John 10:30

10:22-30 All who have any thing to say to Christ, may find him in the temple. Christ would make us to believe; we make ourselves doubt. The Jews understood his meaning, but could not form his words into a full charge against him. He described the gracious disposition and happy state of his sheep; they heard and believed his word, followed him as his faithful disciples, and none of them should perish; for the Son and the Father were one. Thus he was able to defend his sheep against all their enemies, which proves that he claimed Divine power and perfection equally with the Father.

30. I and my Father are one—Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. "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 seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into 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. "Neither have 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 away from Himself; for He and I HAVE ALL IN COMMON." Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is 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).

My Father and I are one, not only in counsel and 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 preservation of 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 consent and will, doing the same things, and driving the same design, both agreeing to preserve the sheep unto eternal life; but (with all respect unto them) I think the context implies more, though this be not excluded.

John 10:30 . Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν , I and the Father are one ) One , not merely in agreement of 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 had supposed that Jesus wishes merely to be accounted as 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 Thou art a man, thou makest Thyself God [ 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 of John 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 Son and Father; Jesus seldom uses it of Himself and men. See note on Matt. ch. John 5:11 , “Blessed are ye ” etc. [not we ], [285] Who denied the distinctness of the persons. “ I and the Father are.”—E. and T. [286] Who denied the divinity of the Son.—E. and T. [287] “Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand,”—“No man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand:” therefore the Father and Jesus are one.—E. and T.

30 . I and my Father are one ] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one . 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. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Revelation 20:6 ; Revelation 22:3 .

(30) I and my Father are one. —The last clause of John 10:29 is identical with the last clause of John 10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with “My.” This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for “one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. “The Son is of one substance with the Father.” In the plural “are” there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to 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 sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” ( John 10:33 ).

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 object that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this 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. Most of 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 design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations: 1. The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils that is, that he had supreme power over all 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 understood him 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 declaration implying 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 easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.

Verse 30. - Then follows the sublime minor premise of the syllogism, I and the Father (we) are one . As Augustine and Bengel have said, the first clause is incompatible with Sabellianism, and the second clause with Arianism. The Lord is conscious of his own Personality as distinct from that of the Father, and yet he asserts a fundamental unity. But what kind of unity is it? Is it a unity of wish, emotion, sentiment, only? On the contrary, it is a oneness of redemptive power. The Divine activity of the Father's eternal love did not come to any arrest or pause when he gave the sheep to the Son, but with its irresistible might is present in the "hand" of Jesus ( no one "can," not no one "shall"). Therefore the ἕν , the one reality, if it does not express actual unity of essence, involves it. Some have endeavored to minimize the force of this remarkable statement by comparing it with John 17:21-23 , where Jesus said believers are "to be in us," and "to be one, even as we are one," i . e . to have the same kind of relation with one another (being a collective unity) as the Father and Son sustain towards each other, "I in them, thou in me, that they may be perfected [reach their τέλος , by being blended] into one;" i . e . into one Divine personality by my indwelling. Now, it is nowhere there said that believers and the Father are one, but such a statement is scrupulously avoided.

Numerous attempts have been made to escape from the stupendous assumption of this unity of power and essence with the Father. The whole gist of the assertion reveals the most overwhelming self-consciousness. The Lord declares that he can bestow eternal life and blessedness upon those who stand in close living relation with himself, and between whom and himself there is mutual recognition and the interchanges of love and trust. He bases the claim on the fact that the Father's hands are behind his, and that the Father's eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment? John 10:30