|
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
|
This verse is often used by Trinitarians as proof of the
essential unity and equality of Jesus with His Father. Some
Trinitarian commentators and many non-Trinitarians argue that Jesus is
simply speaking about a unity of purpose, of His union with God's design
and plan for His people. Still others cite this verse as teaching
that the Father and Jesus are actually the same divine Person.
The word translated "one" is in the neuter gender, not the
masculine, and specifies "unity" in a general, not personal,
sense. The
precise nature of this unity must be derived from context.
Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose,
but with His Father's power (vv. 28 - 29). Jesus has said that no
one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has
said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine
prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one
being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father's hands who
hold them - the Father who is "greater than all." Thus,
Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the
sheep and in the power to "hold" them fast. It is in this
context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, "I and
the Father are one."
Thus, Jesus is not asserting that He is the same person as the Father
(which would have demanded the masculine "one"); nor is He
claiming unity in purpose or plan. In this context, He can only be
asserting His unity with His Father as the author of eternal
life and equal in power to Him who is "greater than all."
This view is supported by several additional facts:
1.
The Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God. (vv. 31 - 33).
2.
Jesus does not deny their accusation (vv. 34 - 36).
3.
Jesus repeats His original assertion in slightly different language (vv.
37 - 39).
This
claim in an overt declaration of Jesus' Deity.
I and my Father are one.
Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and
the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest,
from the use of the verb plural, "I and my
Father", esmen,
"we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections,
particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of
plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving
this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so
that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of
his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God
with him (Gill).
It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall
short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of
power (my hand, the Father's hand); but infinite power is an
essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two
beings distinct in essence could be equal in power (Westcott).
The oneness of will and task, in this context, is so
transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the
saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the
categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed (Carson,
John).
|
|
O
t
h
e
r
V
i
e
w
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
|
Jehovah's Witnesses
objection:
The Watchtower argues that this verse cannot mean that Jesus is one in
nature with the Father on the following basis:
Jesus himself showed what he meant by being
"one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to
God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in
union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union
with us, ... that they may be one just as we are one." Was
Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity?
No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and
purpose, as he and God were" (SYBT,
p. 24).
response:
The Greek word "one" (heis) in reference to two persons
or things may be used to specify many types of unions. It can
signify "unity of purpose," as the Watchtower suggests in 1
Corinthians 3:6ff (SYBT,
p. 24), where Paul says that he and Apollos (as "planter" and
"waterer") are "one" in the purpose of saving and
sanctifying God's people. In John 17:21ff, however, "one"
means more than simple "unity of purpose." Jesus prays that the
disciples may enjoy a fellowship of intimacy in Christian love so complete
("perfected in unity") that the world would know that they
belong to Christ and His Father. This is more than "one"
in the sense of sharing common goals and plans. It is a union so
profound that it "perfects" or brings to full maturity and
completion the believer's love and fellowship with his brothers and
sisters through their shared unity in Christ - just as Jesus Himself
enjoys a perfect intimacy with His Father. Further, in verse 23,
Jesus grounds this unity in His power to indwell His followers ("I in
them") while His Father indwells Him ('You in me") and He His
Father ("I in you").1 The
power to indwell His disciples, regardless of where they are, is a claim
to Divine omnipresence, which further militates against the Watchtower's
position. In Matthew 19:5, Jesus
uses "one" to signify the spiritual union of man and woman in
marriage - in God's sight, the two have become "one."2
The significance of "one" in each of these
verses is not determined by how it is used in other verse - it is derived
from the immediate context. Thus, the fact that "one" may
mean "one in fellowship" in John 17:21ff or "one in
purpose" in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff has no bearing on how it should be
understood in this verse.3
The context of John 10:30 fully supports the traditional
understanding that Jesus is claiming equality with His Father in terms of
Divine Prerogatives and Power. As noted in the Commentary, above,
Jesus has just said that He gives eternal life to His sheep. He has
equated His power to keep His sheep safely in His hands with His Father's
power to do the same. The Jews knew that the Father was greater than
all, but they rebelled at Jesus saying that He and His Father shared this
power to preserve the saints and - in this very sense - proclaiming that
He was "one" with His Father.
