Jesus was one with the father

JESUS WAS ONE WITH THE FATHER
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said
these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that
Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translationvery
improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely
different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of
which alone, I conceive, Godis ever said to be the Fatherin Scripture, was
equal to the MostHigh: but he says, speaking thenas Godover all, I and The
Father, εγω και ὁ πατηρἑν εσμεν - the Creatorof all things, the Judge of all
men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all
the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes:
and so it is evident the Jews understoodhim. See John 17:11, John 17:22.
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
I and my Father are one - The word translated “one” is not in the masculine,
but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the
union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be
inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his
Father were united in the same objectthat is, in redeeming and preserving his

people. It was this that gave occasionforthis remark. Many interpreters have
understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may
bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin,
Bucer, and others. Mostof the Christian fathers understood them, however,
as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son;
and that this was the designof Christ appears probable from the following
considerations:
1.The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Fatherin
plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and
keephis people from all enemies, orthat he had power superior to men and
devils that is, that he had supreme power overall creation. He affirmed the
same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an
attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to
God in regard to omnipotence.
2.The Jews understoodhim as affirming his equality with God, for they took
up stones to punish him for blasphemy John 10:31, John 10:33, and they said
to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, John 10:33.
3.Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes
at John 10:34-37.
4.He immediately made another declarationimplying the same thing, leaving
the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner,
John 10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be
easilyreconciledwith moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that
such was his intention. The Jews were wellacquainted with their own
language. Theyunderstood him in this manner, and he left this impression on
their minds.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

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 personfrom the Father; and
which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father",
εσμεν, "we are one";that is, in nature and essence, andperfections,
particularly in power; since Christ is speaking ofthe 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. The JewF16
objects, that
"if the sense ofthis expressionis, that the Father and the Son are one, as the
Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself
destroys this saying, as it is written in Mark 13:32, for saith Jesus, "thatday
and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, northe Son, but the Father
only"; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the
Son does not know what the Father knows.'
But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the sonof
man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosomof
his Father, and was privy to all his secrets,to all his thoughts, purposes, and
designs;and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God
omniscient; and in this respectis one with the Father, having the same
perfections of power, knowledge, &c. but then as the son of man, he is not of
the same nature, and has not the same knowledge;his knowledge ofthings
was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reachto all things at
once, but was capable of being increased, as it was:and it is with regardto
him as the sonof man, that Jesus speaksofhimself in Mark 13:32; whereas he
is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power;wherefore
consideredin the relationof the Son of God, and as possessedof the same
perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is
different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no
contradiction betweenthe words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor
is he chargeable with any blasphemy againstGod, or any arrogance in
himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be
deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests;nor is what he produces from a

Socinianwriter, of any moment, that these words do not necessarilysuppose,
that the Father and the Son are of the same essence;since it may be said of
two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man,
and the other another; for we do not saythey are one and the same person,
which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that
they are one God, and two distinct persons.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I and my Father are one — Our language admits not of the precisionof the
original in this greatsaying. “Are” is in the masculine gender - “we (two
persons)are”;while “one” is neuter - “one thing.” Perhaps “one interest”
expresses,as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemedto be
some contradiction betweenHis saying they had been given by His Fatherinto
His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that
none could pluck them out of His Father‘s hands, as if they had not been given
out of them. “Neitherhave they,” says He; “though He has given them to Me,
they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever - they cannot be, and
when given to Me they are not, given awayfrom Himself; for HE AND I
HAVE ALL IN COMMON.”Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of
essenceis not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is
affirmed, without which it would not be true. And Augustine was right in
saying the “We are” condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of
Persons in the Godhead), while the “one” (as explained) condemns the Arians
(who denied the unity of their essence).
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
One (εν — hen). Neuter, not masculine (εις — heis). Not one person (cf. εις —
heis in Galatians 3:28), but one essence ornature. By the plural συμυς —
sumus (separate persons)Sabellius is refuted, by υνυμ — unum Arius. So
Bengelrightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either
Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accusedJesus ofmaking himself equal

with God as his own specialFather(John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and
proved this claim (John 5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this greatsaying
repeatedlater (John 17:11, John 17:21). Note εν — hen used in 1 Corinthians
3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the watererand in John 17:11,
John 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ‘s disciples. This crisp statement is
the climax of Christ‘s claims concerning the relation betweenthe Fatherand
himself (the Son). They stir the Phariseesto uncontrollable anger.
Vincent's Word Studies
One ( ἕν )
The neuter, not the masculine εἶς , one person. It implies unity of essence,not
merely of will or of power.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
I and my Father are one.
I and the Father are one — Not by consentof will only, but by unity of power,
and consequentlyof nature.
Are — This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons:one -
This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any
prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expressionof
himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions
were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must
have been the vilest of men.
The Fourfold Gospel
I and the Father are one1.

I and the Father are one. This assertionas to the unity of powerresiding in
the hand brings forward the idea of the generalunity which subsists between
the Fatherand the Son. This unity Jesus asserts fully, without limitation or
restriction; the unity of interest, design, and essenceare all included. It is the
advance from an assertionof specialunity to an assertionof generalunity.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
30.Iand my Fatherare one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked;for
they might allege that the powerof God did not at all belong to him, so that he
could promise to his disciples that it would assuredly protect them. He
therefore testifies that his affairs are so closelyunited to those of the Father,
that the Father’s assistancewill never be withheld from himself and his sheep
The ancients made a wrong use of this passageto prove that Christ is (
ὁμοούσιος)of the same essencewith the Father. ForChrist does not argue
about the unity of substance, but about the agreementwhich he has with the
Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of
his Father.
John Trapp Complete Commentary
30 I and my Fatherare one.
Ver. 30. I and my Fatherare one] Both for nature or essence, andfor one
consent, both in willing and working. Out of the harbour of Goodwin’s Sands
the pilot cannotmake forth, they say, without sinking in those sands, unless he
so steerhis ship, that he bring two steeples,whichstand off, so even in his
sight, that they may seemto be but one. So is it here.

Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
John 10:30. I and my Father are one.— The Arians affirm that the sense of
this passageis, "MyFather and I are the same, in powerand in will; so that if
you oppose my will, you oppose his; and if you take my sheep out of my hand,
you must at the same time overcome him, and take them out of his hand
likewise."But if we attend, not only to the obvious meaning of these plain and
strong words comparedwith other passagesofscripture, but to their
connectionalso, and the sense in which the Jews evidently took them, they
utterly subvert the whole Arian scheme, and so fully demonstrate the
Divinityof our blessedRedeemer, that they may be fairly left to speak for
themselves, without any laboured comment. How widely different that sense is
in which Christians are said to be one with God, Ch. John 17:21 will
sufficiently appear by considering how flagrantlyabsurd and blasphemous it
would be to draw that inference from their union with God, which Christ does
from his. St. Augustin has well observed, that this is a very strong text to
prove the divinity of Christ. "Mark in it, says he, both are, and one;—and you
will be safe as well from Scylla as Charybdis. 'One' delivers you from Arius,
who denies the eternal divinity of Christ: 'Are' delivers you from Sabellius,
who denies a distinction of persons in the godhead." See fora proof of this
same point, Isaiah9:6. Jeremiah23:6. Micah5:2.
Expository Notes with PracticalObservations onthe New Testament
That is, one in essenceandnature, one in authority and power, and not barely
one in will and affection, one in concordor consent. That this is the genuine
significationof the words, appears by a three-fold argument.
1. From the originalwords: it is not said, I and my Fatherare one personin
the masculine gender, but in the neuter I and my Fatherare one thing. Now if
that thing be not the divine Being, they cannot be one; for since the Father is
confessedto be God, the Son cannot be one thing with the Father, if he be not
God too.

2. It appears from the context; our Saviour, in the preceding versed, ascribed
the preservationof his sheepto the powerof his Father; None can pluck them
out of my Father's hand; and he ascribes it also to his ownpower; None shall
pluck them out of my hand; plainly intimating, that his sheepwere equally
safe in his ownhand, as wellas in his Father's; for, says he, I and my Father
are one;that is, one in power: and, if they be one in power, they must be one
in nature; unless we make an almighty creature, which is a contradiction.
3. It appears evidently by what follows in the next verse, that the Jews
understood our Saviour in this sense;why else did they take up stones to stone
him? We stone thee, say they, for blasphemy, because thou, being a man,
makestthyself God.
The Jews took ourSaviour's meaning aright, and were satisfied, that when he
said, I and my Fatherare one, he assertedhimselfto be God, and deserved to
die; and wellhe had deserved it, if he had not been God. The adversaries of
our Saviour's divinity, to elude the force of these words, which make so much
agaainstthem, interpret the words thus, I and my Father are one; that is, say
they, we are Mia bdlhsiv one in will and affection, one in concordand consent:
this is a truth, but not the greattruth containedin these words;for thus
believers are one with God, and one with one another; namely, by a harmony
of wills and desires:so far as they are regenerated, God's will and theirs are
unisons, they will and desire the same thing, and are of one heart and of one
mind.
But God and Christ are one, in a much higher sense than Christ and believers
are one;namely, one in essenceandnature, one in authority and power,
Christ being con-substantialwith God.
Learn hence, That the Lord Jesus Christ is for nature co-essential, fordignity
co-equal, and for duration co-eternalwith the Father.
2. That although Christ be one in essencewiththe Father, yet are they distinct
persons one from antoher. I and my Father, we are one.
3. Learn hence, That the Sonbeing one in essence,one in power, one in
consentand will, with the Father, they are both equally concernedfor the

perseverance ofthe saints, for preserving them in grace, andfor bringing
them to glory. None shall pluck them out of mine or my Father's hand: for I
and my Father are one. If the powerbe the same, the essencemust be the
same.
Charles Simeon's Horae Homileticae
DISCOURSE:1666
CHRIST ONE WITH THE FATHER
John 10:30. I and my Father are one.
IT might well be expected, that, if God should revealhis will to man, there
would be many things disclosedby him, which exceedthe narrow limits of
human reason. This might more particularly be expectedin whatsoever
related to his own person and character:for, as we can know nothing of him
any farther than he is pleasedto revealhimself to us; and as we cannot even
comprehend our own nature, or discoverhow the soul is united to the body; it
would be strange indeed if we could comprehend the mode of God’s existence,
and explain how there should be an union of Three Persons in the God-head.
In relation to such a mysterious subject, our wisdom is to ascertainwhatGod
has revealedconcerning himself, and to receive it on the testimony of his
word. This is the office of reason, as wellas of faith: for reasonrequires, that
we submit our understanding to the dictates of His wisdom, no less than our
wills to the influence of His authority. That a Trinity of Persons in the
Godheadis revealed, cannot reasonably be doubted, as long as the baptismal
rite shall continue to be administered “in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” for to imagine, that a creature is here associated
with Almighty God in the highest possible actof divine worship, were the
height of absurdity, and impiety. The subject before us relates only to the
union subsisting betweenChrist and his Father: to that therefore we shall
confine our attention. We begin with considering,
I. The truth of our Lord’s assertion.

