Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:30

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 10:30” utilice nuestra app.

I and [my] Father are one.

30. I and my Father are one ] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one. Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Rev 20:6; Rev 22:3.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

I and my Father are one – The word translated one is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were united in the same object that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this remark. Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and others. Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:

The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils that is, that he had supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to omnipotence.
The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy Joh 10:31, Joh 10:33, and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, Joh 10:33.
Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes at Joh 10:34-37.
He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner, Joh 10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 30. I and my Father are one.] If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and MY Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and THE Father, – the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh – are ONE, ONE in nature, ONE in all the attributes of Godhead, and ONE in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh 17:11; Joh 17:22.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

My Father and I are one, not only in counsel and will, (as Joh 17:11,22, and believers are said to be of one heart, Act 4:32), but in nature, power, and essence; for it is plain that our Saviour here ascribes the preservation of his sheep, not to the will, but to the power of his Father: None is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. And it is plain by what follows, that the Jews thus understood our Saviour. Some eminent protestant interpreters expound this of a oneness in consent and will, doing the same things, and driving the same design, both agreeing to preserve the sheep unto eternal life; but (with all respect unto them) I think the context implies more, though this be not excluded.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

30. I and my Father are oneOurlanguage admits not of the precision of the original in this greatsaying. “Are” is in the masculine gender”we(two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter“onething.” Perhaps “one interest” expresses,as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to besome contradiction between His saying they had been given by HisFather into His own hands, out of which they could not beplucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of HisFather’s hands, as if they had not been given out of them.”Neither have they,” says He; “though He hasgiven them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands aseverthey cannot be, and when given to Me they are not,given away from Himself; for HEAND I HAVE ALL IN COMMON.”Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is notthe precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of whatis affirmed, without which it would not be true. And AUGUSTINEwas right in saying the “We are” condemns theSabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons inthe Godhead), while the “one” (as explained)condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

I and [my] Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, “I and [my] Father”, , “we are one”; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father’s hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father’s, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him. The Jew p objects, that

“if the sense of this expression is, that the Father and the Son are one, as the Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself destroys this saying, as it is written in Mr 13:32, for saith Jesus, “that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only”; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son does not know what the Father knows.”

But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the son of man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosom of his Father, and was privy to all his secrets, to all his thoughts, purposes, and designs; and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God omniscient; and in this respect is one with the Father, having the same perfections of power, knowledge, c. but then as the son of man, he is not of the same nature, and has not the same knowledge his knowledge of things was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reach to all things at once, but was capable of being increased, as it was: and it is with regard to him as the son of man, that Jesus speaks of himself in Mr 13:32; whereas he is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power; wherefore considered in the relation of the Son of God, and as possessed of the same perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no contradiction between the words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor is he chargeable with any blasphemy against God, or any arrogance in himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests; nor is what he produces from a Socinian writer, of any moment, that these words do not necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son are of the same essence; since it may be said of two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man, and the other another; for we do not say they are one and the same person, which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that they are one God, and two distinct persons.

p Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 50. p. 438, 439.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

One (). Neuter, not masculine (). Not one person (cf. in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (Joh 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (John 17:11; John 17:21). Note used in 1Co 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in John 17:11; John 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

One [] . The neuter, not the masculine eiv, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “I and my Father,” (ego kai ho pater) “I exist and the Father,” who sent me, Gal 4:4-5; Joh 3:17; Joh 20:21; from whose companionship Jesus came down from heaven, Joh 16:27-28.

2) “Are one.” (en esmen) “One we are,” or we exist as one in essence of being, purpose and power, Joh 14:9; Joh 15:23-24; Joh 17:21-24. This should settle the issue of Christ’s Divinity, unless one believes that Jesus was a deceiver and here spoke to deceive, lied to deceive. Had He done such, He would not be the truth or Holy one, Joh 14:6; Heb 7:26.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

30. 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.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(30) I and my Father are one.The last clause of Joh. 10:29 is identical with the last clause of Joh. 10:28 if we identify Fathers with My. This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for one is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. The Son is of one substance with the Father. In the plural are there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the one there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel instance in Joh. 8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the words conveyed but one meaning, and they sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God (Joh. 10:33).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

30. Are one One in will, but also one in power and surety. For it is upon this oneness of power and surety that the security of the believer’s salvation is grounded.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“I and the Father are one.”