This view is also supported by the Jews' reaction and
Jesus' subsequent statements, particularly those in vv. 37ff where He
repeats His claims to do His Father's works and enjoy a profound unity
with Him.
If the Watchtower is correct, the only explanation for the
Jews reaction is that they misunderstood Jesus, for they could have no
objection to anyone being "one in purpose" with the
Father. But given what Jesus has just said, how else could they take
"I and the Father are one?" And the only explanation for
Jesus' previous and subsequent remarks, given that He knew the hearts of
his listeners, is intentional deception of the highest order. Jesus
could give the Jews difficult answers to their questions, but it simply is
not possible for Him to deceive them about the sense in which He was
"one" with His Father.
objection:
The Watchtower continues:
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the
Father" (Ibid.).
response:
When Calvin's comments are taken in context, it is clear that while he
does not understand this passage to be referring to Christ's "unity
in essence" (Greek: homoousias) - a technical term used by the
"ancients" (that is, the Nicene church fathers) - Calvin does
accept that Jesus is laying claim to God's power and therefore is
proclaiming His true Deity:
-
I and my Father are one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to
him...
-
And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles...
-
Do you say that I blaspheme? The Arians anciently tortured this passage to prove that Christ is not God by nature, but that he possesses a kind of borrowed Divinity. But this error is easily refuted, for Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us. Besides, we ought to remember what I have formerly suggested, that Christ does not, in this passage, explain fully and distinctly what he is, as he would have done among his disciples; but that he rather dwells on refuting the slander of his enemies.
-
And I am in my Father; that is, "I do nothing but by the command of God, so that there is a mutual connection between me and my Father." For this discourse does not relate to the unity of essence, but to the manifestation of Divine power in the person of Christ, from which it was evident that he was sent by God.
Notes
1. The NWT translates the Greek
preposition en ("in") with the paraphrase "in union
with" in this and several other verses that speak of Christ being
"in" the Father or "in" His disciples. It is
possible to interpret en in these verses as more or less
meaning "in union with," so long as it is understood to mean an
intimate, personal relationship or spiritual union - not merely a general
association or unity of goals and purpose. Thayer,
for example, says of en in these verses:
Of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to
whose power and influence he is subject, so that the former may be
likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves. So used
in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate
relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving
contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union.
Other lexicons similarly stress that en in these
verses means more than "in union with" in the sense of mere association:
A marker of close personal association - 'in, one with,
in union with, joined closely to' (Louw
& Nida)
The en of religious fellowship, often with einai
(Jn 10:38; 1 Jn 2:5b, etc.) or menein (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 2:6,
etc.). Reciprocity is frequently stressed (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 3:24,
etc.). The Father is brought into the relationship, either with
Jesus (Jn 10:38) or with us (1 Jn 4:12 - 13). We thus have a
triangle (Jn 14:20; 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24). The formulas are neither
ecstatic nor eschatological but mystical in a very broad sense with a
strong personal and ethical reference (TDNT).
This fully nuanced meaning is particularly true in John 14:17 - 18, where
Jesus specifically equates the Spirit being "in" the disciples
with the Spirit being "with" them, and then affirms that this
indwelling is the means by which Jesus can affirm His promise not to leave
His disciples as orphans. A similar thought permeates Jesus' prayer
in John 17:21ff.
2. "One" in this verse is
the Greek mian, the feminine form of eis. This form is
grammatically required because "one" modifies "flesh,"
which is also feminine in Greek.
3. D.A. Carson identifies the
juxtaposition of texts like these as a "target rich" environment
for interpretive errors:
Consider the Arian efforts to link John
10:30...and John 17:20 - 23.... What gives interpreters the right
to link certain verses together and not others? The point is that
all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the
interpretation of other texts. There may be fallacies connected
not only with the way individual verses are interpreted, but also with
the way several verses are linked - and then also with the way such a
link affects the interpretation of the next verse that is studied! (Carson,
Fallacies, p. 139).
|