Here mark,
1. The assertionitself—
[Our Lord says, “I and my Father are one.” Now it must be remembered, that
the same expressions are used, as in human compositions, so also in the Holy
Scriptures, sometimes in a metaphorical and figurative sense, and sometimes
in a plain and literal sense;and their true import must always be judged of by
the context. This is particularly the case with respectto the expressionbefore
us; which is elsewhere usedin reference to the saints, to mark the exalted state
to which they are raised by their connexion with Christ, and the mutual
interest which they should feelin eachother’s concerns:“I pray for them, that
they all may be one;as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the
glory which thou gavestme, I have given them; that they may be one, even as
we are one: I iu them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one
[Note:John 17:20-23.].”Here the sense is obvious: no one could conceive for a
moment that the union here spokenof is personal, as though the saints could
be one person with God, or one person ill their collective capacity:it simply
means, that the saints are to enjoy an union with God and with eachother, as
nearly resembling that which subsists betweenChrist and his Father, as their
situation and circumstances willadmit of, namely, an union of sentiment, of
affection, of will, and of operation. But, in the passageunder our
consideration, more is evidently intended: in that is implied, not merely a
figurative, but a real and personal union, an union of nature and of essence.
In proof of this, we must refer you to the whole scope ofthe passage. Our
Lord is speaking of the security which his sheepenjoyed; that “He gives unto
them eternal life, and that they shall never perish, nor shall any one ever
pluck them out of his hand.” But, because he was speedilyto be takenfrom
them, and might therefore be supposedincapable of fulfilling this promise, he
says, that “his Father was confessedlygreaterthan all” createdpowers, yea,
greaterthan he himself was in his human or Mediatorialcapacity; and “that
none should ever be able to pluck them out of his Father’s hand.” Yet, that
they might know that he would not, on accountof his removal from them,
remit his care of them, he added, “I and my Fatherare one;” ‘we are one, as

in will, so in power; as in operation, so in nature and in essence:and
consequentlymy sheephave a double pledge of their security.’
This is the plain meaning of the passage;and that it is so, may be clearlyseen
from the constructionwhich the Jews put upon his words. They took up
stones immediately, to stone him: and when he inquired for which of all his
goodworks they were about to stone him, they replied, that it was “not for
any goodwork, but for blasphemy; because that He, who was only a man like
themselves, made himself God [Note: ver. 32, 33.].” Now this shews
incontestably what meaning they affixed to his words: it was not an ignorant
individual, or persons ill acquainted with the receivedimport of the words,
that so interpreted them; but the whole audience, who perfectly understood
what meaning his expressions were suitedto convey.
The Jews were taughtby God himself to be particularly jealous on the subject
of idolatry; and to put to death any person who should, whether openly or in
secret, attempt to seduce them to it. When therefore they heard our Lord
arrogate to himself divine honours, they resentedit, as they had done
repeatedly before, by taking up stones to stone him as a blasphemer [Note:
John 5:17-18;John 8:58-59.]. We do not say, that they were right in
expressing their abhorrence of idolatry in this way; because they should have
had the matter examined before a magistrate, and have actedaccording to
evidence, and not according to the impulse of their blind passions:but we do
say, that Jesus was justly accusedof blasphemy, if he was not God; and that
there was just cause forthe indignation which his audience expressed.
But perhaps they were mistakenin their construction of his words: in which
case we may be assuredthat Jesus would carefully rectify their error. But do
we find that he did disclaim the assertionwhichthey called blasphemy? No;
In his answers to them we find only,]
2. His confirmation of it—
[They had just complained that he kept them in suspense;and had desired
that he would tell them plainly, who, and what, he was. He, in reply, declares
that he had told them, and that they would not believe [Note:ver. 25.]. Had he

told them that he was a mere man like themselves, the; would readily enough
have believed that: but when he tells them again that he was “one with his
Father,” they go about to stone him for blasphemy. Nevertheless, insteadof
revoking his word, he vindicates his claim; and establishes the justice of it by
an appeal to the sacredwritings. Magistrates, he tells them, were in the
inspired volume frequently dignified with the name of gods [Note:Exodus 7:1;
Exodus 22:28.]:and he refers them to one passagein particular, well known to
them all, “I have said, Ye are gods [Note:Psalms 82:6.],” Now these were
calledgods partly, because they were Jehovah’s representatives and vice-
gerents upon earth; and partly, because they were types of the Messiah, who
was to be really and truly God, even “Emmanuel, god with us [Note:Isaiah
7:14. Matthew 1:23.],” ‘Now,’says our Lord, ‘if these persons, in order to
prepare you for the receptionof your incarnate God, were honoured with the
name and title of gods, and you readily acquiescedin it, with what reasoncan
you, when your incarnate God appears, accusehim of blasphemy, because he
assumes that title, or calls himself by a name which you justly consider as
equivalent to it? You are looking for your Messiah;and that Messiahis
expresslyforetold under the characterof “Jehovah’s fellow [Note:Zechariah
13:7.],” who is “David’s Lord, as well as David’s Son [Note:Psalms 110:1 with
Matthew 22:42-45.]:” such therefore the Messiahmust be; for “the Scripture
cannot be broken:” why then do you not acknowledge the justice of my claim?
If indeed I do not give evidence enoughthat I am the Messiah, you may justly
dispute my title to be regardedas God; but if I do, then you are the
blasphemers, who rob me of my proper honour. Know ye then, that I am the
Person“whomthe Father hath sanctified” and set apart from all eternity to
the office, “and now hath sent into the world” to execute it: know also, that,
instead of retracting any thing I have said, I repeatmy assertions,and
demand your acknowledgmentof me in my true character,’
Thus our Lord confirms his assertionby an appealto Scripture. He next
proceeds to confirm it by an appeal to his ownworks. ‘I do not desire to be
credited in such an assertionupon my bare unsupported word, without any
corroborating evidence;’ says our Lord: ‘ “If I do not the works of my Father,
believe me not: but, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works;that
ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him [Note:ver. 37,

38.].” Considermy works, both the matter, and the manner of them, and see if
they do not justify every assertionI have made. Did ever man perform such
miracles as I have done, so many, so great, so benevolent, so demonstrative of
a divine agency? Mosesindeedand the prophets wrought some few miracles:
but how? they wrought them uniformly by application to Jehovahfor the
intervention of his power: but look at my miracles:on some occasionsindeed,
I also, acting in my mediatorial capacity, have acknowledgedmy dependence
on him, and have acted“in his name,” as his servant [Note:Luke 11:41-43.];
(for as Mediator, I am his servant:) but, as being One with the Father, I have
wrought in instances without number by that powerand authority which I
possessin common with the Father. Whence had I the power to still the
elements as I have done [Note: Mark 4:39.]; or to expel Satan[Note: Mark
9:25.], or to raise the dead [Note:Mark 5:41. Luke 7:14.]? When the leper
justly acknowledgedmy powerto effect whatsoeverI would; to whom was I
indebted for powerto heal him, when I said, “I will, Be thou clean [Note:
Matthew 8:3.]?” ’
Such an appealas this was sufficient to convince the most incredulous: and it
receives much additional light from the manner in which the Apostles
wrought their miracles:they wrought them invariably in the name of Jesus
[Note:Acts 9:34; Acts 16:18.]; and disclaimedall idea of any inherent power
in themselves, or even of any goodness onaccountof which God had wrought
by them; so fearful were they, lest by any means they should rob the Lord
Jesus ofthe honour due unto his name [Note: Acts 3:6; Acts 3:12; Acts 3:16.
with 4:9, 10, 12.].
Shall it be saidthat our Lord did not mean in this appealto asserthis true and
proper Godhead? Thensee both his words, and the sense in which his enraged
adversaries continuedto understand them: “Thoughye believe not me, believe
the works;that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and T in
him.—Therefore they soughtagain to take him.” Here are two things
demonstrated; first, that his enemies understood him to affectequality with
God: and next, that He, knowing that they did so understand him, renewed
and confirmed the assertions whichthey had so interpreted. A clearer
explanation of what he affirmed, or a strongerproof of what he is, we cannot
reasonablydesire.]