‘One’ is not in the masculine but in the neuter, thus indicating that He does not mean one person. He and His Father always act in perfect unity. They act as one in everything they do. Thus when He protects His sheep, so does His Father. When He saves them, so does His Father. All their acts are in synchronism. While the stress is on their unity of action, however, this very fact demonstrates His unique status. Who, who was not divine in essence, could so synchronise with the Father? For as He has already stressed, those who have seen Him have seen the Father (Joh 14:7-9).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 10:30. I and my Father are one. The Arians affirm that the sense of this passage is, “My Father and I are the same, in power and in will; so that if you oppose my will, you oppose his; and if you take my sheep out of my hand, you must at the same time overcome him, and take them out of his hand likewise.” But if we attend, not only to the obvious meaning of these plain and strong words compared with other passages of scripture, but to their connection also, and the sense in which the Jews evidently took them, they utterly subvert the whole Arian scheme, and so fully demonstrate the Divinityof our blessed Redeemer, that they may be fairly left to speak for themselves, without any laboured comment. How widely different that sense is in which Christians are said to be one with God, Ch. Joh 17:21 will sufficiently appear by considering how flagrantlyabsurd and blasphemous it would be to draw that inference from their union with God, which Christ does from his. St. Augustin has well observed, that this is a very strong text to prove the divinity of Christ. “Mark in it, says he, both are, and one;and you will be safe as well from Scylla as Charybdis. ‘One’ delivers you from Arius, who denies the eternal divinity of Christ: ‘Are’ delivers you from Sabellius, who denies a distinction of persons in the godhead.” See for a proof of this same point, Isa 9:6. Jer 23:6. Mic 5:2.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 1666
CHRIST ONE WITH THE FATHER

Joh 10:30. I and my Father are one.

IT might well be expected, that, if God should reveal his will to man, there would be many things disclosed by him, which exceed the narrow limits of human reason. This might more particularly be expected in whatsoever related to his own person and character: for, as we can know nothing of him any farther than he is pleased to reveal himself to us; and as we cannot even comprehend our own nature, or discover how the soul is united to the body; it would be strange indeed if we could comprehend the mode of Gods existence, and explain how there should be an union of Three Persons in the God-head. In relation to such a mysterious subject, our wisdom is to ascertain what God has revealed concerning himself, and to receive it on the testimony of his word. This is the office of reason, as well as of faith: for reason requires, that we submit our understanding to the dictates of His wisdom, no less than our wills to the influence of His authority. That a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead is revealed, cannot reasonably be doubted, as long as the baptismal rite shall continue to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; for to imagine, that a creature is here associated with Almighty God in the highest possible act of divine worship, were the height of absurdity, and impiety. The subject before us relates only to the union subsisting between Christ and his Father: to that therefore we shall confine our attention. We begin with considering,

The truth of our Lords assertion.

Here mark,

The assertion itself

[Our Lord says, I and my Father are one. Now it must be remembered, that the same expressions are used, as in human compositions, so also in the Holy Scriptures, sometimes in a metaphorical and figurative sense, and sometimes in a plain and literal sense; and their true import must always be judged of by the context. This is particularly the case with respect to the expression before us; which is elsewhere used in reference to the saints, to mark the exalted state to which they are raised by their connexion with Christ, and the mutual interest which they should feel in each others concerns: I pray for them, that they 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. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I iu them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one [Note: Joh 17:20-23.]. Here the sense is obvious: no one could conceive for a moment that the union here spoken of is personal, as though the saints could be one person with God, or one person ill their collective capacity: it simply means, that the saints are to enjoy an union with God and with each other, as nearly resembling that which subsists between Christ and his Father, as their situation and circumstances will admit of, namely, an union of sentiment, of affection, of will, and of operation. But, in the passage under our consideration, more is evidently intended: in that is implied, not merely a figurative, but a real and personal union, an union of nature and of essence.

