I And My Father Are "One."

Very often, I dare say in nearly all debates about the trinity, the passage in John 10:30 is always brought up by the pro-trinity side. This is the famous "I and my Father are one" quote, which understandably would seem to affirm the idea of the trinity at face value. And while yes this could be the case in a vacuum, the passage, however, does not exist in a vacuum. Within it's own context there is an entire discussion, with a challenge and response and even an explanation from the Master himself later in the discussion which gives a much clearer picture of the entire set of statements that many trinitarians tend to erroneously lean on.

In the following article, I plan to dissect the passage surrounding the John 10:30 statement in order to better illustrate its clear meaning. Unfortunately, many English translators have been inadvertently misleading the reader with their interpretive choices. I say "inadvertently" because I do not believe that the translators are attempting to be dishonest with the passage, however, because the translators tend to themselves be trinitarian, their own bias has led them to interpret the body of the passage for you in a very trinitarian way, while the Greek by itself does not overtly indicate a trinitarian doctrine within itself.

So, as we cover the text, I will be going over the Greek to help clarify how the Greek by itself reads. Additionally, I hope to explain the logic and flow of the arguments presented in the passage, which I believe internally show that the passage is not a trinitarian one.

8 Lights, Camera, Action.

The passage begins in John 10:22, when Yeshua appears to be at the temple mount during the holiday of Chanukah. As the passage reads:

Then the Festival of Dedication^[c] took place in Jerusalem, and it was winter. ²³ Jesus was walking in the temple complex in Solomon’s Colonnade. -HCSB

The HCSB includes footnote [c] which reads "Or Hanukkah, also called the Feast of Lights; this festival commemorated the rededication of the temple in 164 b.c."

I think John including this detail is not a passing trivial fact but is an important detail to the context. Chanukah caries strong messianic themes. The story of Chanukah in Jewish thought parallels the book of Daniel as well as the story of Joseph and alludes to a reflection of the messianic age to come. The restoration of Israel and the rebuilding/rededicating of the temple and restoring the Davidic monarchy. Jesus leaves the Galilee to come and celebrate this holiday, which the Mishnah tells us was in fact celebrated in this time, but the details of its exact celebration are taken for granted and the Mishnah does not say how it was celebrated, only that it was.

Drawing on the obvious messianic ties of the holiday and Yeshua's growing popularity, he gets surrounded and asked to admit in public that he claims to be the messiah.

Then the Jews surrounded Him and asked, “How long are You going to keep us in suspense? If You are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” -John 10:24 HCSB

That last word translated as "plainly" is the Greek word "parresia" which means "openly" or "publicly". They wanted him to admit this publicly. In another article "Who Killed Jesus?", I illustrate an important point, which is that up till his "trial" Jesus never publicly claimed to be the messiah. And for good reason.

During this time, under Roman rule, messianic claimants were fairly common, and most of them started revolts against the Romans. So the Romans began squashing these revolts before they got started, by killing any messianic claimants under the charge of treason, working with the appointed Sadducees (loyal to Rome) to help them achieve this as well. [1]

This explains why when Yeshua performed miracles he very often asked people not to tell anybody. More to the point, he only ever admitted this information to a select few individuals and privately. When he told his disciples, he specifically instructed them:

“And he gave the disciples orders to tell no one that he was the Messiah.” -Matthew 16:20 HCSB

It appears that those surrounding Yeshua in this passage are trying to entrap him, getting him to publicly admit his claims to Messiah and then they could arrest him for sedition against Rome. And what better day to try and prevent a possible uprising against Rome than to demolish the morale of the people by killing another popular leader who claims to be the messiah than during Chanukah. The Romans surely would be keeping their ear in on this kind of activity and this conversation.

The "Jews"

What is interesting about this passage (and really the entire Gospel of John) is that the Romans are not mentioned here. In the aforementioned article, I clarify that it was the Sadducees who wanted Jesus dead, and not the Pharisees, and that the Sadducees were under Roman control and specifically charged with putting out possible rebellions and turning over messianic claimants to the Roman authorities to be put to death for treason.