We are the more earnestin establishing the Divinity of our blessedLord,
because it is intimately connectedwith every fundamental truth of our holy
religion.
To illustrate more fully the truth asserted, Iproceedto mark,
II. The incalculable importance of it—
This truth established, we behold in the clearestlight—
1. The dignity of his person—
[Because Godcondescendedto take our nature upon him, we requite his love
by denying him to be God. But know that Jesus Christ is indeed “the true God
[Note:1 John 5:20.],” “the mighty God [Note:Isaiah 9:6.],” “the greatGod
and our Saviour [Note: Titus 2:13.],” “Godover all, blessedfor evermore
[Note:Romans 9:5.].” He is “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the
express image of his person [Note:Hebrews 1:3.];” yea, in him dwelleth all the
fulness of the Godhead bodily [Note: Colossians 2:9.].” Hearwhat he himself
saith unto Philip: Philip, having heard him speaking ofthe Father, as actually
known to his Disciples, and already seenby them, saith, “Lord, shew us the
Father, and it sufficeth us.” To this Jesus replies, “Have I been so long with
you, and hast thou not knownme, Philip? He that hath seenme, hath seenthe
Father; and how sayestthou then, Shew us the Father? Believestthou not that
I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Believe me, that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’sake [Note:John
14:7-11.].” Now, Iask, if Jesus had not been really “one with the Father,
would he have dared to use such language as this? And, if his Disciples were
guilty of idolatry in worshipping him, was not the fault altogetherhis? Were
not his words and his arguments expresslycalculatedto mislead and deceive
them? But there is no room for doubt on this head. We never canentertain
too high thoughts of him; nor canwe ever honour him as we ought, unless we
“honour him, even as we honour the Father[Note: John 5:23.].”]
2. The virtue of his sacrifice—
[On the dignity of his persondepends the whole value of his atonement. The
Apostle justly observes, that “it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of

goats to take awaysin:” and the same observationmay with justice be applied
to every creature, howeverexalted. But when we are assuredthat it was “God
who was manifest in the flesh [Note:1 Timothy 3:16.],” that it was “the Lord
of glory that was crucified [Note: 1 Corinthians 2:8.],” and that it was “God
who purchased the Church with his own blood [Note:Acts 20:28.],” we no
longerhesitate to declare that his death was “a full, perfect, and sufficient
sacrifice, oblation, and satisfactionfor the sins of the whole world [Note: The
Communion Service;and 1 John 2:2.].” He was, it is true, “in the form of a
servant; but he was also in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be
equal with God [Note: Philippians 2:6-8.];” and therefore we may be assured
that “his blood will cleanse us from all sin [Note:1 John 1:7.].” The ransomhe
has paid for us, is fully equal to the redemption of a ruined world: and the
righteousness whichhe has wrought out for us by his obedience unto death, is
all that is wanted for the justification of those who trust in it. The very name
given him by the prophet declares this; for we are taught to “callhim,
Jehovahour Righteousness[Note:Jeremiah33:16.].” Here then “the weary
and heavy-laden may find restunto their souls” — — —]
3. The sufficiency of his grace—
[If Jesus were only a creature, those who trust in him might be addressedlike
the worshippers of Baal, “Cry aloud, for he is a god: either he is talking, or he
is pursuing, or he is on a journey; or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be
awaked[Note:1 Kings 18:27.].” He could not attend to the concerns ofthe
whole universe at once;and therefore could not be a suitable object of our
trust and confidence. But he is infinitely above all creatures, being “King of
kings, and Lord of lords [Note: Revelation19:16.].” He could truly say to
Paul, and to every suppliant in the universe, “My grace is sufficient for thee.”
Let not any one then despond, as though his corruptions were irremediable,
or his enemies invincible; for “Godhath laid help for us upon One that is
mighty [Note:Psalms 89:19.]:” and the weakestofthe human race that relies
on him, may confidently say, “In the Lord have I righteousness and strength
[Note:Isaiah 45:24.]:” “The Lord Jehovahis my strength and my song;he
also is become my salvation [Note:Isaiah12:2.]:” “The Lord is my shepherd;
therefore can I lack nothing [Note:Psalms 23:1.].”]

4. The excellencyof his salvation—
[If we considerthe price that has been paid, we may judge of the value of that
redemption which has been purchased for us. Even in relation to the present
life, we are told that “eye hath not seen, nor earheard, nor hath it entered into
the heart of man to conceive, the things which God hath prepared for them
that love him [Note: Isaiah64:4. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10.].” Under whatever
figure they are spokenof, they are representedas exceeding all human
apprehension: “the gift of them is unspeakable [Note:2 Corinthians 9:15.]:”
“the riches of them unsearchable [Note:Ephesians 3:8.]:” the peace that is
enjoyed by means of them, passethunderstanding [Note:Philippians 4:7.];”
and “the joy which they produce, is unspeakable and glorified [Note:1 Peter
1:8.]:” the love that bestowedthem has “a height and depth, and length and
breadth” that can never be explored [Note:Ephesians 3:18.]. Respecting the
future life, we are still further from being able to appreciate the glories of it.
The description of heaven, as a city paved with gold, and enriched with every
thing magnificent or good, affords but a faint idea of that glorious place
[Note:Revelation21:10-23.];as the songs and music of its inhabitants very
inadequately represent their blessednessand joy [Note: Revelation5:8-14;
Revelation14:1-3.]. But this we know, that, both on earth and in heaven, the
felicity of the saints shall be worthy of the sacrifice thatwas made to obtain it.
Let not any one then seek it in a listless and lukewarm manner, as though it
were of little value — — — for it is a “greatsalvation[Note:Hebrews 2:3.],”
which the tongues of men and angels cannever worthily describe, nor canthe
ages ofeternity suffice to enumerate its blessings.]
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament
John 10:30. ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν, I and the Fatherare one) One, not
merely in agreementof will, but in unity of power, and so of nature: for
omnipotence is an attribute of the nature [of God]; and His discourse is of the
unity of the Father and the Son. In these words of Jesus, the Jews, blind as
they were, saw more meaning than Antitrinitarians see in the present day. If
the Jews hadsupposed that Jesus wishes merelyto be accountedas a divine

man, and not as the Son of God, who is as truly God as sons of men are men,
they would not have said, whereas Thouart a man, thou makestThyselfGod
[John 10:33]; nor would they have arraigned Him for blasphemy. By the
expression, we are, Sabellius is refuted:(285) by the word, one, Arius is
refuted;(286) see John 10:33; John 10:36;John 10:38, “The Father is in Me,
and I in Him.” Comp. the close ofJohn 10:29 with that of 28.(287)Especially
also the first person of the plural number has a pre-eminent signification, as
applied to the Sonand Father; Jesus seldomuses it of Himself and men. See
note on Matt. ch. John 5:11, “Blessedare ye” etc. [not we],
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
My Fatherand I are one, not only in counseland will, (as John 17:11,22, and
believers are said to be of one heart, Acts 4:32), but in nature, power, and
essence;for it is plain that our Saviour here ascribes the preservationof his
sheep, not to the will, but to the power of his Father: None is able to pluck
them out of my Father’s hand. And it is plain by what follows, that the Jews
thus understood our Saviour. Some eminent protestant interpreters expound
this of a oneness in consentand will, doing the same things, and driving the
same design, both agreeing to preserve the sheep unto eternallife; but (with
all respectunto them) I think the context implies more, though this be not
excluded.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
I am my Father; the Jews rightly understood him to call God his Father, and
himself the Son of God, in such a sense that he was equal with God. Compare
chap. John 5:18.
Are one; in nature, counsel, will and operation.
Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges
30. ἐγὼ κ. ὁ π. ἕν ἐσμεν. I and the Father are one; one Substance, not one
Person(εἶς). Comp. John 17:22-23, and contrastἅπαντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἶς ἐστε ἐν

χρ. Ἰ.,—‘are one man, one consciousagent’(Galatians 3:28);and τοὺς δύο
κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸνἄνθρωπον (Ephesians 2:15). Christ has just
implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He
and the Father are one;and this He now asserts. Theyare one in power, in
will, and in action: this at the very leastthe words must mean; the Arian
interpretation of mere moral agreementis inadequate. Whether or no Unity
of Substance is actually statedhere, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see.
They would stone Him for making Himself God, which He would not have
done had He not assertedorimplied that He and the Fatherwere one in
Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correctthem, as assuredly
He would have done, had their animosity arisenout of a gross
misapprehension of His words. Comp. Revelation20:6; Revelation22:3. S.
Augustine is therefore right in stating that ἐσμέν refutes Sabellius, who denied
the distinction, while ἕν refutes Arius, who denied the equality, betweenthe
Father and the Son. Comp. Tert. adv. Prax. 22; Hippol. c. Noet. 7.
PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
“I and the Fatherare one.”
‘One’ is not in the masculine but in the neuter, thus indicating that He does
not mean one person. He and His Fatheralways actin perfectunity. They act
as one in everything they do. Thus when He protects His sheep, so does His
Father. When He saves them, so does His Father. All their acts are in
synchronism. While the stress is on their unity of action, however, this very
fact demonstrates His unique status. Who, who was not divine in essence,
could so synchronise with the Father? For as He has already stressed, those
who have seenHim have seenthe Father (John 14:7-9).
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
30. Are one—One in will, but also one in power and surety. Forit is upon this
oneness ofpower and surety that the security of the believer’s salvation is
grounded.

Expository Notes ofDr. Thomas Constable
Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same personof the
Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of
the word translated"one" (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the
word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Fatherwere one in their action.
This explanation also harmonized with the context since Jesus had said that
He would keepHis sheepsafe ( John 10:28)and His Fatherwould keepthem
safe ( John 10:29).
This verse has been at the centerof serious discussions aboutJesus" nature
that have takenplace over the centuries. Those who believe that Jesus was
fully God and fully man (the orthodox) and those who believe that Jesus was
not fully God (Arians) have appealedto it to support their positions.
Therefore we need to look at it carefully.
First, Jesus" claimto oneness does notin itself prove the Son"s unity in
essencewith the Father. In John 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might
be one as He and the Father were one, namely, in their purpose and beliefs.
Second, other passagesin the Gospeldeclare that the Father and the Son are
one in more than just their purpose and beliefs (cf1 , 18; John 8:58; John
12:41;John 20:28). Third, the context of this verse also implies that Jesus did
everything His Father did (cf. John 5:19) and that Jesus and the Father united
in fulfilling a divine will and a divine task. Fourth, this Gospelhas consistently
presentedJesus as a unique Sonof God, not one of many sons. Fifth, 17:55
uses the Father Son unity as the basis for the disciple disciple unity in the
analogy, not the other way around, implying that the former is the more
fundamental unity. [Note: Carson, The Gospel. . ., pp394-95.]