In proof of this, we must refer you to the whole scope of the passage. Our Lord is speaking of the security which his sheep enjoyed; that He gives unto them eternal life, and that they shall never perish, nor shall any one ever pluck them out of his hand. But, because he was speedily to be taken from them, and might therefore be supposed incapable of fulfilling this promise, he says, that his Father was confessedly greater than all created powers, yea, greater than he himself was in his human or Mediatorial capacity; and that none should ever be able to pluck them out of his Fathers hand. Yet, that they might know that he would not, on account of his removal from them, remit his care of them, he added, I and my Father are one; we are one, as in will, so in power; as in operation, so in nature and in essence: and consequently my sheep have a double pledge of their security.

This is the plain meaning of the passage; and that it is so, may be clearly seen from the construction which the Jews put upon his words. They took up stones immediately, to stone him: and when he inquired for which of all his good works they were about to stone him, they replied, that it was not for any good work, but for blasphemy; because that He, who was only a man like themselves, made himself God [Note: ver. 32, 33.]. Now this shews incontestably what meaning they affixed to his words: it was not an ignorant individual, or persons ill acquainted with the received import of the words, that so interpreted them; but the whole audience, who perfectly understood what meaning his expressions were suited to convey.

The Jews were taught by God himself to be particularly jealous on the subject of idolatry; and to put to death any person who should, whether openly or in secret, attempt to seduce them to it. When therefore they heard our Lord arrogate to himself divine honours, they resented it, as they had done repeatedly before, by taking up stones to stone him as a blasphemer [Note: Joh 5:17-18; Joh 8:58-59.]. We do not say, that they were right in expressing their abhorrence of idolatry in this way; because they should have had the matter examined before a magistrate, and have acted according to evidence, and not according to the impulse of their blind passions: but we do say, that Jesus was justly accused of blasphemy, if he was not God; and that there was just cause for the indignation which his audience expressed.

But perhaps they were mistaken in their construction of his words: in which case we may be assured that Jesus would carefully rectify their error. But do we find that he did disclaim the assertion which they called blasphemy? No;
In his answers to them we find only,]

His confirmation of it

[They had just complained that he kept them in suspense; and had desired that he would tell them plainly, who, and what, he was. He, in reply, declares that he had told them, and that they would not believe [Note: ver. 25.]. Had he told them that he was a mere man like themselves, the; would readily enough have believed that: but when he tells them again that he was one with his Father, they go about to stone him for blasphemy. Nevertheless, instead of revoking his word, he vindicates his claim; and establishes the justice of it by an appeal to the sacred writings. Magistrates, he tells them, were in the inspired volume frequently dignified with the name of gods [Note: Exo 7:1; Exo 22:28.]: and he refers them to one passage in particular, well known to them all, I have said, Ye are gods [Note: Psa 82:6.], Now these were called gods partly, because they were Jehovahs representatives and vice-gerents upon earth; and partly, because they were types of the Messiah, who was to be really and truly God, even Emmanuel, god with us [Note: Isa 7:14. Mat 1:23.], Now, says our Lord, if these persons, in order to prepare you for the reception of your incarnate God, were honoured with the name and title of gods, and you readily acquiesced in it, with what reason can you, when your incarnate God appears, accuse him of blasphemy, because he assumes that title, or calls himself by a name which you justly consider as equivalent to it? You are looking for your Messiah; and that Messiah is expressly foretold under the character of Jehovahs fellow [Note: Zec 13:7.], who is Davids Lord, as well as Davids Son [Note: Psa 110:1 with Mat 22:42-45.]: such therefore the Messiah must be; for the Scripture cannot be broken: why then do you not acknowledge the justice of my claim? If indeed I do not give evidence enough that I am the Messiah, you may justly dispute my title to be regarded as God; but if I do, then you are the blasphemers, who rob me of my proper honour. Know ye then, that I am the Person whom the Father hath sanctified and set apart from all eternity to the office, and now hath sent into the world to execute it: know also, that, instead of retracting any thing I have said, I repeat my assertions, and demand your acknowledgment of me in my true character,

