John 10:30, "One in essence/being?"
Almost every Trinitarian you meet will present you John 10:30 to provide scriptural evidence for the Trinity Concept. In the Trinitarian view, It's understood as "One"(ἕν) in Essence along with Agreement and Unity. However, that isn't the case at all when it comes to as one in essence or being. It is a non-sequitur view that is presupposed/asserted into the text. Although Trinitarians would argue by showing "context" such as John 10:33, which says "The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.". First, let's note that the Jews denied that they were seeking to stone him because of his good work. Does this make their denial true? Hardly, they had earlier denied that they were even seeking to kill Jesus (John 7:19,20). To give credence to this idea would in fact be calling Jesus a liar as Jesus pointed out the real reasons why they wished to kill him.
Their false accusation that Jesus was making himself God [the Supreme Being] is not correct, but rather it was just such an excuse that they had been seeking that they might have cause to kill him. Jesus never claimed to be equal to the Father, the only true Supreme Being. Jesus repeatedly denied that he was the Most High (Luke 1:32). (John 5:19,30; 8:28; 12:49) His quoting of Psalm 82:6 only proves this, in that the sons of God referred to there are not equal to the Most High, even though they are called "gods".
According to Jesus' words in John 10:36, what words of his does he state his accusers considered blasphemous, his words in v30 or him calling himself God’s son?
“Jesus answered them... “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’... Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" (NIV John 10:34,36).
We should acknowledge that Jesus literally explains the charge of blasphemy in v36, what was the charge according to Jesus' own words that they considered blasphemy according to John 10:36? Here are Jesus' words in John 10:34,36, “Jesus answered them... “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’... Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"
John 10:38 reads, "but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.". Let's first understand that Jesus stated this numerous times in his ministry, that he was doing the Fathers works and speaking the fathers words, and THEREFORE to see him was to see the Father as he was doing the works of his Father and not his own. Note that Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3 denote the fact that Christ is the Representative/Agent of God, who Came in the name of the Father (John 5:43). But also keep in mind that John 17:21 literally reads exactly the same, so to be consistent, and taking the Trinitarian Position on this, it would be absurd to say that we are in the Father and Christ literally.
Using Trinitarians Logic about John 10:30
Dealing with Trinitarians is sometimes difficult to stand due to their ignorance and dishonesty. But if they want to assume that Because Jesus said, " I and the Father are One", means Essence/being, then surely we can understand John 17:11 as Christians being one in essence with each other and with God and Christ. John 17:22 also states The disciples to be one with God and Christ, if they would want to be Consistent. Also, “just as” (kathos) in scripture does not necessarily mean ‘literally the same’. Remember John 17:21, notice how Jesus asked his followers to be one “just as” he and the father are one, was Jesus asking they all be one ‘EXACTLY’ the same way he and the Father are one? Obviously not.
In 1 John 3:7 it says righteous ones are righteous ‘just as’ Jesus is righteous, yet mankind are sinful and are no way righteous even close to Jesus, obviously the just as does not mean EXACTLY the same. We are told in 1 John 2:6 we must was ‘just as’ Jesus walked. Does God really expect us to walk EXACTLY the same way Jesus, who was perfect and without sin walked? No that would be impossible. We see 1 Corinthians 3:6-8 ASV Paul and Apollos are one according to the consistency of how we view hen/one as. Obviously, Paul does not consider himself literally one person (or any other literal “one”) with other persons. However, he, as many other Bible writers do, considers himself as “one” with others in a figurative sense.
Bible writers consistently described groups of individuals as “one” figuratively in the sense of their being “united in will and purpose.” Here’s how one respected trinitarian reference book states it:
“‘One’ also expresses the unity between Christ and the Father (Jn 10:30), the union between believers and the Godhead, and the unity which exists among Christians (Jn 17:21; Gal. 3:28). ‘One’ further expresses singleness of purpose” - p. 844, New Bible Dictionary, (2nd ed.), 1982, Tyndale House Publ.
When sending out his followers to preach, Jesus said: "He that receives you receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth."(Matt. 10:40)
ReplyDeleteHow would people receive Jesus and the One who sent Jesus by receiving his disciples? Because Jesus gave them the message the disciples preached. And what Jesus taught was given to him by his God and Father.
John 7:16
"Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me."
JOHN 8:26 –"[T]he One who sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world."
John 8:38 – "I speak the things I have seen while with my Father"
John 8:40 ESV
"but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I HEARD FROM God. This is not what Abraham did."
John 14:24
"Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me."
Consider Zechariah 2:8.
New Revised Standard Version
"For thus said the LORD [YHWH] of hosts (after his glory sent me) regarding the nations that plundered you [Ancient Isreal]: Truly, one who touches you touches the apple of my eye."