In short, this verse does not saythat Jesus was claiming to be of the same
essenceas God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father.
Howeverthe context and other statements in this Gospelshow that His unity
with the Fatherextended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential
metaphysicalunity.
The Jews had askedJesus fora plain statementabout His messiahship. Jesus
gave them far more, a claim that He fully and completelycarried out the
Father"s will, which strongly hinted at Jesus" deity. This statement is the
climax of the preceding discussion( John 10:22-29;cf. John 5:18; John 8:59).
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
one. Greek hen. Neut., one in essence,not one person which would be heir,
masculine. This is the climax of His claim to oneness with the Father in verses:
John 10:18, John 10:25, John 10:28, John 18:29. Compare also John 10:38;
John 14:11. Revelation22:3.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(30) I and my Father are one.—The lastclause of John 10:29 is identical with
the lastclause of John 10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with“My.” This our
Lord now formally does. The lastverses have told of powergreaterthan all,
and these words are an assertionthat in the infinity of All-mighty Powerthe
Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek wordfor
“one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of
unity of essence. “The Sonis of one substance with the Father.” In the plural
“are” there is the assertionof distinctness as againstSabellianism, and in the
“one” there is the assertionof co-ordinationas againstArianism. At recurring
periods in the history of exegesis menhave tried to establishthat these words
do not imply more than unity of will betweenthe Father and the Son. We have
seenabove that they assertboth oneness ofpower and oneness ofnature; but

the bestanswerto all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the
divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel
instance in John 8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the
words conveyed but one meaning, and they soughtto punish by stoning what
seemedto them to be blasphemy. Their reasonis here given in express words,
“because thatThou, being a man, makestthyself God” (John 10:33).
Treasuryof Scripture Knowledge
I and my Father are one.
1:1,2; 5:17,23;8:58; 14:9,23;16:15;17:10,21;Matthew 11:27; 28:19;1
Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:7,20
Commentary by J.C.Philpoton selecttexts of the Bible
John 10:30
"I and my Fatherare one." John 10:30
There is a greatdeal of caviling in some men"s minds about the expression,
"the blood of God." "How," saythey, "could the Godhead bleed? How could
the Godheadsuffer?" But if it is not the blood of Him who was God, I might
just as well rely for salvationon the blood of one of the thieves that were
crucified with him. What is Christ"s human nature? That is the rock on
which many gallantships have struck. It is not a person, having a distinct
existence apartfrom the Deity of Christ; but it is a nature—what the Holy
Spirit calls a "Holy Thing" ( Luke 1:35); "a body that God had prepared for
him" ( Hebrews 10:5), takeninto intimate, mysterious, and inexplicable union
with the Personofthe Son of God. So that, whatever that human nature did
and suffered, from its intimacy and union with the Sonof God, the Son of God
did and suffered. Did that nature bleed? It bled as having union with Deity; it
being, so to speak, the instrument that Deity made use of.

To use an illustration—as my soul touches an object through my hand, or
speaks its thoughts by my tongue; so Deity not being itself able to bleed, bled
through the humanity. Did that nature suffer? It was not the mere suffering of
a human person, as a man might suffer; but it was the suffering of a holy
nature in intimate union with the Personof the Son of God. And did that
nature obey? The Son of God obeyedthrough and with that nature. So that, to
cavil at the expression, "the blood of God" is nothing less than to strike a blow
at a greatfundamental truth. We might object, on the same ground, to the
expression, "Godour righteousness,"as the Prophet speaks,"And this is the
name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness," thatIsaiah ,
"Jehovahour righteousness"( Jeremiah23:6). Who is our righteousness but
the Sonof God? And what was that righteousness but the obedience of his
human nature, for Godhead could no more obey than suffer and bleed; and
yet Jehovahis our righteousness. And if we do not object to the expression,
"the righteousness ofGod," why should we cavil at the expression, "the blood
of God?"
Now this is the grand mystery which faith embraces, and which is dear to the
heart of every God-taught soul. What a power and efficacy, as the veil is taken
off the heart, does faith see in that sacrifice!What a atoning sacrifice does it
see made for sin by the blood of the Son of God! Faith does not view it as the
blood of man! Can the blood of man put awaysin? But when we see it as the
blood of the Son of God, oh, what value, efficacy, power, and glory shine forth
in it! But until the veil is takenoff the heart we cannotsee it; nor canwe, until
the Spirit makes it experimentally known, learn what a divine reality there is
in this blood to purge the guilty conscience.
END OF STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Question:"What did Jesus meanwhen He said, ‘I and the Father are one’
(John 10:30)?"

Answer: In John 10 Jesus presents Himself as the GoodShepherd and, in a
debate with the Jewishleaders, makes the claim, “I and the Fatherare one”
(John 10:30). It was a bold statement—one His audience found quite
audacious—andit reveals much about who Jesus is.
Five key observations canbe made concerning this passage. First, Jesus
claimed to be one with God in the sense ofbeing equal to Him. Jesus did not
claim to be merely a messengerorprophet of God, but of equal power with
God.
Second, His audience understood that Jesus was claiming equality with God
the Father. In verse 31, “The Jews pickedup stones againto stone him.”
Why? Blasphemy was a crime punishable by death according to the Jewish
Law. When Jesus askedwhythey were planning to kill Him, they answered,
“Forblasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).
If Jesus had been lying or deceived, His statementwould have been
blasphemous. In fact, the only way His words were not blasphemy is if Jesus
was telling the truth about His equality with God.
Third, Jesus referredto Himself as God’s Son and to God as His Father(John
10:36–37).He used Psalm82:6 to show that the Messiahhas the right to claim
the title “Sonof God.”
Fourth, Jesus claimedthat that Father sent Him: “the one whom the Father
setapart as his very own and sent into the world” (John 10:36). In this
statement, Jesus claimedpreexistence in the Father’s presence. No biblical
prophet had ever made such a claim before; yet Jesus claimedto exist before
Abraham (John 8:58).

Fifth, Jesus only statedthat the Jews did not believe Him; He never saidthey
misunderstood His claim to be God. John 10:38 notes, “Even though you do
not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the
Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Jesus was notcorrecting a
misunderstanding. They understood what He said perfectly. He was
correcting their willful rejectionof Him.
Colossians 1:16–17affirms Jesus’same teaching:“In him all things were
created:things in heavenand on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones
or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been createdthrough him
and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” John
1:1 explicitly notes that Jesus was both with God in the beginning and was
God.
In summary, Jesus claimed to be one with the Father as part of a larger
argument to note that He had existedfrom eternity past, lived in perfect
oneness with the Father, held the same power as God, and was sent by God
the Father’s authority. Unfortunately, He was rejectedas divine by the Jewish
leaders. Jesus’claimto have equal poweras the Fatherwas not blasphemy. It
was the plain truth.
https://www.gotquestions.org/I-and-the-Father-are-one.html
John 10:30-33, Whatmade the Jews wantto kill Jesus?
by Matt Slick
"I and the Fatherare one." 31The Jewstook up stones againto stone Him.
32Jesusansweredthem, "I showedyou many goodworks from the Father; for
which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The JewsansweredHim, "Fora good

work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man,
make Yourself out to be God," (John 10:30-33)
What was it that Jesus had said or done that causedthe Jews to say that He
was claiming to be God? Was it "I and the Father are one"? If so, why would
that cause the Jews to want to kill Jesus? Perhaps it was something else.
Maybe it was something Jesus saidelsewhere thatmade them so angry.
There are only two places in John where the Jews wantedto kill Jesus with
stones. Bothof these occurafter Jesus spoke andmade a claim about Himself.
The first was in John 8:58-59, and the secondwas in John 10:30-33. Here is
the contextof both verses:
John 8:56-59, "Your father Abraham rejoicedto see My day, and he saw it
and was glad." 57The Jewstherefore saidto Him, "You are not yet fifty years
old, and have You seenAbraham?" 58Jesussaidto them, "Truly, truly, I say
to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59Thereforethey pickedup stones
to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."
John 10:27-36, "Mysheephear My voice, and I know them, and they follow
Me; 28andI give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one
shall snatch them out of My hand. 29"MyFather, who has given them to Me,
is greaterthan all; and no one is able to snatchthem out of the Father's hand.
30"Iand the Father are one." 31The Jewstook up stones againto stone Him.
32Jesusansweredthem, "I showedyou many goodworks from the Father; for
which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The JewsansweredHim, "Fora good
work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man,
make Yourself out to be God." 34Jesus answeredthem, "Has it not been
written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? 35"Ifhe calledthem gods, to
whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you
say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are
blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
There is absolutelyno reference to stones or stoning betweenJohn 8:59 and
John 10:31; but in those two verses, the Jews respondedto Jesus'words by
wanting to kill Him. What was it that Jesus saidin both casesthat brought
such a violent reaction? Here they are again. . .

John 8:58-59, "Jesus saidto them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was born, I am." 59Therefore they pickedup stones to throw at
Him;
John 10:30-31, "Iand the Fatherare one." 31The Jewstook up stones again
to stone Him.
The first time the Jews wantedto kill Jesus was whenHe said, "Before
Abraham was, I am." The secondtime wasn'tuntil John 10:31 when they
againwanted to kill Him after Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." Let's
look at these statements of Jesus.
John 8:58 and John 10:30
The Jehovah's Witnessesbelieve that John 8:58 should be translated as " . . .
before Abraham was, I have been," not "I am." But what is it about saying, "I
have been" that would motivate the Jews to want to kill Jesus? WasJesus
simply stating that He pre-existed? If so, they would have thought Him greatly
deceivedand not worthy of being killed. Do we see any prior accountof
anyone in the Bible being killed for claiming to pre-exist? No. It isn't
blasphemy to state that you have pre-existed. It is, however, blasphemy to
claim to be God;1 after all, that is what the Jews accusedJesusofclaiming for
Himself in John 10:31 when they againpickedup stones to kill Him. What
was it that Jesus saidthat motivated them in John 10:31 and in John 8:59 to
want to kill Jesus?
From what I have seen, the greaternumber of Bibles translate John 8:58 as,
"Before Abraham was, I am." The words "I am" are "ego eimi" in the
Greek;and the constructionis in the present tense. "I have been" is in the
perfect tense in English, but it is the Greek of John 8:58 that is in the present
tense and not the perfect tense (I have been). Remember, the Jews weren't
mad at Jesus for speaking English(I have been) but for speaking Greek (I
am). Therefore, what is it about the statement"Before Abraham was, I am"
that would cause such angerand warrant Him being stonedto death?
Some say that in John 8, Jesus had said and done so many things that by the
time Jesus said, "I am" in verse 58, the Jews simply snapped and tried to kill