Thus our Lord confirms his assertion by an appeal to Scripture. He next proceeds to confirm it by an appeal to his own works. I do not desire to be credited in such an assertion upon my bare unsupported word, without any corroborating evidence; says our Lord: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not: but, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him [Note: ver. 37, 38.]. Consider my works, both the matter, and the manner of them, and see if they do not justify every assertion I have made. Did ever man perform such miracles as I have done, so many, so great, so benevolent, so demonstrative of a divine agency? Moses indeed and the prophets wrought some few miracles: but how? they wrought them uniformly by application to Jehovah for the intervention of his power: but look at my miracles: on some occasions indeed, I also, acting in my mediatorial capacity, have acknowledged my dependence on him, and have acted in his name, as his servant [Note: Luk 11:41-43.]; (for as Mediator, I am his servant:) but, as being One with the Father, I have wrought in instances without number by that power and authority which I possess in common with the Father. Whence had I the power to still the elements as I have done [Note: Mar 4:39.]; or to expel Satan [Note: Mar 9:25.], or to raise the dead [Note: Mar 5:41. Luk 7:14.]? When the leper justly acknowledged my power to effect whatsoever I would; to whom was I indebted for power to heal him, when I said, I will, Be thou clean [Note: Mat 8:3.]?

Such an appeal as this was sufficient to convince the most incredulous: and it receives much additional light from the manner in which the Apostles wrought their miracles: they wrought them invariably in the name of Jesus [Note: Act 9:34; Act 16:18.]; and disclaimed all idea of any inherent power in themselves, or even of any goodness on account of which God had wrought by them; so fearful were they, lest by any means they should rob the Lord Jesus of the honour due unto his name [Note: Act 3:6; Act 3:12; Act 3:16. with 4:9, 10, 12.].

Shall it be said that our Lord did not mean in this appeal to assert his true and proper Godhead? Then see both his words, and the sense in which his enraged adversaries continued to understand them: Though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and T in him.Therefore they sought again to take him. Here are two things demonstrated; first, that his enemies understood him to affect equality with God: and next, that He, knowing that they did so understand him, renewed and confirmed the assertions which they had so interpreted. A clearer explanation of what he affirmed, or a stronger proof of what he is, we cannot reasonably desire.]

We are the more earnest in establishing the Divinity of our blessed Lord, because it is intimately connected with every fundamental truth of our holy religion.
To illustrate more fully the truth asserted, I proceed to mark,

II.

The incalculable importance of it

This truth established, we behold in the clearest light

The dignity of his person

[Because God condescended to take our nature upon him, we requite his love by denying him to be God. But know that Jesus Christ is indeed the true God [Note: 1Jn 5:20.], the mighty God [Note: Isa 9:6.], the great God and our Saviour [Note: Tit 2:13.], God over all, blessed for evermore [Note: Rom 9:5.]. He is the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of his person [Note: Heb 1:3.]; yea, in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily [Note: Col 2:9.]. Hear what he himself saith unto Philip: Philip, having heard him speaking of the Father, as actually known to his Disciples, and already seen by them, saith, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. To this Jesus replies, Have I been so long with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works sake [Note: Joh 14:7-11.]. Now, I ask, if Jesus had not been really one with the Father, would he have dared to use such language as this? And, if his Disciples were guilty of idolatry in worshipping him, was not the fault altogether his? Were not his words and his arguments expressly calculated to mislead and deceive them? But there is no room for doubt on this head. We never can entertain too high thoughts of him; nor can we ever honour him as we ought, unless we honour him, even as we honour the Father [Note: Joh 5:23.].]

The virtue of his sacrifice

[On the dignity of his person depends the whole value of his atonement. The Apostle justly observes, that it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin: and the same observation may with justice be applied to every creature, however exalted. But when we are assured that it was God who was manifest in the flesh [Note: 1Ti 3:16.], that it was the Lord of glory that was crucified [Note: 1Co 2:8.], and that it was God who purchased the Church with his own blood [Note: Act 20:28.], we no longer hesitate to declare that his death was a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world [Note: The Communion Service; and 1Jn 2:2.]. He was, it is true, in the form of a servant; but he was also in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God [Note: Php 2:6-8.]; and therefore we may be assured that his blood will cleanse us from all sin [Note: 1Jn 1:7.]. The ransom he has paid for us, is fully equal to the redemption of a ruined world: and the righteousness which he has wrought out for us by his obedience unto death, is all that is wanted for the justification of those who trust in it. The very name given him by the prophet declares this; for we are taught to call him, Jehovah our Righteousness [Note: Jer 33:16.]. Here then the weary and heavy-laden may find rest unto their souls ]

The sufficiency of his grace

[If Jesus were only a creature, those who trust in him might be addressed like the worshippers of Baal, Cry aloud, for he is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey; or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked [Note: 1Ki 18:27.]. He could not attend to the concerns of the whole universe at once; and therefore could not be a suitable object of our trust and confidence. But he is infinitely above all creatures, being King of kings, and Lord of lords [Note: Rev 19:16.]. He could truly say to Paul, and to every suppliant in the universe, My grace is sufficient for thee. Let not any one then despond, as though his corruptions were irremediable, or his enemies invincible; for God hath laid help for us upon One that is mighty [Note: Psa 89:19.]: and the weakest of the human race that relies on him, may confidently say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength [Note: Isa 45:24.]: The Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation [Note: Isa 12:2.]: The Lord is my shepherd; therefore can I lack nothing [Note: Psa 23:1.].]

The excellency of his salvation

[If we consider the price that has been paid, we may judge of the value of that redemption which has been purchased for us. Even in relation to the present life, we are told that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [Note: Isa 64:4. 1Co 2:9-10.]. Under whatever figure they are spoken of, they are represented as exceeding all human apprehension: the gift of them is unspeakable [Note: 2Co 9:15.]: the riches of them unsearchable [Note: Eph 3:8.]: the peace that is enjoyed by means of them, passeth understanding [Note: Php 4:7.]; and the joy which they produce, is unspeakable and glorified [Note: 1Pe 1:8.]: the love that bestowed them has a height and depth, and length and breadth that can never be explored [Note: Eph 3:18.]. Respecting the future life, we are still further from being able to appreciate the glories of it. The description of heaven, as a city paved with gold, and enriched with every thing magnificent or good, affords but a faint idea of that glorious place [Note: Rev 21:10-23.]; as the songs and music of its inhabitants very inadequately represent their blessedness and joy [Note: Rev 5:8-14; Rev 14:1-3.]. But this we know, that, both on earth and in heaven, the felicity of the saints shall be worthy of the sacrifice that was made to obtain it. Let not any one then seek it in a listless and lukewarm manner, as though it were of little value for it is a great salvation [Note: Heb 2:3.], which the tongues of men and angels can never worthily describe, nor can the ages of eternity suffice to enumerate its blessings.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

30 I and my Father are one.

Ver. 30. I and my Father are one ] Both for nature or essence, and for one consent, both in willing and working. Out of the harbour of Goodwin’s Sands the pilot cannot make forth, they say, without sinking in those sands, unless he so steer his ship, that he bring two steeples, which stand off, so even in his sight, that they may seem to be but one. So is it here.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

one. Greek hen. Neut., one in essence, not one person which would be heir, masculine. This is the climax of His claim to oneness with the Father in verses: Joh 10:18, Joh 10:25, Joh 10:28, Joh 18:29. Compare also Joh 10:38; Joh 14:11. Rev 22:3.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Joh 10:30. , I and the Father are one) One, not merely in agreement of will, but in unity of power, and so of nature: for omnipotence is an attribute of the nature [of God]; and His discourse is of the unity of the Father and the Son. In these words of Jesus, the Jews, blind as they were, saw more meaning than Antitrinitarians see in the present day. If the Jews had supposed that Jesus wishes merely to be accounted as a divine man, and not as the Son of God, who is as truly God as sons of men are men, they would not have said, whereas Thou art a man, thou makest Thyself God [Joh 10:33]; nor would they have arraigned Him for blasphemy. By the expression, we are, Sabellius is refuted:[285] by the word, one, Arius is refuted;[286] see Joh 10:33; Joh 10:36; Joh 10:38, The Father is in Me, and I in Him. Comp. the close of Joh 10:29 with that of 28.[287] Especially also the first person of the plural number has a pre-eminent signification, as applied to the Son and Father; Jesus seldom uses it of Himself and men. See note on Matt. ch. Joh 5:11, Blessed are ye etc. [not we],

[285] Who denied the distinctness of the persons. I and the Father are.-E. and T.

