In Part I of this series, I summarized three theologically distinct interpretations of John 10:30: that Jesus and the Father are one in person (the usual Oneness Pentecostal view), that they are one in power (the usual Trinitarian view), and that they are one in purpose (a view held by many anti-Trinitarians). I then critiqued the one in person view. In this post, I will present arguments in favor of the Trinitarian view that Jesus is claiming to be one in divine power indeed, one God with the Father.

I have summarized the contextual evidence in Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), authored with Ed Komoszewski:

In context, Jesus has just claimed to do his works in the name of the Father (v. 25), to be the Shepherd of the sheep (v. 26), to give eternal life to them (v. 27), and to prevent anyone from snatching them out of his hand, just as the Father does (vv. 28-29; cf. Deut. 32:39). He then concludes that in asserting these divine prerogatives, he is claiming, I and the Father are one (John 10:30) (p. 239).

It might help if I elaborate a bit on the argument here. First of all, in the immediate context of John 10:30, Jesus appropriates to himself a divine title (Shepherd ), claims to perform a divine work (namely, giving eternal life), and asserts that he has divine ability to prevent any hostile force from turning any of his people against him. In this short passage, we see three of the five kinds of evidence for the deity of Christ that Ed and I present in our book: the attributes, names, and deeds of God that Jesus shares. (That Jesus receives honors due to God is implicit in Jesus’ description of the sheep as those who believe and follow him, though this may not be as clear as the other elements.) It is the convergence or synergy of these elements applying to Jesus Christ in the same close context that makes such a strong case for regarding this passage as speaking of him as God. For example, although the title shepherd can apply to all sorts of creatures without implying any divinity (literal shepherds, of course, but also Israelite kings and other leaders), its use in this context of attributing to Jesus divine power and divine works carries it outside these more mundane categories of connotation.

What clinches the argument is the fact that Jesus makes these claims using language that clearly takes the words of YHWH, the LORD God, in the Old Testament, and applies them to himself:

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39 ESV).

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 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" (John 10:28-29 ESV).

YHWH says, "make alive"; Jesus says, "I give eternal life." YHWH says, "and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" ; Jesus says, "and no one will snatch them out of my hand . . . and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." The Hebrew word massil can be translated either "snatch" or "deliver" ; in Deuteronomy 32:39, where YHWH emphasizes that he kills as well as makes alive, the word actually has both meanings. No one can snatch out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to make alive, and no one can deliver out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to kill. In John 10:28-29, Jesus is focusing strictly on his divine power to give life, and so John quotes him using the Greek word harpazein, "to snatch." Thus, a close analysis of the two texts makes it clear that John 10:28-29 uses the wording of Deuteronomy 32:39 to express the claim that Jesus does what God does in preserving those whom he gives eternal life.

A standard strategy used by anti-Trinitarians to escape the force of passages like this one is to claim that it indicates merely that God is able to delegate responsibilities to his trusted, created agent. However, the allusion to Deuteronomy 32:39 precludes this explanation. The whole point of Deuteronomy 32:39 is that YHWH alone is able to kill and give life as he chooses; it is he alone from whose hand no one is able to snatch or deliver. "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me." This is an explicit affirmation of monotheism, a rejection of the notion that there is any divine being that can do what YHWH alone does. Indeed, this statement in Deuteronomy 32:39 is one of the most explicit and emphatic assertions of monotheism in the entire Pentateuch (see also Deut. 4:35, 39).

Now Jesus’ statement, "The Father and I are one," comes into a shocking new focus. In verses 28-29 Jesus has just taken one of the most explicitly monotheistic statements from Deuteronomy and applied it to himself, including himself with the Father in its affirmation. Now, in verse 30, Jesus asserts, "I and the Father are one." In light of what Jesus has just said, it is evident that he is here including himself with the Father in another Deuteronomic affirmation of monotheism, the famous Shema: "Hear, O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is one"(Deut. 6:4). As I pointed out in Part I, John quotes Jesus’ statement using the neuter form hen instead of the masculine form heis (which is the form used in the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 6:4). In doing so, John wards off the possible misunderstanding that Jesus is claiming to be the same person as the Father. Yet the allusion to the Shema remains: Jesus has just claimed divine status in a deliberate allusion to one of the explicitly monotheistic statements of Deuteronomy, and in this context his assertion that he and the Father are one is clearly another claim that he is to be included in the identity of the God of Jewish monotheism.