Him. But, that doesn't hold with the Jews'statementin John 10:33 where they
tell Jesus the reason;it was for claiming to be God. So, again, what is it about
Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I am" (or, "I have been")that was so
volatile and worthy of death according to the Jews?
The most natural explanation I see is that Jesus was referring back to when
Moses was atthe burning bush and askedGodwhat His name was. God said,
"I am that I am. Thus you shall sayto the sons of Israel, I am has sentme to
you." (Exodus 3:14). If we were to consider this as an explanation, then it
makes sense why the Jews wantedto kill Jesus since his statement"Before
Abraham was, I am" would logicallycause the Pharisees to think Jesus was
claiming to be God--which is exactly what they statedlater as the reasonfor
them wanting to kill Him.
There are, however, those who say that Jesus couldnot have been referring to
Exodus 3:14, or that there is no reasonto refer Christ's statementto Exodus
3:14. But, if that is so, then what other explanation is there for the Jews'
desire to kill Jesus? Whatelse would generate sucha violate reactionfrom the
Jews? Is there any other explanation that is suitable? Remember, the Jews
gave their own reasonfor their anger. They said to Jesus, " . . . You, being a
man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:33).
Therefore, we need to ask the Jehovah's Witness in what verse is it that Jesus
was claiming to be God? Or, in what verse was it that could be construedand
misinterpreted by the Jews to think that Jesus was claiming to be God?
Finally, notice that the Jews absolutelydenied that Jesus was Godin flesh.
Interestingly, so do the Jehovah's Witnesses.So, the Phariseesand the
Jehovah's Witnessesare in agreementabout who Jesus is not.
John 10:30
John 10:30 is an interesting statementby Jesus. He said, "I and the Father are
one." What did Jesus mean? Was He saying that the He and the Fatherwere
one in purpose? If so, wouldn't the Jews claimthe same thing as they sought
to honor and serve God? Or perhaps, Jesus was saying they were of the same
mind. If so, why didn't Jesus sayso? Could it be that Jesus was saying that He

and the Father were the same person? But this wouldn't make sense since
Jesus said, "the Fatherand I"--designating that they are not the same person.
Finally, could it be that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence ofthe
Father; that is, He was claiming to be divine? If so, then this would make
sense since the Pharisees certainlyclaimedthat Jesus was claiming to be God.
"evenbecause you, although being a man, make yourself a god," (NWT)
The Jehovah's Witness Bible called the New World Translationtranslates
John 10:33 not as "You being a man make yourself out to be God," but as,
"evenbecause you, although being a man, make yourself a god." Notice the
NWT says "a god," not "God." This is typical of the Watchtower
Organizationwhich seeksto obliterate any mention of Jesus'deity by altering
the biblical text.
1901 ASV, makestthyself God
AMP, make Yourself [out to be] God
CEV, claiming to be God!"
Darby, makestthyself God
ESV, make yourself God
GLT, make Yourself God
Holman Bible, make Yourself God
KJ21, makestthyself God
KJV, makestthyself God
Modern KJV, make yourself God
MSG, calling yourself God
NAB, making yourself God
NASB, to be God
NIV, claim to be God

NKJV, make Yourself God
NLT, have made yourself God
Phillips, making yourself out to be God
RSV, make yourself God
WE, you say you are God
Webster's, makestthyself God"
WYC, makestthyself God
YLT, make thyself God
As you can see, out of 22 Bible versions, not one has "a god" translatedas the
WatchtowerOrganizationdoes. Why? Becausethe Watchtoweris biased
againstthe deity of Christ and will take liberties to alter the English
translation so as to suit its own theologicalneeds.
Objection: You are deriving your theologyfrom the Pharisees
On the contrary, I am doing no such thing. First of all, I do not agree with the
Jews that Jesus is not God. It is the Jehovah's Witnesses who agree withthe
Jews onthis. Remember, the theologyof the Jews is that Jesus is not God.
Since I believe Jesus is God, I am not deriving my theology from them.
Second, whetheror not the Jews are correctlyor incorrectly understanding
Jesus isn't the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus saidthat causedthem
to say He was claiming to be God that so upset the Jews?If a Jehovah's
Witness cannot answerthe question, then he doesn't understand what is going
on. It is simple. If he understood, then he could give an answer. If he can't
answer, then how can he understand the rest of the Bible since the Bible is
about Jesus (John 5:39); and this issue is dealing with Jesus'teachings about
Himself? Third, the objectionis a genetic fallacy; that is, it is saying that
because the Pharisees saidit, it can't be true. This is like saying that because
an atheist says something about Jesus, it can't be true. Well, yes it can be true.
Even atheists can understand what Jesus says and still not believe Him.
Questions for the JW's:

What was it that Jesus had said or done that causedthe Pharisees to saythat
He was claiming to be God in John 10:33?
What was it about what Jesus saidin John 8:58 that causedthe Pharisees to
want to kill Him?
From the New World Translationperspective, what is it about saying, "I have
been" (John 8:58) that would motivate the Jews to want to kill Jesus?
Do we see any prior accountof anyone in the Bible being killed for claiming to
pre-exist if Jesus was merely claiming pre-existence?
Could you please explain what it was the Pharisees misunderstoodand what
they were misunderstanding to cause them to saywhat they did about Jesus'
claim?
If a JW cannotanswerthe questions above, then
Doesn'tthat mean he doesn't understand the text since he cannotanswerthe
question?
If he doesn'tunderstand this text about Jesus, then how canhe understand
the restof the Bible since the Bible is about Jesus (John5:39); and this
passageis about Jesus'own teaching?
https://carm.org/john-1030-33-what-made-jews-want-kill-jesus
John 10:30
by Grant | Oct5, 2017 | John | 0 comments
ReadIntroduction to John
30 “I and My Father are one.”

This verse is an important statement that shows the eternal relationship
betweenthe Fatherand the Son. This declarationis the climax of the chapter.
30 I and My Father
“I” and “Father” clearlyspeak of two persons. The Fatherand the Son are
never assertedas one person in Scripture. They are two persons, yet they are
one in essenceorsubstance.
are one.
The word “are” is masculine gender while “one” is neuter gender; thus, this
verse does not primarily argue for the oneness ofperson. God is more than
one person; He is three persons. The argument from the neuter is oneness of
purpose or will. Protectionof the salvationof sheepis the joint task of both
the Fatherand Son. They both operate under the unity of God.
If this passageassertedone person, it would have to use the Greek masculine
word heis, but the Greek here for “one” is the neuter hen. Thus, the point of
the neuter is that two persons (“I” and “Father”)have one purpose.
The word “are” is plural; the Fatherand Son are two persons. This denies
Sabellianism, which rejects more than one personin the Trinity. This is not
principally an assertionthat Christ and the Father are the same person but
that they are one in purpose.
However, this verse also implies that the Fatherand Son are one in Trinity. If
they are eternally one in will, they are also one in essence. Theyare two
persons (“I” and the “Father”), not one person, but they are one substance.
One is essenceis by implication.
Since the context deals with both the Son and the Father securing the
salvationof the believer (Jn 10:28-29), the oneness here is primarily one of
function, not chiefly metaphysicaloneness or oneness ofbeing. John
previously declaredthat the Son was God (Jn 1:1, 18;8:58). John would also
explicitly make this declarationlater (Jn 20:28). Further, this phrase is an
allusion to Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus here made a claim to deity.
PRINCIPLE:

The Fatherand Son function with one will because they are also one in
essence.
APPLICATION:
The unity of which Jesus spoke is unity of purpose, but it also implies unity of
being. The assertionby Jesus in this verse that He was God is evident because
the Jews soughtto kill Him in the next verse. They clearlyunderstood that
Jesus made claim to deity.
There is a distinction of person and roles betweenthe Father and the Son, not
a distinction of essence. The Fatherplans and the Son executes the plan. Both
are one in essence.
Protectionof the sheep is a joint role of both the Father and the Son. The Jews
were so incensedby what Jesus saidthat they attempted to kill Him (next
verse). https://versebyversecommentary.com/john/john-1030/
I And My Father Are One – How?
(John 10:30)
When Jesus states, “Iand my Father are one…” in John 10:30 we must
determine, is he literally stating that he and his Fatherare one and the same
God, or is he saying they are unified in purpose and mind?
Historically, many of our early American church forefathers, those who
helped establishchurches most commonly knownas “Oneness” (Apostolic)
churches, all used this scripture (John 10:30)in an attempt to support the

understanding and teaching, at that time, that Jesus was God. A problem,
however, immediately arises;How do we explain God as being his own Son
and Jesus as being his own Father if, as they claim, the Son and the Father
were literally one and the same God. Today, we have more information
available to us than they had and are more knowledgeable in the
translation/transliterationof these early writings.
“One” in the Bible
does not always meana numerical quantity
Depending on the Scripture, “one” oftenmeans unity. Jesus was “one”with
the Fathernot because Jesuswas Godhimself but because he had the Spirit of
God (the Father) dwelling in him; “I speak not of myself: but the father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:19).
The correctunderstanding is Jesus and “his Father” were united (by Gods’
Spirit) having one purpose (which was to save fallen mankind), and were in
one accord. This was possible because ofJesus’perfectlysubmitted will; Jesus
surrendered his human will to the will of his Father (God).
(Luke 22: 41-44)“And he (Jesus)was withdrawn from them about a stone’s
cast, and kneeleddown, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove
this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there
appearedan angelunto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an
agonyhe prayed more earnestly:and his sweatwas as it were greatdrops of
blood falling down to the ground.”

