Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Alpha Dog]

Compare John 10:30, I and my Father are one, with John 17:21, That they [the disciples] 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.

In context, the unity spoken of in John 10:30 refers to a unity of agreement, concord, and power in the salvation of the sheep. Nothing is spoken of here concerning any sort of metaphysical oneness between the Father and the Son.

Calvin himself admits that this text is not about a unity of substance and that certain of the ancient writers misused this text to prove his consubstantiality with the Father, an idea imported to but not found in the text itself:

I and my Father are one. “He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of 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 closely united to those of the Father, that the Father’s assistance will never be withheld from himself and his sheep. The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) 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.”

[jimwalton]

I strongly disagree.

In John 17.21, Jesus is talking about purpose and strategy, not essence (v. 20). His focus is differences of opinion in the area of freedom. Then Jesus says, "just as you are in me and I am in you." In none of the texts where John (actually Jesus) uses this phrase is he talking about metaphysical and ontological oneness of essence, but rather about a singleness of vision for the work being done and the life being lived.
1. Jn 14.10-12. Reference to the message being preached and the work of revelation and salvation being accomplished
2. Jn. 14.20. Reference to a life of obedience based in love. Cf. also 14.31.
3. Jn. 15.4-5. Reference is to bearing fruit. The OT image of bearing fruit signifies covenant faithfulness. Jesus is talking about living a life of faith, love and obedience, evangelism, godly works, and prayer. “Fruit” is love for God and man shown by obedience to Jesus. Spiritual life and action.

In vivid contrast, Jesus is talking about His identity in John 10. The conversation starts with "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." In other words, "What is your true identity?" Jesus replied that His miracles confirm His identity. In v. 28, He puts Himself in the exact position as God ("no one can snatch them out of His hand"). Then He puts Himself in the exact position as God (Jn. 5.21) and the Spirit (Jn. 6.63) as the giver of life.

In V. 29 Jesus acknowledges the role of the Father as the underwriter of the security Christ offers. Jesus can grant security because the Father has given them to Jesus. In that arrangement, their security is unquestionable and unassailable.

“Greatness” has a wide range of possible meanings: (1) spatially larger (measure: greater height; greater size), (2) larger number (quantity), (3) greater intensity (a great calm, for instance, a great deed), (4) higher rank or dignity, (5) greater power, (6) greater importance, (7) more extraordinary, (8) older. (9) more deserving of honor.

That the Father is superior to Jesus is not a point that Jesus has been making nor a concept He has been developing. He has been clear that the Father has a particular role to play, and the Son, in turn, also has a particular role to play. He has also been clear that He and the Father are one (Jn. 1.1; 10.30; 14.9).

Jesus’s points about the Father have been (1) His love for the world 3.16, (2) He enables people to do good deeds 3.21, (3) He deserves worship and honor 4.23-24; 5.23, 12.28, (4) He is always at work 5.17, 36, (5) raises the dead and gives life 5.21-30; 6. 33 et al., (6) Has sent and approves of the Son 6.27, 45. The main points are that the Father draws people to Himself to give them salvation, He gives people life through the Son, and He sent the Son to reveal Himself.

What then did Jesus mean by “the Father is greater”? This verse is a re-cap of vv. 1-4: I am going away; I am coming back; you should not be troubled but be glad; I am going to the Father. Then Jesus emphasizes his own uniqueness and his own status: Jesus is the preparer, the way, the truth, the life, the revelation of the Father, the one who is “in” the Father, etc. The Father is the home owner (2), the goal and destination (6), the One at work (10), the sender (16, 25).

What we have is a scene of equality in essence but distinction in activity (in their roles). When Jesus says “the Father is greater than I,” He can mean nothing other than during Jesus’s incarnation, the Father has a role as Sender that outranks Jesus’s role as the One sent.

Then we get to v. 30. Jesus and the Father are not the same person, but they are one in essence and nature. He uses the term ἕν (hen). Robertson comments, "Not one person, which would be 'heis,' but one in essence or nature, not merely of will or of power. If he meant separate persons he would have used the plural. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own unique Father (John 5.18). Jesus then admitted and proved the claim (John 5.19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (Jn. 17.11, 21)." Identity is not asserted, but essential unity is. These two belong together. The statement doesn’t go beyond the opening words of this Gospel, but it can stand with them. It is another statement that puts Jesus Christ with God rather than with people.

If His followers misunderstood Him, so that the record is a warped and erroneous picture of what He really said, there is no point in discussing the person of Christ at all because there is no secure basis for any argument. So we have to go with the idea that the disciples understood Him and represented Him accurately.

The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (v. 33), so they understood Him perfectly well: He was claiming to be God.