The problem is the passage does not mention the Sadducees at all. The passage simply reads "the Jews". However, I believe John is talking about the Sadducees here. The entire Gospel of John actually fails to mention the Sadducees entirely, very often seeming to opt for the phrase "the Jews" in places that appear to be the Sadducees. [2]

For example, we know that the Sadducees are in control of the temple operations during this time, and so most of the Jewish authorities and a majority of the Sanhedrin are Roman appointed Sadducees. When Yeshua drives out the money changers in the Temple, he is confronted by "the Jews" which is very likely the temple authorities, which are the priests, who are Sadducees.

In this case we know for a fact that Yeshua is present at the Temple, as we covered above, and this detail is important for the context. It appears that "the Jews" in this case are the very same temple authorities which are the Sadducees. It very well could be the case also that many members of the Sanhedrin (a majority Sadducees) could be present as well. More on this later.

The point here is it appears that the Sadducees are looking for a reason to try and arrest Yeshua here and now, and they will use any good reason to do so. Any reason at all.

"The Father and I Are One."

Knowing that the Sadducees are simply looking for an excuse to get rid of Yeshua, let us continue the passage:

"I did tell you and you don’t believe,” Jesus answered them. “The works that I do in My Father’s name testify about Me." -John 10:25 HCSB

Yeshua of course did not literally tell them already, as we have discussed. Yeshua clarifies that his works that he does in his Father's name are his way of telling people who he is without needing to say it out loud.

But you don’t believe because you are not My sheep. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. -John 10:26-27 HCSB

Here Yeshua continues to say that those who recognize him as the messiah would of course do so naturally as being part of his flock. He does not need to say out loud that he is messiah, the works he does in his Father's name is the testimony, and those who recognize that are "part of the flock" so to speak.

The next statement seems to really insult the Sadducees.

 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

First of all, Sadducees do not believe in an afterlife, at all. So this alone would anger the Sadducees, but additionally, Yeshua seems to indicate here that the Sadducees do not have salvation at all. In summary this passage is Yeshua saying "you are not my sheep, and therefore you do not have eternal life."

Yeshua's language here is also quite shocking to any listener. Yeshua seems to indicate that he has a very unique relationship with the Father in such a way that Yeshua holds the power of judgement. Yeshua here indicates that this power was delegated to him by the Father. ("My Father, who has given them to me...")

It's worth pointing out also that Yeshua says "G-d is greater than all" in this "kal vchomer" style argument. Kal vchomer arguments are a common Pharisee style of logic which draw conclusions from a lesser example to explain the more extreme example. (If "A" is true in this lesser example/case, than it is also true("how much more so") in this greater example/case "B"). In this kal vchomer Yeshua says that nobody can snatch them (his sheep) out of his hand. And his Father, who has given him this authority and who is greater than all (including himself, as Yeshua himself says later "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28) nobody can snatch them out of G-d's hand.

So far his argument is "G-d has given me the authority to save, and G-d and I are in perfect agreement, unified in our protection and promises to the flock."

Yeshua concludes this argument with the now famous phrase:

The Father and I are one. -John 10:30 HCSB

In it's direct context we can clearly see that Yeshua is saying they are "one" in purpose, and in mission. But this episode is not over yet.

Ye are gods

Christian Trinitarian apologists often cite the following narrative as proof that he just claimed to be G-d in that final statement. And in the English this certainly seems to be the case at first glance.

Again the Jews picked up rocks to stone Him.³² Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. Which of these works are you stoning Me for?”³³ “We aren’t stoning You for a good work,” the Jews answered, “but for blasphemy, because You—being a man—make Yourself God.” -John 10:31-33 HCSB

The response to stone him is also a strong indicator that Yeshua is likely talking to members of the Sanhedrin, since only an official ruling of the Sanhedrin could render a sentence to stoning based on allegations of blasphemy.

Initially Yeshua seems to be confused. "Which of these works are you stoning me for?" Yeshua does not initially understand why what he just said warranted a stoning, so far he has not committed any blasphemy. His argument at best would put him the category of a prophet or at worst claiming to be the messiah. Perhaps these Sadducees are going to attempt the stoning based on the messianic precedent. They have been trying to get a confession out of him after all.

Their reply again seems to be on the side of the trinitarian, however the Greek original does not read the way it is rendered in most translations.

