Featured The Essential Unity of The Father and Jesus Christ

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father We are one." (John 10:27-30)

Is Jesus Christ here speaking of a unity of will and purpose with His Father; or, of the essential unity by which both He and the Father are God?

Those like the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose "theology" is to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, and therefore the Holy Trinity, would naturally argue against any text or passage in the Bible, which very clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Just as they do for John 1:1, where they would render the Greek into English as "and the Word was a god", and then look around for Bible versions, and "scholars" to support their corruption, and even falsify the evidence to support this warped conclusions. Likewise on this passage in John chapter 10, they very wrongly suppose, that anyone who believes in an "essential unity" of the Father and Son, believe that both are the same Person. In their booklet, "Should You believe in the Trinity", they argue from John 17:21-22, where Jesus prays that His disciples may become "one". "Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were. - See also 1 Corinthians 1:10" (page, 24)

Their argument here does not prove or disprove anything. That all human beings are essentially one, is beyond any dispute, as all are made in the image of God, and have the same human nature. So, there would be no reason for Jesus to have prayed that His disciples became what they already were, "essentially one". It is quite correct to say that Jesus was praying for their unity in thought and purpose, as this is exactly what the passage teaches. But, it is rather foolish to assume, as the Jehovah's Witnesses do here, that this is the only meaning of "one", and must have the same meaning everywhere. Their complete blindness and misunderstanding of the Persons in the Holy Trinity, can be clearly seen from their own remarks on the text of John 1:1, where they argue, "Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos 'was divine' is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God" (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Appendix, page, 1158). For those who have ever tried to speak to a Jehovah's Witnesses about the Holy Trinity, they would have seen the error of their understanding. By statements like, "and the Word was God", and "I and the Father we are one", they wrongly assume that, those who believe in the Holy Trinity, also believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are One and the same Person. That is why they will bring up passages where Jesus is praying to the Father, and mockingly say, "was He praying to Himself"? They fail to understand that there is a plurality of Persons in the Holy Trinity, while a unity of nature. It could be stated as 1x1x1=1; and not, 1+1+1=3.

This is clearly seen from Jesus' own words in Matthew 28:19, where He says, "...baptise them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Note, Jesus says, "to onoma", "The Name", that is "One Name", and not "ta onomata", the plural, "The Names", "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit". What, then is "The Name", that Jesus says, belongs to Himself, and the Father and Holy Spirit? We read in Exodus chapter 3, where Moses asks Almighty God for His "Name". To which God replies, "Ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh", which is best rendered into English as, "I am that I am" (ver.14). The Greek version of the Old Testament (The Septuagint), which was done some 150 years before the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, has it, "ego eimi ho on", "I am the Eternal One", which is what the Hebrew actually means, from which we get the Title of God, "Yahweh", which means, "the eternal, self-existing One". In verse 15, God tells Moses, "this is My Name forever". The Name which Jesus speaks of in Matthew 28:19, no doubt is "Yahweh". It should also be noted, that, even though Jesus says "Name", (singular), the Greek text that follows is also very important: "tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos", where the Greek "article" (tou), is repeated, to show that a "distinction" of Persons is meant. There is no arguing against this, unless one is wilfully blinded to the Truth of Scripture.

That the word "one" in John 10:30, can and does include "unity of will and thought and purpose", as this the Father and Son do always have, cannot be disputed. But, for those, like John Calvin, to say, that it was, " wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (homoousis) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father" (Commentary), is completely incorrect, and his very words have been used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, to show that even someone who believed in the Holy Trinity, did not understand the words in John 10:30, to refer to Jesus' Deity and essential oneness with the Father. Clearly Calvin misses the teaching of the entire passage, while the Jehovah's Witnesses do so for dishonest means.

We must always first look at the context why something is said, and then determine what it teaches, and not to conclude from other uses of a word of phrase, where the meaning might be very different, that it must mean the same everywhere, as this is not right. It is like the word "theos" (God). It is used for the Father, and Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 10:30, 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13, etc), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 6:16, with 3:16; Hebrews 3:7-11, with Psalm 95:7-11; Hebrews 10:15-18, with, Jeremiah 31:33-34). But, it is also used for the devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), and humans who represent God, as in judges John 10:34-35), Surely we cannot conclude, that in every case the use and meaning of "theos" must be the same?