(Luke 6:12) “And it came to pass in those days, that he (Jesus)went out into a
mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.”
This scripture bears witness that Jesus struggledwith his human will. He did
not want to die but submitted his will to the will of the Father so that they
could be and remain one in purpose. It also bears witness to the fact that Jesus
and his Father had two separate wills, “…nevertheless notmy will, but thine,
be done.” So being literally one seems to be ruled out.
There are many biblical illustrations that reflectthis manner of speaking:
This verse is spokenin the same context as severalother verses that speak of
others as being one (united).
Our Marriages – two bodies shall be one (Mark 10:7-8);
Our Churches – although many members we are all one body in Christ
(Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:18-20;Galatians 3:28)
Our Purposes – all having the same resolve (counsel, consent, etc.), one mind,
one purpose, will:
(1 Peter3:8) “Finally, be ye all of one mind”
(Romans 15:6) “Thatye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even
the Fatherof our Lord Jesus Christ.”
See also:(2 Corinthians 13:11;Philippians 1:27, 2:27; Revelation17:13)(John
17:22;Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 3:8, 10:17;1 John 5:7)

Note:Whenever we have two or more people (places or things) indicated
(listed) as being one, it suggests thatthey are in some way connectedas a
group or they have something in common (i.e., united in purpose)
More than one (Plural) titles can belong to one (Singular) personsuch as
(Father, Word, Holy Ghost= God) or (Father, Man, Grandfather = Male);
however
More than one (Plural) personis always equalto “more than one” person they
could, however, be “One” as a group, a group who have something in common
(i.e., united in purpose) and the bibles use it that wayin severalverses.
(John 17:11) “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,
and I come to thee. Holy Father, keepthrough thine own name those whom
thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”
When we become one with God
Jesus then asks his Father, not himself, to keepthe church and to allow them
to be one, as they were one. When we become one with God, it is quite obvious
we do not become God. There are numerous examples of scriptures that talk
about being of one mind and in one accord. Unity yields results.
(Acts 2:1) “And when the day of Pentecostwas fully come, they were all with
one accordin one place.” Clearly, the church body was unified, and when we

become unified (especiallyas a church body of Christ) things happen. This
particular passageleads us to that momentous experience when the Holy
Ghostfell on them (Acts 2:4).
(Acts 5:12) “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accordin Solomon’s
porch.”
Here againis an example of a unified church causing things to happen; a
people being in one mind and one accordwith the will of God.
When the epistle was penned to the church in Philippe they were reminded
that unity was vital to spiritual success.
(Philippians 2: 1-3) “If there be therefore any consolationin Christ, if any
comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one
accord, ofone mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in
lowliness ofmind let eachesteemother better than themselves.”
https://www.theonenessofgod.org/i-and-my-father-are-one-john-1030/
John 10:30
The Footloose Theology:A Refutation of Oneness-UnitarianRogerPerkins on
John 10:30 and Heis
Postedon February 6, 2018

Oneness-unitarianadvocate, RogerPerkins, has againattempted to deny the
person of the Lord Jesus in his recentso-calledrefutation of my very brief
article on the “Son of God”-– Readit Here.
Not at all surprising, in his struggle against biblical Trinitarianism, Perkins
voluminously responds to my brief article instead of dealing with a fuller
presentationof passagessuchas John 10:30 contained in my book, *A
Definitive Look at Oneness Theology:In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism*
(Get it here), or the countless otherexegeticalandscholarly works by other
authors, which is also containedin the book. If I were Perkins, I too would
rather deal with a short (about two pages)article than be forced to interact
with an expanded exegeticaltreatment made be myself, and so many others
throughout history. – – To read Perkins’article go here.
In fact, not one, not even one, noted scholar, grammarian, or standard
lexicographerin Christian history has ever agreedwith the customary
Oneness interpretation of Isa. 9:6; Mal. 2:10; Matt. 28:19; John 1:1; 10:30;
14:9; 17:5; Col. 2:9 et al. In point of fact, early church Fathers collectively,
important EcumenicalCouncils and resulting creeds, allrecognizedbiblical
scholarshiphas always beenagainstthe theologicalassertionsmade by
modalistic/Oneness advocates.
Disregarding Context: First, as clearlyseen, Perkins (as well as Oneness
advocates acrossthe board) has an annoying routine of basing the entirety of
his arguments on a single word possible meaning, hence engaging in word
fallacies overand over—while the entire contexts are dismissed and/or
ignored. This is esp. seenin his unitarian view of John 10:30, as we will see.
A glaring example of this is in Perkins’assessmentJohn10:30, Perkins in his
article, he spends most of his time trying to tell us (Christians) what a text
“cannot” mean, rather than what it does mean. In other words, Perkins, does
not provide a positive affirmation as to the actual meaning of v. 30;nor does
he explain how it relates to the context of chapter 10; or explain WHY Jesus,
as recorded, uses a plural verb and not a singular verb denoting Him and His
Father; or WHY is the neuter “one” usedto denote the relationship between
Jesus and the Father. Perkins, for reasons know to himself, decided not to

properly address these important issues. Instead, Perkins merely makes
comments basedon his personalview and complains about the historic
Trinitarian view. Since Perkins seems botheredmost by the historicaland
enduring scholarly interpretation of John 10:30, I will respond primarily to
Perkins’assertionregarding that passage:
Oneness people are utterly controlledby their unitarian presupposition. Thus.
every passage, whichsays or teaches “one God” (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29),
Perkins (as with all Oneness advocates),must salvage his personalviews by
forcing unitarianism into every passage—without, ofcourse, proving it from
the text. All unitarians, whether Muslims, JWs, or Oneness Pentecostals
employ this kind of circular eisegesis. Thus, Perkins automatically(not
exegetically)interprets John 10:30 through the lens of unitarianism—viz., one
God = one person, the Father.
As we will see allover, Perkins not once deals with the context of the chapter
itself. Anyone who as ever heard Perkins in debate or read any of his
tutelages, he or she would see that Perkins lives up to his solid reputation of
removing passagesandwords out of their inclusive context in which he posits
his personaltheologyinto such passagesthrowing around Greek terms and
misreading and misquoting lexicons. Hence, many see Perkins as practicing
dishonestscholarshipespeciallyin his debate with James White. Namely,
Perkins statedthat Thayer applied a meaning of “in the mind” for preposition
para with dative, appearing twice in John 17:5: (“Fatherglorify Me para
seautw [“togetherwith Yourself”] . . . with the glory I had para soi [“with
You”] before the world was”). However, Thayersaidno such thing. He does
indicate para with the dative could have a possible meaning of “in the mind”
at John 17:5. To say that he did as Perkins did is simply flat-out lexical abuse.
In fact, when Thayer actually comments on para with the dative to John 17:5
he states:
With, i.e., in one’s house. . . . Dwelling WITH God, John 8:38 [“I speak the
things which I have seenwith My Father; therefore you also do the things
which you heard from your father.”];i.q. [‘the same as’] in heaven, John 17:5
(emphasis added).

No “in the mind” meaning (as with standard lexicons and grammars indicate).
As with John 10:30, Perkins is quite alone on his personalviews of regarding a
Oneness unitarian interpretation of 17:5. In point of fact, anyone engaging in
real scholarlyresearchon John 17:5 (or 10:30) would see scholarlyopinion
rejects Oneness theologicalassertionsacross the board.
REGARDING JOHN 10:30-
Context. After reading Perkins’so-calledrefutation, a glaring fact jumps out
(esp. with John 10:30):Perkins never actually interacts at all with the content
and actualcontext of the surrounding the passages, he merely asserts his
theologyinto text. He does use the word “contextwhen he says:
“And the context actually defines this distinction for us: “You, being a man,
make yourself God.” The problem the Jews had with Christ’s assertionwas
that He was a visible “man” claiming to be the invisible “God.” In John 10.30
both the 1stperson pronoun translated“I” (ἐγὼ) and the noun translated
“Father” (Πατὴρ) appearin the nominative case, singularnumber. The
speakerwas a visible man (subject) claiming to be the one invisible God
(object)—hence the contextualsubject-objectdistinction.”
So Perkins’idea of “context” is to cite a lone passage(i.e., v. 30)and then his
own assumedcontext into that passage.As any first year seminary student
knows, that he would receive failing grade on in a basic hermeneutic class,
which he was required to exegete a passageandhe merely did what Perkins
did—viz., asserta pre-text without a context. As he consistentlydoes with
other passages Perkins attempts to modalize (esp. John 1:1; 10:30; 17:5 et al).
Perkins here is utterly discountedfrom the context of chapter 10—where
Jesus and the Fatherare plainly repeatedly differentiated.
Note the consistencyof the passagesleading up to v. 30 the following:
Verse 15: “evenas the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay
down My life for the sheep.”
Verses 17-18:“Forthis reasonthe Father loves Me, because I lay down My
life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has takenit awayfrom Me, but I lay

it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have
authority to take it up again. This commandment I receivedfrom My Father.”
Verse 29: “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greaterthan all; and no
one is able to snatchthem out of the Father’s hand.”
Verse 36: “If He [i.e., the Father] calledthem gods, to whom the word of God
came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him [Jesus],
whom the Father sanctifiedand sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’
because I said, ‘I am the Sonof God’?”
Verse 38: “so that you may know and understand that the Father is in [en,
thus, not “am”] Me, and I in the Father.”
Clearly, no one who reads this chapter for the first time would never getthe
idea that Jesus was the same person as the Father. One would have to be
taught the Oneness notion trading the natural reading for a stroppy modified
one.
More grammatical errors. Perkins then ties a loose around the neck of his
argument when he makes the assertionregarding nominatives and “subject
objectdistinctions,” which Perkins calls, “the contextual subject-object
distinction.” BecauseofPerkins’lack of understanding in area of Greek
grammar, he assumes his pretext (what he feels v. 30 means) basedon his
misunderstanding of 1) what a nominative and a predicate are and 2) subject
objectdistinctions betweenJesus and the Father.
First, it is clearfrom the Perkins statement, “In John 10.30 both the 1st
person pronoun translated“I” and the noun translated“Father” (Πατὴρ)
appear in the nominative case, singularnumber,” which he then sneaks in his
conclusion, that Perkins just doesn’t know what two nominatives in a sentence
indicates in light of the PLURAL verb.
MostOneness people in an embarrassing way, error on this grammatical
point at John 1:1, wherein we find two nominatives (theos and logos). They
typically argue that the two must carry the meaning of the mathematical
equal sign (A=B, B=A). But as NT Greek scholars/grammarians (e.g.,
Robertson, Reymond, Harris, Wallace, Greenleeetal), point out the theos and

logos in 1:1c are NOT a convertible proposition, rather a subsetproposition
(cf. Wallace, BBGG). As a qualitative noun, the Word in John 1:1c is in the
class orcategoryof the anarthrous pre-Verbal PN theon, but the Word is not
the personof ton theon (1:1b, viz., the Father). Again, Perkins stands alone, he
has no recognizedscholarto which he canappeal—becausethey rejectthe
Oneness interpretation both historically and present day. No Greek
grammarian has ever concluded, by the grammar of the passage, a Oneness
interpretation of John 1:1.
Perkins seems in a dense fog here, for first he merely throws out there that v.
30 contains two singular nominatives, but never explains what the significance
of it is. And since he never mentions nor explains the function of the predicate
(the other nominative), it indicates to me that he does not understand neither
what a nominative nor predicate are or what they do.
The large issue here is this: that there are two nominatives in the passageis
meaningless WITHOUT a context. This has been the chief flaw in his
hermeneutic throughout his writings and presentations. So whenhe offers his
so-calledreply to my tersely article, he stays consistentin his lack of
contextual interaction. The constructionsimply and typically marks out
distinction from the subject and predicate (complement).
And againdemonstrating Perkins lack of familiarity of Greek grammar, the
linking PLURAL verb unities the subject and the predicate togetherin which
grammatically the subject and the subject complement are “essentially” one—
not one person—ratherPLURAL verb is used, esmen, not a singular one
(estin, eimi, “is, am”); and both nominative are associatedas the main topic of
the sentence.
Unbeknownst to Perkins (or he a point he choosesto overlook), Subject–
Object and Subject-Hearerdistinctions betweenJesus and the Father
interspersedthroughout the NT radically disproves the Oneness position.
In fact, this feature alone is one of the most controverting arguments against
the Oneness unitarian notion of Jesus being the Father. For example, “After
being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water… behold, a voice
out of the heavens said, ‘This is My [speaker]belovedSon, [hearer] in whom I