In Greek, certain proper nouns will be accompanied by a definite article in order to make a clear indication as to the subject. This means that typically speaking the Greek will place the definite article before the word "theos" in order to clearly indicate when "theos" is talking about THE G-d. The reason for this is because "theos" by itself just means "divine" or "god/gods"(lower case G). Since Greek does not have the indefinite article "a" (as in "a" god) the lack of the definite article implies the "a" unless otherwise specified. [3]

Now again this is not always the case, in instances which the definite article is not needed because the primary subject is obvious it will not always be present. But I must stress that the context must dictate that the subject being THE G-d is already so obvious that it is unquestionable in order for the Greek to leave out the article. There are times even where the context still seems obvious enough and yet they still include the article just to be on the safe side.

In this passage the lack of the article is on purpose not because it's obviously talking about G-d, rather it is the other way around. The context makes it obvious that the accusation is NOT that Yeshua claiming to be G-d. It is obvious by Yeshua's retort and Yeshua's later use of the definite article in his closing statement where he draws a clear distinction between him and G-d.

Let's look at the Greek for the phrase "because You—being a man—make Yourself God."

ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν

Notice the lack of the article before "theon." This verse can just as easily be rendered "because you, being a man, make yourself divine."[4] Which makes the most contextual sense when we read Yeshua's counter to this.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε

Jesus answered them, `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods? -John 10:34 YLT

This retort is a quotation from Psalm 82:6 which reads.

ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες

I said, “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. -Psalm 82:6 NASB

This Psalm is, coincidentally enough, about the Sanhedrin (some of which may be standing before Yeshua now). G-d speaking to the judges of the assembly says to them "you are all gods, sons of the Most High." Lacking the definite article we can see that "theos" here in this context is utilizing the wider semantic range of the word for "divine" and is clearly not G-d calling the Judges "The" G-d. Since Greek does not have the indefinite article "a" (as in "a" god) the lack of the definite article implies the "a" unless otherwise specified.[3]

The fact that this is Yeshua's rebuttal tells us exactly which definition of "theos" the accusers were using. Otherwise, the retort is incoherent and irrelevant. They accused him of being divine and Yeshua responds, "aren't you also divine?" If Yeshua is claiming to be G-d here, it does not make sense for him to answer back with telling the Sadducees that they are also G-d. This would simply just be entirely untrue, and the Master is not a liar.

Moreover Yeshua seems to be drawing on an ancient Midrash on this Psalm. In Exodus Rabbah 32:7 it is said that G-d called all of Israel at Sinai "you are all gods, sons of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6). However, because of the sin of the golden calf "you will die like mortals." (Psalm 82:7). This implies that originally the title "gods" was meant for all Israel at one point in time, now only reserved for a select few. The same is true for the "nation of priests" title as well. Yeshua is clearly drawing on accepted Jewish concepts that are just as clearly not a statement of deity, but could just as easily be applied to any "child of G-d." [5]

The argument continues:

εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή

If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified),

I have highlighted yellow in the Greek where the definite article appears before "theos" to show that in this use of the word it is "The" G-d. The green shows the same word "theos" without the article and how it is "gods" correspondingly.

As we see from the Greek, Yeshua's argument is that the judges (and likely the members of the Sanhedrin to whom he is speaking) are called divine/gods by "The" G-d himself.

ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς ὅτι εἶπον υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι

are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? -John 10:36 NASB

Here too we see the article before "theos" in the phrase "I am the son of G-d."

In summary: Are you calling me (Yeshua), whom the Father sent, a blasphemer because I called myself G-d's son? Which is a title that G-d also gave to you in Psalm 82:6 when he called you divine and sons of the Most High?"

Yeshua's retort is essentially "you're trying to arrest me for saying something that you're also allowed to say? For saying something that G-d himself said we are allowed to say?"

What Nobody Is Talking About

The fact that at no point in this encounter does Yeshua try to defend himself as having claimed to be "The" G-d shows that this was not the argument in question even from the Sadducees. Yeshua instead focuses on the use of the more general word "theos" and tries to turn the accusation back onto the accusers, since the accusation is a moot point.

Put another way: The accusers say "you claim to be theos" to which Yeshua responds "I am just as much theos as you all are."

Does that sound like an argument for claiming to be "The" G-d? Or perhaps does it sound more like an argument for claiming to have divine authority? Being that Psalm 82 is about having divine authority, it is far more likely given the context that this is Yeshua's primary point. The Father gave him divine authority and his sheep will recognize that. The Sadducees do not recognize that and are therefore offended by the notion as well as seeking to have him killed for treason. Claiming to have divine authority is as good as treason enough for the Sadducees to attempt to move in on him and seize him.

They would fail this time.

The Meaning of "One"

The truth is that Jesus used this phrase often, and specifically in John's Gospel. John seems to have written his material with this theme in mind, constantly recalling the idea of "oneness" with the father in the sense of unity in purpose and mission. let us take a few example from within the book to illustrate this point.

Praying over his disciples before his death, Yeshua says:

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. -John 17:21 NASB

This is an exact echo of his words from before in our passage of focus, John 10:38. Speaking to his accusers still he says:

but if I do them (good works), even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” -John 10:38 NASB (Parenthesis mine)

So as we can see here the phrase "the Father is in me and I in the Father" is not a unique claim to deity either. In his prayer he desires that his disciples would also be "one" and "in the Father" in the exact same way that Yeshua is "one" and "in the Father."

The glory which You have given Me I also have given to them, so that they may be one, just as We are one; ²³ I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me. -John 17:22-23 NASB

It is clear from the internal context that this "unity" Yeshua speaks of is one of purpose and mission. As an inseparable submission of will and spiritual unity with G-d, the kind of unity that he desired his disciple to have as well.[5] Trinitarians often posit that the phrase "I and the Father are one" is a claim to deity, however, if this is the case, then we must also say that Yeshua desired that his disciples would become deities as well, co-equal to the Father. This is obviously not the case.

Remember, Yeshua wants his disciples to be "perfectly one" (or "completely one" as the HCSB translates it) in exactly the same way that he and the Father are "one".

Conclusion

If we allow the scripture to define itself, it is clear that here in John 10 Yeshua in no way claims to be G-d in the flesh. Only English translations lend to this interpretation, and mostly because of course the translators are themselves trinitarian. This being the case I would like to offer my own elucidated translation of the passage in order to better understand what is going on in the passage in one clean spot here:

The bold text is the original translation, everything not in bold is my own elucidations.

Then the Festival of Chanukah took place in Jerusalem, and it was winter. ²³ Jesus was walking in the temple complex in Solomon’s Colonnade. ²⁴ Then the Sadducees/temple authorities surrounded Him and asked, “How long are You going to keep us in suspense? If You are the Messiah, tell us publicly.” {So they can arrest him for treason}

²⁵ “I did "tell" you and you don’t believe,” Jesus answered them. “The works that I do in My Father’s name testify about Me. ²⁶ But you don’t believe because you are not My sheep. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. ³⁰ The Father and I are unified in this mission.”

³¹ Again the Jews picked up rocks to stone Him.

³² Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. Which of these works are you stoning Me for?”

³³ “We aren’t stoning You for a good work,” the Sadducees/temple authorities answered, “but for blasphemy, because You—being a man—make yourself a divine authority.”

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your Torah, "I said, you are divine? [sons of the Most High]" ³⁵ If He called those judges (whom the word of God came to) ‘divine authority/[sons of the Most High]’—and the Scripture cannot be broken— ³⁶ how can you say ‘You are blaspheming’ to me (the one the Father set apart and sent into the world), because I said: "I am the Son of God"? ³⁷ If I am not doing My Father’s works, don’t believe Me. ³⁸ But if I am doing them and you don’t believe Me, believe the works. This way you will know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Father (In complete agreement).” ³⁹ Then they were trying again to seize Him, yet He eluded their grasp.

-John 10:21-39 HCSB Elucidated

---

[1] Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judea: The Origins of the Jewish Revold Against Rome, A.D. 66-70. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

[2] Cornelius Bennema, The Identiry of oi Ioudaioi In the Gospel of John (Tyndale Bulletin 60, no. 2, 2009) p239-263

[3] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) p266-269.

[4] Sarah Ruden, The Gospels: A New Translation. (New York: Modern Library, 2021) p296

[5] D. Thomas Lancaster, The Chronicles of the Messiah (USA: First Fruits of Zion, 2014) p1038-1040