work. Does this make their accusation and denial true? Yhey had denied that they were even seeking to kill Jesus earlier (John 7:19,20). To accept as true this accusation would be calling Jesus a liar. Jesus pointed out the real reasons why they wished to kill him.