Let me review. In John 10:25-30, Jesus claims at once a divine name or title (Shepherd), a divine prerogative or deed (to give eternal life as he chooses), and the divine attribute of the sovereign power to prevent anyone from snatching his people out of his hand. Jesus makes these claims using language taken from one of the most explicitly monotheistic texts of Deuteronomy. His claim to be one with the Father must be understood in this context as a claim to have the same divine name, perform the same divine deed, and possess the same divine power, as God himself. It is a claim that Jesus, the Son, is to be included in the identity of the one Lord God of Israel, while maintaining a personal distinction between himself and the Father.

In the remainder of this series, I will examine objections to this argument, specifically those objections that supposedly establish that Jesus is only claiming to be "one in purpose" with the Father.

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is in financial need. Please consider a small (or large!) tax-deductable donation. Thanks for visiting!

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

You may be surprised to know that my series of blogs this week was inspired by Roger Olson, a man I respect very deeply. Although I don’t agree with him on many theological issues concerning salvation and theology proper, his scholarship, winsome writing style, and clarity about the importance of understanding theology irenically and historically have deeply impacted my thought and general approach to theological issues. Olson is a professor of theology at Truitt Theological Seminary. I use his textbook Mosaic of Christian Belief in The Theology Program. We had him as a guest on Converse with Scholars just a few months ago to discuss his book on Arminian theology. The primary reason why I appreciate Olson is because he often represents balance and calmness in theological issues. If you are in my profession, these traits are hard to find.

This is why I was surprised to read his response to John Piper about Minnesota bridge collapse. I did not find the Olson that I have come to know and love. Their was hardly an irenic word on the page. It was as if he had never heard of Calvinism’s belief in the sovereignty of God. His comments were defensive and very emotionally charged. Granted, he is an Arminian who does not agree with the tendencies in Calvinism to see God as one who is in charge of all things, even the most atrocious events of evil. This is understandable. While I disagree with Olson on this issue, it is not this disagreement that encouraged me to write the “Do ____ _____ and I have the Same God?” series. It was Olson’s implication that the God of Calvinism (my God) and the God of Arminianism (his God) might be different. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I am sure that most of you are not quite as familiar with Clark Pinnock as you are with Joel Osteen. Seeing as how the conversation concerning the possible distinction between Osteen’s God and my God was quite popular and produced some good reflection, I thought that I would take it to the next level and ask the same question about Clark Pinnock. Do Clark Pinnock and I worship the same God?

Clark Pinnock is an advocate of what has popularly become known as “Open Theism” (sometimes “Neotheism” or “free-will theism”). Open theism is a theological system which surfaced within evangelicalism in the mid-nineties. Essentially, it reinterprets the nature of God. Where in Classical Theism God is eternal and unchanging, in Open Theism God is bound by time and can change. Being timebound limits His knowledge according to Open Theists. Yes, God remains omniscient (all-knowing), but only in the sense that He knows only that which can be known. The future cannot be known, therefore God does not know the future. Hense the future is “open” to God. It is not settled. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

What a presumptuous question, right? The presumption is in the fact that I would even pose such a question. The question itself presumes that I might answer in the negative. What is wrong with you Michael? Why take off your irenic t-shirt with the quote from Rodney King on the back? Why do you now shod the polemic boots of battle? What would possess you to ask such a question?

Calm down. It is just a question. But your are right. The presumption behind the question does evidence my uncertainty as to its answer. I was listening to Osteen last night. He was very pleasant and had a lot of nice things to say. For the most part, except for his interjections of the word ”God” here and there, his speech was a typical motivational speech. He did not use the Bible, but he attempted to give the impression that he was. He held it in his hand the entire time. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler have recently edited an important book on the relationship of Jesus to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology will be an outstanding follow-up volume for those of you who study the evidence for the deity of Christ that Rob Bowman and I have amassed in Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Once you’ve got a solid grasp on the fact of Jesus’ divine identity, you’ll want to spend some time wrestling with how that fact fits into a larger Trinitarian framework. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Dear Atheist,

Having discussed this with you for quite some time, it would seem that we have come to an impasse in our conclusions concerning the evidence that the universe provides. I, on one hand, have argued that the intricacies of the universe from cosmology and biology compel any honest observer to the conclusion that there is a self-existent, all-powerful, intelligent, and personal force behind its genesis. This creator must be self-existent, otherwise we enter into the irrational proposition of infinite regress. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I understand the importance that the modern church is placing upon the mystery of God and His truth. I realize that the church has fought so many battles on the island of modernism that it began to embrace the methodology, ethos, and assumptions that made modernism dangerous and antithetical in many ways to the Christian worldview. Apophatic theology (theology that emphasizes mystery) has gained a well deserved and needed place within our “emerging” system of theological development. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I recieved this very good question from a student today and thought I would share:

The Christian faith goes beyond reason but never contradictory to reason…or rationality.The Question: