At Dustin Martyr, theologian Dr. Dustin Smith gives a forceful critique of Bart Ehrman’s appeal to “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) to show that the Gospel of John presents Jesus either as God himself, or as “equal to God” (where this doesn’t imply that he’s God himself).
…this is disappointing… because even the most conservative scholars of Johannine literature don’t interpret John 10:30 as if Jesus is claiming coequality with God. In fact, that particular argument has for a long time been dropped from christological arguments over the content of the Fourth Gospel.
Is Dr. Ehrman reading John more traditionally than evangelicals and Catholics now do?
Note that if Smith is right, then verse in question is neutral about whether or not Jesus “is God” in John. One has to read that book as a whole unit to grasp the author’s meaning.
More How Jesus Became God coverage here.
John 10:28-29 alludes to Deuteronomy 32:39 (LXX)
John 10:28-29 interpret John 10:30.
P1: God alone gives life and has a powerful hand (Deut. 32:39)
P2: The Son gives life (Jn. 10:28)
P3: No one can snatch the sheep out of the hand of both the Father and the Son (Jn. 10:28-29).
C1: The Father and the Son have one or the same power [ability] (Jn. 10:30). Deuteronomy 32:39 amplifies the claim of Jesus as God’s equal in function.
Later discussions and debates would construed it also as an equality of essence which I do believe has merit because how could someone function as divine without divine nature but this I think is a weak argument as divine agency could explain it so.Rather, we ought to interpret John 10:28-30 in light of Deuteronomy 32:39 which offers the strongest case in asserting ontological equality of the Father and the Son due to the inclusio of ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? (“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me.”)
Yeah, Ehrman really missed mark on that one, just as he did with John 8:58. It’s like the Christo-exegetical part of his brain is still imprisoned at Moody.
Hi Dale
Trinitarians have ,in the past, played a rather deceitful game when it comes to scriptures describing people as being ‘one’
I first encountered the problem when considering 1 John 5 verses 7 and 8… in the KJV Bible.
InKJV verse 7 we have the word ‘hen’ translated as ‘are one’
In KJV verse 8 uses the word ‘hen’ to describe ‘agree in one’
We know ,of course, that 1 John 5 v 7 was a fraudulent insertion which has been removed from most modern bibles.
Trinitarians have traditionally used John 10 v 30 as a ‘proof verse’
“ego kai ho pater hen esmen’
“I and the Father one are”
In this case the word ‘hen’ is used to denote ‘one’ but this does not denote numriical identity.
“hen ‘ is a neuter word used to signify ‘oneness of purpose’ – as we have already seen in 1 John 5 v8
in the KJV which is now 1 John 5 v 7 in modern Bibles.
Thus we see ‘hen’ used –
1 Corinthians 3 v 8 ” the one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose (hen)
John 17 v 22 ” so that we may be one was we are one (hen)
Philippians 2 v2 ” united in faith with a single purpose (hen)
If the author had wished to denote that Christ and the Father share numerical identity the Coine Greek has a specific word to describe such a situation.
“heis’ is a masculine word and a ‘counting number’
In 1 Corinthians 9 v 24 we see “do you not know that the runners in a stadium run a race but ONLY ONE (heis) wins the prize.
The author of John 10 v30 clearly intended to show that Christ and The Father shared a common purpose.
Dale, there is NOT A SINGLE verse in the Bible which supports a Trinity..or explicitly states that Jesus is God..
The commonly proferred examples all have linguistic , textual or contextual problems.
Every Blessing
John
Comments are closed.