[286] Who denied the divinity of the Son.-E. and T.

[287] Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand,-No man is able to pluck them out of My Fathers hand: therefore the Father and Jesus are one.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 10:30

I and the Father are one.-They are one in nature, character, and purpose, and worked in perfect harmony in saving men. His doing the will of God his Father was the evidence he was from God, that he was the Son of God, and that he was in the Father and the Father in him.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2, Joh 5:17, Joh 5:23, Joh 8:58, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:23, Joh 16:15, Joh 17:10, Joh 17:21, Mat 11:27, Mat 28:19, 1Ti 3:16, Tit 2:13, 1Jo 5:7, 1Jo 5:20

Reciprocal: Gen 17:22 – General Exo 23:21 – my name Neh 9:6 – even thou Psa 33:19 – To deliver Isa 44:8 – Is there Zec 13:7 – the man Mat 7:21 – my Mat 26:63 – the Christ Mat 27:43 – I am Mar 9:37 – receive me Mar 14:61 – the Son Luk 22:70 – the Son Joh 1:34 – this Joh 5:18 – God was Joh 8:18 – one Joh 8:53 – thou greater Joh 8:59 – took Joh 10:33 – makest Joh 10:36 – I am Joh 10:38 – that ye Joh 11:44 – he that Joh 14:10 – Believest Joh 14:13 – will Joh 14:28 – Father Joh 17:5 – glorify Joh 17:7 – are Joh 17:11 – keep Joh 19:7 – because Rom 1:3 – his Son Rom 9:5 – who is Rom 15:6 – the 1Co 1:4 – the grace 1Co 8:6 – one God 2Co 1:3 – the Father of our 2Co 11:31 – God Gal 1:1 – and Eph 1:3 – God Eph 1:20 – when Eph 3:9 – created Eph 3:20 – able Phi 2:6 – thought Col 2:2 – of the Father Col 2:9 – in Heb 1:8 – O God Heb 7:25 – he is 1Jo 2:23 – denieth 1Jo 3:20 – God Rev 21:22 – the Lamb

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The Father is greater than all other beings in existence. Since He and his Son are one (in spirit and purpose), the security of a sheep that is true to them is established and is based on the unfailing power and goodness of the Lord.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 10

30″I and the Father are one.”

C o m m e n t a r yThis verse is often used by Trinitarians as proof of the essential unity and equality of Jesus with His Father. Some Trinitarian commentators and many non-Trinitarians argue that Jesus is simply speaking about a unity of purpose, of His union with God’s design and plan for His people. Still others cite this verse as teaching that the Father and Jesus are actually the same divine Person. The word translated “one” is in the neuter gender, not the masculine, and specifies “unity” in a general, not personal, sense. The precise nature of this unity must be derived from context. Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father’s purpose, but with His Father’s power (vv. 28 – 29). Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep – a claim to Divine prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father’s hands who hold them – the Father who is “greater than all.” Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to “hold” them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” Thus, Jesus is not asserting that He is the same person as the Father (which would have demanded the masculine “one”); nor is He claiming unity in purpose or plan. In this context, He can only be asserting His unity with His Father as the author of eternal life and equal in power to Him who is “greater than all.” This view is supported by several additional facts: 1. The Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God. (vv. 31 – 33). 2. Jesus does not deny their accusation (vv. 34 – 36). 3. Jesus repeats His original assertion in slightly different language (vv. 37 – 39). This claim in an overt declaration of Jesus’ Deity. I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, “I and my Father”, esmen, “we are one”; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father’s hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father’s, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him (Gill ). It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father’s hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power (Westcott ). The oneness of will and task, in this context, is so transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed (Carson, John ).

G r a m m a t i c a l A n a l y s i segw kai `o pathr `en esmen. EGO KAI hO PATHR hEN ESMEN I and the Father one are. hEN (1520) To be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x. 30 (Thayer ). In contrast to the parts, of which the whole is made up … J 10:30 (BAGD ). One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Gal 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18 ). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30 ). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Cor 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP ). ESMEN (2070) First person plural (present indicative active), “we are” The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement.