We shall now take a closer look at the context of John 10:30, which I believe will show that Jesus here says of Himself, that He is Almighty God.

In verse 28 Jesus is speaking of His sheep, of whom He says, "and I give them eternal life, and in no wise shall they perish forever" (Greek text). This "life" that Jesus here speaks of, is what belongs in Him, as its source, which is true of also the Father and Holy Spirit, since they are equally Almighty God. The Gospel of John begins by the powerful statement about Jesus Christ, in 1:1, Who is called "the Word", and is said to be "with the Father" from all eternity, where the Greek preposition, "pros" (with), shows that two individual Persons are meant. And then we read, "and the Word was God", that is, in exactly the same sense as the Father is. In verse 3, we read that "all things were created by Him", where the use of the Greek preposition, "di", does not mean, that Jesus was the "agent" through whom the Father created, but the actual creator. The same way this preposition is used of the Father in Hebrews 2:10, where its meaning can hardly be that someone created "through" the Father. In Galatians 1:1, this preposition is used with both Jesus and the Father jointly (by [dia] Jesus Christ and God the Father), where the meaning is not instrumental. Then, in verse 4 of John 1, we read of Jesus, "in Him was life". Here we have yet another preposition, "en" (in), where its meaning is "within", as in the "source". Just as Paul uses the preposition of God in Acts 17:28, "for in (en) Him, we live and move and exist", as God is the "source" of life. The Unitarian, J H Thayer, in his Greek-English lexicon, has of this verse, "Jn.i.4; ho logos tes zoes, the Logos having life in itself and communicating it to others" (p.273). And commenting on Acts 3:15, where Jesus is called the "archegos of life", Thayer says of the Greek word, that it here means: "the author" (p.77). Language that cannot refer to anyone who is not Almighty God, Who alone is the "author of life", and here we have it for Jesus Christ. We have here someone who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Trinity, and yet his definitions are accurate at these places. The Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, can learn from Thayer.

 

We further read in John's Gospel, where Jesus says, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will" (5:21)

"as" is the Greek "hosper", which has the meaning, "like as, even as", "in like manner", as the Father "gives life", "even so" (Gk. houtos, "in this way"), the Son "gives life" to whom He will. The Father and Son here both equally are said to be the "source" of eternal life. What is true of the Father, is also true of the Son. This is clearly seen from verse 23, "that all should honour the Son just as (Gk. kathos, "in as much as", used of "comparison") they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent Him". Can one who is a created being, not matter how exalted, ever use this language, where they demand EQUAL "honour", to the Father, Who is Almighty God? This verse by itself, shows beyond any doubt to those who are honest, and seek to know the truth about Jesus Christ, that He has to be Almighty God, otherwise Jesus' own words here amount to blasphemy. The word "honour", is the Greek, "timao", which has the meaning, "worship, esteem, honour, exalt, glorify". We read in Isaiah, "I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." (42:8); and , "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal, And compare Me, that we should be alike?" (46:5). Not only does Jesus demand equal honour with the Father, but, by doing so makes Himself equal to Him as Almighty God. Nothing less can be concluded from these verses of Scripture.