Was Israel God's literal eye? We know that isn't the case. This scripture emphasizes how God felt about ancient Israel. Jehovah took notice of how nations treated ancient Israel. Harming them would cause Jehovah to act on their behalf because it was like the nations touching his eye. This showed a type of oneness between Jehovah and Ancient Israel at one point in time (Matt. 21:33-44, Matt 23:33-39, Luke 20:9-19).
We see some similarities with Jesus and his true disciples.
Act 9:1-6
"But Saul, still breathing threat and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that he might bring bound to Jerusalem any whom he found who belonged to The Way, both men and women.3 Now as he was traveling and getting near Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: “Saul, Saul, WHY ARE YOU PERSECUTING ME?” 5 He asked: “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
In Acts 9:4, Jesus asked, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
When did Paul persecute Jesus? He never did. So, who was the "me" Jesus was talking about? His true disciples. (Compare Matt 25:45).
Does this make Jesus' disciples fully Jesus or fully God if you believe Jesus is God? No doubt you would say, "No." But these scriptures give us an idea of what oneness and agency means. Those sent are likened to the sender himself.
So, the context of John 10:30 is not that Jesus and his Father are One God, as some claim. For one, Jesus never said that, but it is about the oneness of purpose that Jesus shared with his Father. Jesus was the one sent by his God and Father. Whose will did Jesus say he did? He said not his own but the Father's will.
John 6:38
Literal Standard Version
"because I have come down out of Heaven, not that I may do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
Remember, Jesus prayed to his Father that his disciples would have the same type of oneness he and his Father shared.
John 17:21, 22: “that they may all be one; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them; that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE.” - NASB
Notice that Jesus clearly defines his being “one” with his Father as being in the very same sense that he wants certain Christians to be “one”: “just as we are one” (NASB). There can be no doubt, then, that John 10:30 does not mean Jesus and the Father are equally God, but that, just as certain Christians were “one” in will and purpose, so “the Father and I are one [in will and purpose].”
The claim that John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") merely refers to unity in purpose or mission rather than a unity of essence is untenable in light of the broader context of the Gospel of John and the specific grammatical construction used. The word “hen” (one) is in the neuter, not masculine gender, indicating unity in essence or nature rather than a singular person. If Jesus were only referring to unity of purpose, the masculine form (heis) would likely have been used to emphasize agreement rather than nature. In John 10:28-30, Jesus speaks of His authority to grant eternal life and protect His sheep, which He equates with the Father’s power. This is not a mere statement of cooperative will; it is a claim to divine authority and omnipotence, qualities that belong exclusively to God. The immediate response of the Jews in verse 31—attempting to stone Jesus—underscores that they understood His statement as a claim to divinity. If Jesus were merely asserting unity in purpose, there would be no grounds for accusations of blasphemy.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that Jesus refuted the charge of deity by referencing Psalm 82:6 is also flawed. In John 10:34-36, Jesus strategically appeals to Psalm 82:6, which describes certain judges as "gods" (elohim) due to their role as representatives of divine authority. However, Jesus contrasts their derived and corrupt authority with His unique identity as the sanctified and sent Son of God. By referencing this passage, Jesus is not denying His deity but arguing that if human judges could be called "gods" in a representative sense, His claim to be the Son of God—backed by His miraculous works and divine authority—should be even more valid. Far from retracting His claim, Jesus reiterates it in John 10:38: "The Father is in me, and I am in the Father." This mutual indwelling indicates an intrinsic unity of being, not merely alignment in purpose.
The comparison to John 17:21-23, where Jesus prays for His disciples to be ”one” “as” He and the Father are one, fails to distinguish between the nature of unity among believers and the unity of essence between the Father and the Son. The unity among believers is relational and moral, characterized by shared faith and purpose. In contrast, the unity between the Father and the Son is ontological, rooted in their shared divine essence. In John 10:30, the plural verb “we are” (esmen) and the neuter “one” (hen) indicate distinct persons who share the same divine nature. This contrasts with John 17, where the unity of believers is modeled after but not identical to the divine unity.
The assertion that the Trinity was derived from pagan "three-in-one" concepts is both historically and theologically baseless. The doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in the self-revelation of God in Scripture, particularly the relational dynamics between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is fundamentally different from pagan triads, which often represent three distinct deities with separate wills and powers. The Jewish monotheistic framework would never tolerate polytheism. The early Jewish disciples of Jesus recognized Him as fully divine (e.g., John 1:1, 20:28; Philippians 2:6), which they affirmed within their strict monotheistic belief in one God.
The claim that "Son of God" implies subordination or non-deity ignores the theological implications of the title in its first-century Jewish context. In Jewish thought, to claim to be the "Son of God" was to claim equality with God (John 5:18). This is why the Jews sought to kill Jesus—not because He claimed to be merely a representative of God, but because He claimed to be one with God in nature and authority. Unlike the metaphorical or representative "sonship" of believers or judges (Psalm 82:6), Jesus is described as the "only begotten Son" (John 1:14, 18), signifying His unique and eternal relationship with the Father.