[speaker]am well-pleased’” (Matt. 3:16-17;also Matt. 17:5); “I [speaker]
glorified You [hearer] on earth, having accomplishedthe work which You
[hearer] have given Me [speaker]to do” (John 17:4; cf. also Luke 23:34, 46).
Jesus personallyand distinctly relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and
the reverse is altogethertrue of the Fatherand the Holy Spirit relating to each
other. That is why I find it very odd that Perkins argue this, when it actually
refutes his position.
Heis (“one”)
Now onto Perkins attempt to go againstall mainline scholarshipregarding the
neuter adjective heis (“one”):
“Thoughthis has been pointed out to Trinitarians ad-nauseum, the masculine
singular (3-3) adjective heis, translated“one” (εἷς), is indeed applied to God
from the very lips of Jesus in Mark 12.29 as “the most important
commandment.” If, as Dalcourasserts here, the masculine singular heis
demands a single person(and it certainly does)the entire Trinitarian position
is collapsedaccording to Christ Himself! That is, Jesus’view of the Godhead
was most definitely not that of a “Triune divinity”—and His view of both God
and Scripture should equally be our view.”
First, he again, as with all unitarians, assumes unitarianism into Mark 12:29
(one God = one person). As much as Oneness advocateswouldlike this point
to be true, nowhere does Scripture indicate one God = one person. A
redundant vibrato of citing passages thatindicate “one God” is meaningless
when “one” is left undefined as Perkins does—he merely assumes “one”
means one numerically and one in solitary.
Although in both the OT and NT “one” canmean composite/compoundunity,
one group, people, one union betweenhusband and wife, one sectionor many,
etc. Further, at leastnine words in Hebrew can mean “one” (Morey)—and
Perkins knows this. An undefined “one” rather proves the Trinitarian
positon, since the foundation of the Trinity is monotheism (one God), and the
foundation of Oneness is one person. So in spite of Perkins’overly
complaining, Mark 12:29 does not show what Perkins wants it to show—Jesus
was not a unitarian.

Second, Perkins goes onto say,
“Although lexicalquotes abound to this end, ironically, Dalcour’s quotation
from Robertsonabove is one of the most conclusive citations from Greek
linguists (cf. Zodhiates, Vincent, Thayer, BDAG, Wuest, et al.).”
Please note:NotONE of these sources applies a unipersonal (viz. that God is
one person) meaning to eiJV at Mark. 12:29 (Deut. 6:4, LXX), not one. Hence,
Perkins references (“Zodhiates, Vincent, Thayer, BDAG, Wuest, et al.”)is his
rickety attempt to sustain a unipersonal meaning of eiJV at Mark 12:29—but
again, scholarship(esp. the ones he references)is decidedly againsta
unipersonal meaning of Mark 12:29 (or any other passage).
Perkins says, “whenheis is used “one person” is in view . . . lexical quotes
abound to this end.” And then Perkins tell us: “Indeed, heis is used c. 100xin
the NT alone and in no instance does it denote more than one-single-person. . .
. the masculine singular heis demands one-single-person.”
This assertionagainreveals the stock ofknowledge Perkins has in Greek.
Although he has been consistentlyrefuted on this point, Perkins still presses it.
One wonders if he does this purposefully hoping no one will verify this.
The masculine eiJV is similar to the English “one.” Here we have again,
Perkins assume unitarianism into the term. “One” what? Yes, most of the
time, “one person,”—whenman is in view. However, not “everytime” as
Perkins would like it to mean. The fact is, if there is even one place where eiJV
is used to signify more than one person, Perkins entire premise implodes. This
is true with the multitude of plural verbs, nouns, adjectives, and prepositions
applied to the “one” God, which is a thorn in the flesh to Oneness advocates—
showing againthat Oneness unitarianism is not consistentwith biblical view
of God. For example, note Gal. 3:28:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one [heis] in Christ Jesus.”
Of course, Christians naturally and rightfully cite this passageto show the
unity of believers in Christ—because itplainly states this, as with biblical

scholarship. The fact is, Perkins will put a doctrinal spin on any verse if it
disagrees withwhat he believes. Note Perkins comments:
“Galatians 3.28will not do at this point (as Trinitarians typically use to evade
the force of heis) since the entire point of Paul’s discourse in these texts is that
biblical Christians are “one person in Christ Jesus” (cf. NEB, ASV, ERV).”
“The force of heis”? What does that mean? First, Perkins misleads he readers
here. Forboth the ASV (“for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus”)and the
ERV (“You are all the same in Christ Jesus”), none say“one person.” As said,
Perkins has a reputation for misquoting and botching sources.He selects
translations that he can put a spin on, as he did with the older ed. of the AMP
of Gal. 3:20. The fact is, the translators of the ASV (note, Philip Schaffhad
chosenthe scholars for the project) and the ERV (produced by the WBTC),
NEB, and the AMP were translated by Trinitarian scholars, who naturally
saw the Oneness view as a perversionof Scripture.
That Perkins will resthis interpretation of Gal. 3:28 on a few obscure
translations in the face of virtually every other biblical translation is a flimsy
argument esp. in the contextof Christians being “one in unity” in Cristw.
Again, the translators to which Perkins appeals were Trinitarian. Also,
contrasting the masculine eiJV and the neuter eJn in John 10:30, noted Greek
grammarian A. T. Robertsonpoints out: “Notone person(cf. ei in Galatians
3:28), but one essenceornature” (Word Pictures).
Perkins’strange interpretation that “biblical Christians are one person” is, of
course, restlesseisegesis. Perkins main howlers here is that critical biblical
exegesisis NOT derived from looking at translations trying to find which one
matches a view, but rather proper exegesis.
The Greek phrase, panten gar humeis heis este en Cristw Iesou, literally, “All
indeed you one are in Christ Jesus.” The Greek completelyerasesPerkins odd
interpretation and affirms clearly, “one in unity,” not in one man. As mention,
this one passage,whichdenotes a clearone in unity meaning, turns Perkins
heis view upside down.

Note that Paul’s salutations grammatically denote two distinct persons (cf.
Sharp Rule 5). Grammatically (as circumstantiatedby grammarians [Sharp,
Greenlee, Wallaceetal] when there are multiple personal nouns in a clause
that are connectedby kai and the first noun lacks the article, eachnoun must
denote a distinct person, as shown in all of the Pauline salutations:charis
humin kaieirene apo theou patros hemwn kaikuriou IesouChristou, literally,
“Grace to you and peace from God Fatherof us and Lord Jesus Christ” – no
articles preceding both personalnouns (patron and Christou)—thus, this
indicates distinct persons.
Along with Gal. 3:28, Perkins Oneness unitarian view of heis is esp. refuted by
1 Cor. 8:6:
“yet for us there is but one [heis] God, the Father, from whom are all things
and we exist for Him; and one [heis] Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we exist through Him.”
Remember, Perkins argument is “when heis is used “one person” is in view.”
But wait. Perkins trips here (as with Gal. 3:28) on his own so-calledlinguistic
rule. If heis means, in every case, one sole person, as Perkins asserts, it would
follow then that the Fatheris one sole person and the Lord is one (another)
sole personsince the double usage ofheis precedes both nouns, that is, both
sole persons, which is consistentwith Trinitarianism, not Oneness.
Two distinct persons, the sole personof the Father (who is heis) and the sole
person of Lord Jesus (who is also heis). To argue that the double usage ofheis
represents both the Father and Lord Jesus defies the plain and natural
reading here, Compare Eph. 4:4-5 and 1 Tim. 2:5, where, as with 1 Cor. 8:6,
the multiple use heis preceding both the Father and Jesus heavilychallenges
and clearlyrefutes the Oneness perspective ofheis and a unitarian Jesus.
Perkins simply dismisses all of this when he says:
“This is the adjective [heis] carefully and intentionally employed by Jesus
when specificallydescribing God’s numerical identity.”
Again, this only shows how controlled Perkins and Oneness believers are to a
unitarian a priori assumption. Perkins as shownis dead wrong in his

assessmentofwhat Christ meant. Jesus and the NT never once saw or called
Jesus the Father. Rather He is the monogenes theos (John1:18); He was the
Son who was worshipas God, (God commanding the all the angels to worship
God, the Son; Heb. 1:6); the Son is the YHWH of Isa. 45:23 (Phil. 2:9-10); and
the YHWH of John 2:32 (Rom. 10:13);and the YHWH of Ps. 102:25-27,the
unchangeable Creator(Heb. 1:10-12); and the YHWH that Isiah saw in Isa. 6
(John 12:39-41)—note, allthese are references specificallyto the Son.
The, Perkins amazingly cites Trinitarian A. T. Robersonin response to my
original citation. I say “amazingly” because as, Perkins certainlyknows,
Robertsonsaw all forms of Oneness unitarian theologyas heretical. When
Perkins (and other Oneness defenders)appeals to numerous Trinitarian
grammarians and scholars, I suppose he sees them as “hostile witnesses.”
Since Perkins does have a reputation of misquoting sources, before citing
Perkins’analysis of what he feels Robertsonmeant, let us read in full (since I
only cited partial) the grammatical comments of Robertsonsaid pertaining to
the neuter adjective eJn in John 10:30:
“One (en). Neuter, not masculine (ei). Not one person(cf. ei in Galatians 3:28),
but one essenceornature. By the plural sumu (separate persons)Sabellius is
refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengelrightly argues, though Jesus is not
referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees hadaccused
Jesus ofmaking himself equal with God as his own specialFather(John 5:18).
Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (John 5:19-30). Now he states it
tersely in this greatsaying repeatedlater (John 17:11, 21 John 21). Note en
used in 1 Corinthians 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the
watererand in Jo 17:11 Jo 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples.
This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation
betweenthe Fatherand himself (the Son). They stir the Phariseesto
uncontrollable anger(Word Pictures, emphasis added).”
Incongruent to what Robertsonactuallysaid, Perkins comments:
“Robertson’s point is that if Christ would have employed the masculine
singular (3-3) adjective heis (translated “one”)in John 10.30 thenthis would
have demanded “one person”—sincethis is the natural force of the masculine