Coming back to John 10:28, Jesus says something else that could only have been done by someone Who is coequal to God the Father. He assures His sheep, that their "eternal security", is guaranteed by the fact, that they are in His "power and protection", "not anyone can snatch them out of My Hand". We read in the Old Testament, where Yahweh Himself speak of such protection. "...I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand" (Deuteronomy 32:39). And, in Isaiah 43:13 we read: "Yea, before the day was I am He, and there is no one that can deliver out of My hand". How is it even possible, for a created being, to EVER use language that speaks of what Almighty God promises, and apply it directly to themself? The SAME protection that is given by Yahweh in the Old Testament, Jesus promises Himself. Further to this, in verse 29, Jesus goes on to say, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand". Too much has been made by some, that Jesus here says "My Father...is greater than all". And, by doing so, miss the force of Jesus' own words. The fact that He places the "protection" of His sheep, in His "power" first, and then mentions the Father, again could only be possible if Jesus Himself is COEQUAL to the Father. The order of the words are of great importance. There is another reading for verse 29, with very strong textual support, "that which the Father hath given Me is greater than all". However, the reading found in most versions causes no problems for those who understand what the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ means. In chapter 14 of John's Gospel, we read the words of Jesus, "I am going to the Father, for My Father is greater than I" (v.28). Those who will argue against the Deity of Jesus Christ, as taught in the Holy Bible, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, will use this verse, as they do others, to "support" their heresies about the Person of Christ. It is abundantly clear, to those who really know what the Bible teaches as a whole on the Person of Jesus Christ, that Jesus' use of "greater" for the Father, and ONLY refer to His Incarnate life, while on earth, and has got nothing to do with Him being a "lesser god" than the Father. What we have already seen from this passage itself, and the other references mentioned, clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is as much as Almighty God, as the Father is. We read in Hebrews chapter 2, “ But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace He might taste death for everyone—crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering in death.” (v.9). The Greek verb, “elattoo”, means, “to make less”, which is explained by, “because of His suffering in death”. This is the reason why Jesus was for “a short time”, during His life on earth, “less” than the angels. Likewise we read in Philippians chapter 2, of Jesus, that, “He humbled (Gk. tapeinoo, “to make low”) Himself by becoming obedient (Gk. hupakoe, “submission”) to the point of death” (v.8). None of this relates to Jesus as God, but rather as the God-Man, and for the duration of His life while on earth. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

It is very clear from what we have looked at, that there can be no doubt that the “unity” that Jesus speaks of between Himself and the Father, is more than that or “will and purpose”. There is a clear “equality of power and security”, that both Jesus and His Father share, something that is quite impossible, if Jesus were a mere created being, regardless of how honoured a position he might hold. There is no way for Jesus to have spoken as He does in this passage, not to have blasphemed, if He were not COEQUAL with the Father. The reaction of the Jews to what Jesus had just said, “I and the Father, We are one”, is of importance. “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God” (verse 33). If Jesus were here speaking of “unity of will and purpose”, then the Jews would have not strongly objected as they did, as they would have accepted that Jesus, as a Prophet from God, would have this “unity”, as He did the work that God had sent Him to do. No, the accusation of the very strong charge, “blasphemy”, is because the Jews clearly understood that Jesus in this passage, meant that He is FULLY EQUAL to the Father, as Almighty God. In chapter 5 we have very similar language of the Jews, after Jesus had said that He worked on the Sabbath day, because His Father was working with Him. To which they replied: “ Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (vs.17-18). The Jehovah’s Witnesses might close their eyes to what is meant here by Jesus’ words, but the Jews very clearly understood that He here (as in the words that follow), claims that HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD. Jesus says “My Father”, which is rightly understood as in a very unique and personal way, “said that God was His OWN Father” (so in the Greek). Which is further seen by Jesus’ words in verse 23: “that all should honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent Him”. These words in themselves, are very strong testimony from the mouth of Jesus Christ , of His Deity and EQUALITY with the Father. The language in the Greek is far stronger, which has already been dealt with earlier in this study.

 

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their booklet, “Should You Believe in the Trinity”, have on pages 24-25, a very small article under the heading, “Making Himself Equal to God”. Where they refer to John 5:18 and 10:31-36), "But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): ‘to this accusation Jesus replied:…’the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father doing’. By this Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could ‘do nothing by himself’” The wilful blindness of the Jehovah’s Witnesses here is all to apparent. Acts 28:27 tells us, “And their eyes they have closed”. Where do we read of Jesus objecting to what the Jews charge Him with in these passages? As we have seen from both passages, there is abundant evidence to those who want to hear the Truth, that Jesus’ language can ONLY be understood that He very clearly claim to be ALMIGHTY GOD. The Jehovah’s Witnesses mock, when they say, “Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could ‘do nothing by himself’”. To which it can be replied, that they themselves admit that Jehovah created Jesus Christ, Who then created the entire universe. Why? Could not Jehovah, Who is Almighty God, have created by HIMSELF? The FACT that the Persons in the Holy Trinity, are EQUAL PARTNERS in creation, and work TOGETHER, in EVERYTHING. It would be rather foolish to suppose, that Jesus, Who is Almighty God, could to ANYTHING without the Father or Holy Spirit, Who are EQUALLY Almighty God. No, they can ONLY work TOGETHER.

