One What?
I and the Father are one. John 10:30 NASB
One – Philip Jenkins expresses what most Christians believe when he writes, “In the New Testament, Jesus says quite explicitly that he is identical with God: ‘I and the Father are one,’ he declares.”[1] It certainly seems so, doesn’t it? In fact, it is so commonly understood in this way that the NASB can caption this section of John’s gospel with the title “Jesus Asserts His Deity.”
But before we run toward Trinitarian conclusions, we must first recognize the context.
22 At that time the [c]Feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area, in the portico of Solomon. 24 The Jews then surrounded Him and began saying to Him, “How long [d]will You keep us in suspense? If You are the [e]Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 [f]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are [g]one.”
What is Yeshua’s purpose in declaring this connection with the Father? First, he’s responding to the utter lack of faith shown by the Jews who deny the demonstrations of his authority. There’s a certain level of frustration here. How much must he do before these inquisitors acknowledge his prophetic status? The gospels are replete with stories of his works, yet these detractors still maintain their distance. They wouldn’t believe him no matter what he does. So, he responds by saying that there is a clear difference between those who follow him and those who don’t, and the difference is not one of evidence. There is plenty of evidence. The difference is one of intentional blindness.
Second, with this in mind, he asserts that all who follow him do so because God Himself has led them to him. The detractors’ skepticism won’t affect them for they have a personal, spiritual assurance. The efforts of the skeptics are of no avail.
Now he asserts egṓ kai ho patḗr hen esmen. “I and the Father are one.” But does this mean the two are one ontological unit? Note the comment by Stauffer: “Only rarely is heís used as a digit in the NT. It usually means ‘single,’ ‘once-for-all,’ ‘unique,’ ‘unanimous,’ ‘one of many,’ or ‘only one.’ Theologically the most important feature is that God is one (as in Dt. 6:4). There is none beside him (Mk. 12:29). The origin and goal of the world are one in him. History and salvation history are a unity in the one Christ. This rules out dualism.”[2]
What this means is that the footnote provided by the translators of the NASB (which reads “John 10:30 Or a unity; or one essence”) is a theologically motivated amplification, not a linguistic one. We could legitimately render the sense of this statement as “we are unanimous,” “we are single in purpose,” or “we are unique in our relationship,” all of which would be consistent with the Jewish idea of the Messiah as God’s singular agent. Christian trinitarian theology reads with words from the paradigmatic point of view, disregarding the Hebraic background of the author. As a result, “Jesus” becomes something other than like us, that is, he is in some way no longer human as we are human. Jenkins expresses this as, “Christ moves among humanity like a divine tourist.”[3] But of course he does! He’s ontologically different. The Church recognized this problem and created the “dual nature” solution, another equivocation of ordinary language. Frankly, there is no explainable solution, at least none that allows “Jesus” to be like us, except the Jewish view of the Messiah, and even that has some interesting twists.
This much is clear. The text itself does not unilaterally support the idea of a divine/human god walking around Israel. That is a theological overlay. So, when you read your English (Christian) Bible, don’t be fooled by the captions. Do your homework. Read the text the way the authors would have meant it in the Jewish world of the first century.
Topical Index: one, heis, Trinity, John 10:30
[1] Philip Jenkins, The Jesus Wars, p. vii.
[2] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (p. 214). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[3] Philip Jenkins, The Jesus Wars, p. 3.
I have always approached the relationship of Yeshua to God as a reflection of the family unit understood by those Yeshua spoke to. The ‘birthright’ of the first born (or ‘begotten’ in the case of Yeshua) was a leadership role in waiting… in the case of the father’s death or absence, the firstborn took over the father’s role. as an example, in the case of the father’s absence, the son could enter into contracts or do commerce as if the father were present (in his father’s name). I accept this as an explanation for the actual words (purported) that Yeshua said, “, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name,…”. Of course if beneficial, the son would collect and hold the gains until his fathers return. It was a relationship of the greatest trust in the firstborn.
Normally I am a pretty good sleeper but last night I was awake every single ONE hour for a few minutes. By six o’clock I had enough so I continued reading Zornberg’s “Bewilderments” and immediately get God’s displeasure with Moses clarified so much so that He banished Moses from entering the promised land, according to some by striking the rock twice with his rod. No! According to Rambam, Moses spoke to the people in anger “listen now you rebels” which dishonour’s God’s name Hashem instead of speaking to them gently, admonishing them as God did with Moses. Moses is misrepresenting God and not “Living Kiddush Hashem”, (R. Freedman, sanctifying God). Opportunity lost forever. Goodbye promised land. Makes sense to me.
Then I read TW and learn about John and the Christian claim that Yeshua is God as my NASB Inductive study bible reads in the intro to John. “God in the flesh“ No!
No wonder I was awake every one hour. “One What?” indeed! Keep truckin’ Skip and Avivah and Rambam.
Indeed!… “Do your homework. Read the text the way the authors would have meant it in the Jewish world of the first century.”
Now—that being done—all that remains standing in the way of our understanding is knowing the way the author(s) would have meant it in the Jewish world of the first century.
“Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order that we may know the things freely given to us by God, things which we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. Now the spiritual person discerns all things, but he himself is judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord; who has advised him?’ (Cf. Isaiah 40:13) But we have the mind of Christ.” (Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16)
Could it be also understood that just as the Shema declares YHWH as one ( without equal) Yeshua is declaring that he too, as Messiah, is one ( unique- without equal in his position, authority and influence in his relationship with YHWH?) or would there have been a better word that he would have used to express that sentiment? Or is that what you stated and I didn’t grasp it?
Yes, we could look at it this way too. Thanks