singular tag. However, as mentioned both above and elsewhere, Jesus does
indeed use the masculine singular heis in delineating the “mostimportant
commandment” of the emphatic-monadic identity of God (Mark 12.29).view.”
Perkins is unequivocally wrong. Robertsonmade no such point. Again, “Not
one person(cf. ei in Galatians 3:28), but one essenceornature. By the plural
sumu (separate persons)Sabellius is refuted.” Oh my, it seems as though
Perkins may assume that no will fact-checkhis sources—incontext. The point
of fact, Robertsonbluntly refutes Perkins position—“Neuter, notmasculine
(ei). Not one person.”
I understand that Perkin(and many Oneness believers)is very passionate
(and always seems very angry) in promoting what he believes to be true.
Although, Oneness theologyis clearly not according to the teachings ofthe
biblical authors—it does matter. Perkins refuses to properly consult lexical
sources and grammars;many have brought this point to attention who have
read and heard Perkins. As seen, Perkins’malfunctioning hermeneutic is
most shown when he repeatedly insists on a meaning of the neuter eJn and
masculine eJiV, which disconnectedfrom the context. It should not be
surprising, then, why recognizedbiblical scholars presently and historically
rejectthe Oneness interpretation of John 10:30 seeing it patently false. One
must interpret in light of, not in spite of, the context in which words appear.
On this point, againciting Trinitarians, Perkins refers to footnote in the NET
translation, which was edited by Daniel Wallace, Greekgrammar and textual
authority, and Yes, solidly Trinitarian:
“See here also the NET translator notes: The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a
significant assertionwith trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine,
so the assertionis not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one
‘thing’”
Note that Wallace has written countless works onthe Trinity and has
definitely commented on the many passagesthat exegeticallyprove it. Perkins
shoots himself in the foot here; he seems to be uninformed. We as with
Wallace, seeJohn10:30 as totally opposing the Oneness-unitarianview that

Jesus and the Fatherare the same person, rather they are one in essence and
unity (one thing, not one person).
Then Perkins goes onto complain about the contextualunderstanding of heis:
“(Dalcour): In John 17:21, for example, Jesus prays that His disciples may
“be one [hen] even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may
be in Us.” The same neuter adjective is used. . . . *Note here that in Jesus’
High Priestly prayer He is praying that His disciples—who were separate
human beings and not merely “distinct persons”—wouldshare in the same
oneness as the Fatherand Him shared. Since Dalcouris appealing to this
passagein connectionwith the neuter sing. hen (translated “one”), will he now
inform us that God the Father and “Godthe Son” are equally as radically
separatedas human beings, and eachare fully God? Or will he now modify
this assertionto conform to his predisposedreligious tradition?”
Perkins againignores the context of the entire chapter. Unity Mr. Perkins—
that is the idea being expressedhere, as the statements directedto Jesus
disciples clearly indicate. Thus, the contextgoverns the meaning of the neuter.
PLURAL VERB—esmen(“we are”)
John 10:30 (as well as the entire chap.) at face value, in the most plainness
way, indicates that Jesus is not the Father— egw kai o Pathr eJn esmen(“I
and the Father one We Are”). After one reads John 10, he would never never
get the idea that Jesus is the Father; only if he were superficially “taught”
Oneness unitarianism would he come up with that. To sayagain, no one in
church history (viz. Christian fathers, ecumenicalcouncils, orresulting
creeds)or present-day recognizedscholarshipembracedOneness doctrine—
they have always rejectedit as non-Christian, a departure from the Christ of
biblical revelation.
When ones reads plainly the entire content setforth in the literature of John,
he sees clearlythat Jesus and the Father were distinct not the same person.
This is seenesp. in places suchas John 10:15-18, where Jesus had clearly
differentiated Himself from the Father. As well as the passagesleading up to

v. 30. The same Fatherof whom Jesus says, “Forthis Father loves Me” and in
v. 18, Jesus says that He lays down His life ap’ emautou, “from Myself, My
own [not ‘our’] initiative.” Jesus tells His readers as in John 6:38, before the
incarnation He makes and possessesHis Own determination/will (note the
reflexive emautou) “of, from My own [not, “our own”], thus, distinct from the
Father (cf. John 6:38).
Perkins is simply in error. Yes, essentialUnity, not identification—coupled
with the plural verb esmen- not eimi, (“am”)or estin (“is”). In point of fact,
the Apostle John envisagesthe Son as the monogenhV qeoV (“unique God,”
John 1:18), who was WITH the Fatheras a distinct person before time (cf.
John 1:1, 18, 6:38; 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 5:13). Further, John sees the Son as God
as the eternal Goddeserving of religious worship (cf. John 5:23; 9:38; Rev.
5:13-14). John sees the liar as any denying this Sonof divine revelation (cf. 1
John 2:22-23).
REVELATION 21:22: “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty
and the Lamb are its temple” (NASB)
Perkins states that
“The Greek verb translated“are” (ἐστιν) in this text is the “singularverb
estin” that Dalcourrequests above explicating both God and His Son. If a
plural verb describing the Fatherand the Sonquantifies as two divine
persons—whydoes not a singular verb modifying the same subjectequal a
single divine person(esp. when this passagecontextuallydescribes the
singular “temple” of Heaven)?”
Then Perkins provides a lengthy explanation, which only proves my point:
Perkins is not a fan of context. Perkins simply attempts to isolate this passage
from John’s own theologyin both Revelationand in John’s entire literature.
Simply, Perkins makes two slippery mistakes (perhaps hoping no one will fact
check). Briefly,
1) John has already differentiated Jesus from the Father throughout the book.
For example,

Revelation3:21 presents the “Son” as sitting on His ownthrone (distinct from
the Father’s throne). And Revelation5:13-14 presents two distinct divine
objects of religious worship: “To Him [the Father] who sits on the throne and
to the Lamb [the Son]: be praise, honor, glory and dominion forever and
ever!”
Passages suchas Matthew 28:19;2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 1:3; 2:22; and
here Revelation5:13 confirm a grammatical differentiation betweentwo or all
three persons of the Trinity.
Grammatically, along with Matthew 28:19, note 2 Cor. 13:14 and 1 John 1:3:
2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace ofthe [tou] Lord Jesus Christ and [kai] the
love of the [tou] God and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit with all
of you.”
1 John 1:3: “Indeed our fellowshipis with the [tou] Father and [kai] with the
[tou] Son of Him Jesus Christ.”
And Revelation5:13: “The [tw] One sitting upon the throne and [kai] to the
[tw] Lamb, the blessing and the honor and the glory and the dominion into the
ages ofthe ages.”
According to the “normal” rules of Greek grammar (cf. Granville, Reymond,
Beisner, Wallace,Greenlee), Jesus (the Lamb) is distinct in person from the
Father throughout Scripture. To make Rev. 21:22 militate againstJohn’s own
words in other places is blatant eisegesis—viz. again, a painful and flawed
hermeneutic. But again, Perkins enjoys using and abusing nakedwords in
spite of context to arrive at unorthodox interpretations.
2) Since the Greek is clear, Perkins either has no concernabout reading the
text carefully in its originalsignificance (Greek)whereby Perkins merely
assumes allOneness believers will blindly accepthis assertions here or he just
cannot read Greek. Simply, as Perkins knows it (it was brought to his
attention over and over), Rev. 21:22 has NO syntacticalparallelto John 10:30.
> John 10:30 reads:egw kaiho Paterhen esmen(lit., “I and the Fatherone we
are”).

> Rev. 21:22 reads:Kai naon ouk eidon en aute ho gar kurios ho theon ho
pantokratwrnaos autes estin, kai to arnion (lit., “And temple not I saw in it,
indeed [the] Lord the God almighty, temple of it is, and the Lamb”).
Note that first in John 10:30, the verb (esmen, “are”)appears at the end of the
sentence, afterthe phrase, “I and the Father,” thus, Jesus and the Father—
“we are” one, not “we “is” (estin) or “am” one. Whereas in Rev. 21:22, the
verb (estin, “is”)is before the phrase, “and the Lamb.” Thus, kai to arnion
(“and the Lamb”) is an additional clause. No connectionwhatsoever—and
Perkins knows this.
Perkins lack of awarenessin Greek (or purposeful fraudulence) causes him to
assume that that lone context-less singularverbs constitute doctrine. However,
the entire context and syntax must be considered—something Perkins does
not do, as seen.
CONCLUSION
In the end, the only ones who will acceptthe assertions ofRogerPerkins in his
article are uncritical and disinserted Oneness believers.
Again, biblical scholarshipis on the Trinitarian side, and thus in John 10:30—
Jesus and the Fatherare distinct persons who are one in unity an essence.
Oneness advocateslike Perkins standalone, for obvious reasons. Note the
some robust (a few of countless)scholarlyopinions regarding John 10:30
militating again the Oneness position:
New TestamentscholarMurray Harris: “This dual conceptionof “distinction
of person-community of essence”also comesto expressionin John 10:30, egw
kai ho pater hen esmen, which refers to neither personalidentity (which
would require heis esmen) nor simply to agreementof will and purpose (since
John 10:28b, 29b implies at leastan equality of power).” (Harris, Jesus as
God, 285, n. 38).

Jesus was one with the father

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was one with the father

Similar to Jesus was one with the father (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was one with the father