What about Jesus’ response to the Jews in chapter 10, where He says: “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do 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’?” (vs.34-36). Is He here denying that He is God? No. Jesus takes the Jews’ argument against His words to them, by pointing out that even “judges” who represented God on earth were called “gods”, to which they never objected the term being used. And He is the unique representative of the Father on earth, and they say that He “blasphemed” by saying that He is the Son of God. Some have wrongly taken from Jesus’ words here, that He never said: “because I said,‘I am God’”, but rather “the Son of God”, and therefore His own reply to the Jews show that they were wrong in concluding that His words: “I and the Father, We are one”, was any claim by Him to Deity. This is not what the passage teaches. In fact, Jesus’ words in the entire passage and context actually show two things. In the first place, that His words in 10:27-30, are without any doubt that He is EQUAL to the Father in the absolute sense, where their UNITY is a complete one, as it speaks of their ESSENTIAL CHARACTER. Secondly, Jesus says that “the Father sanctified and sent [Him] into the world”, and He came as “the Son of God [the Father]”, which is clearly taught in Scripture. The question is not, by saying that He was “the Son of God”, that Jesus was in any way denying that He is God. But, He was showing that He is a distinct Person to the Father, but at the same time essentially one with Him. He is not simply “the Son of God”, and therefore some lesser Person than the Father, but, in reality, “the Son”, Who is also “God”. The One “sent” (Jesus), is by no means any inferior to the “sender” (the Father).

We return to the words of Jesus: “ego kai ho patros hen hesmen” (John 10:30). Which literally translated reads: “I and the Father, one we are”. The Greek here is very important. Jesus as the speaker, “I”, distinguishes Himself from “THE Father”, where the definite article in the Greek, “ho [the]” is used with “pater [Father]”. That the Father and Son are NOT one and the same PERSON, is evident from the use of the masculine plural, “hesmen [WE are]”, which is impossible if only ONE PERSON was meant. Then, we have the neuter singular, “hen [one]”, which again shows that ONE PERSON cannot be meant, which would have required the masculine “heis”, which is not the case. The use of the neuter singular “hen”, is to show the “UNITY” of the ESSENCE or NATURE, of God the Father and God the Son. As In Hebrews 1:3, Jesus is spoken of as having the “charakter” (Greek), of the “hupostasis”, of God the Father. The former Greek word (rendered “express image” in the KJV), actually means: “distinctive mark or token impressed (as it were) on a person or thing, by which it is known from others, characteristic, character”. The latter (rendered “person” in the KJV), means, “real nature, essence”. What this clearly tells us, is, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is in EVERY WAY EQUAL to God the Father. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be a created being, as the language of Scripture very clearly teaches that He IS ALMIGHTY GOD.

 

It is a long study!

 

This is a study for new believers and non believers who use this site

 

For some reason if the thread is too long, it won't allow me to post it. I tried and could not.

 

Sorry I did not know this

 

Are you saying that Jesus Christ is not fully God, that He as God is not "co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential" to the Father, that Jesus does not possess life in Himself as Almighty God, and that He is not the actual creator of the universe? If so, then you have a Bible that teaches a different Jesus than the one I have!

 

Jesus Christ is called "Yahweh" in the Bible a few times. The Name in the Hebrew means "one who is eternal and self-existent". The Father is also called Yahweh. In fact, in Genesis 19:24, we have Two Persons Who are called Yahweh in the same verse. One on earth and the other in heaven!

 

It does not read that in the Greek text. "ἔδωκεν", does not here mean "to give someone something they did not possess already", but, as used by Homer in the Greek, "to permit something to be done". As verse 27 says, "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man". As the Son of Man, Jesus was working on the Authority of the Father, here on earth, where the Father was greater than Him (John 14:28). Please note the phrase: "ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ" (have life in Himself), which is used for both the Father and the Son, which means "self-existent", for both Persons equally. If the Father "gave" Jesus life at any time, than He could not also be to "have live in Himself", which means "underived"

 

Please read