O t h e r V i e w s C o n s i d e r e dJehovah’s Witnesses objection: The Watchtower argues that this verse cannot mean that Jesus is one in nature with the Father on the following basis: Jesus himself showed what he meant by being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, … that they may be one just as we are 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” (SYBT , p. 24). response: The Greek word “one” (heis) in reference to two persons or things may be used to specify many types of unions. It can signify “unity of purpose,” as the Watchtower suggests in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff (SYBT , p. 24), where Paul says that he and Apollos (as “planter” and “waterer”) are “one” in the purpose of saving and sanctifying God’s people. In John 17:21ff, however, “one” means more than simple “unity of purpose.” Jesus prays that the disciples may enjoy a fellowship of intimacy in Christian love so complete (“perfected in unity”) that the world would know that they belong to Christ and His Father. This is more than “one” in the sense of sharing common goals and plans. It is a union so profound that it “perfects” or brings to full maturity and completion the believer’s love and fellowship with his brothers and sisters through their shared unity in Christ – just as Jesus Himself enjoys a perfect intimacy with His Father. Further, in verse 23, Jesus grounds this unity in His power to indwell His followers (“I in them”) while His Father indwells Him (‘You in me”) and He His Father (“I in you”). The power to indwell His disciples, regardless of where they are, is a claim to Divine omnipresence, which further militates against the Watchtower’s position. In Matthew 19:5, Jesus uses “one” to signify the spiritual union of man and woman in marriage – in God’s sight, the two have become “one.” The significance of “one” in each of these verses is not determined by how it is used in other verse – it is derived from the immediate context. Thus, the fact that “one” may mean “one in fellowship” in John 17:21ff or “one in purpose” in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff has no bearing on how it should be understood in this verse. The context of John 10:30 fully supports the traditional understanding that Jesus is claiming equality with His Father in terms of Divine Prerogatives and Power. As noted in the Commentary, above, Jesus has just said that He gives eternal life to His sheep. He has equated His power to keep His sheep safely in His hands with His Father’s power to do the same. The Jews knew that the Father was greater than all, but they rebelled at Jesus saying that He and His Father shared this power to preserve the saints and – in this very sense – proclaiming that He was “one” with His Father. This view is also supported by the Jews’ reaction and Jesus’ subsequent statements, particularly those in vv. 37ff where He repeats His claims to do His Father’s works and enjoy a profound unity with Him. If the Watchtower is correct, the only explanation for the Jews reaction is that they misunderstood Jesus, for they could have no objection to anyone being “one in purpose” with the Father. But given what Jesus has just said, how else could they take “I and the Father are one?” And the only explanation for Jesus’ previous and subsequent remarks, given that He knew the hearts of his listeners, is intentional deception of the highest order. Jesus could give the Jews difficult answers to their questions, but it simply is not possible for Him to deceive them about the sense in which He was “one” with His Father. objection: The Watchtower continues: Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . 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” (Ibid.). response: When Calvin’s comments are taken in context, it is clear that while he does not understand this passage to be referring to Christ’s “unity in essence” (Greek: homoousias) – a technical term used by the “ancients” (that is, the Nicene church fathers) – Calvin does accept that Jesus is laying claim to God’s power and therefore is proclaiming His true Deity: 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… And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles… Do you say that I blaspheme? The Arians anciently tortured this passage to prove that Christ is not God by nature, but that he possesses a kind of borrowed Divinity. But this error is easily refuted, for Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us. Besides, we ought to remember what I have formerly suggested, that Christ does not, in this passage, explain fully and distinctly what he is, as he would have done among his disciples; but that he rather dwells on refuting the slander of his enemies. And I am in my Father; that is, “I do nothing but by the command of God, so that there is a mutual connection between me and my Father.” For this discourse does not relate to the unity of essence, but to the manifestation of Divine power in the person of Christ, from which it was evident that he was sent by God. Notes 1. The NWT translates the Greek preposition en (“in”) with the paraphrase “in union with” in this and several other verses that speak of Christ being “in” the Father or “in” His disciples. It is possible to interpret en in these verses as more or less meaning “in union with,” so long as it is understood to mean an intimate, personal relationship or spiritual union – not merely a general association or unity of goals and purpose. Thayer , for example, says of en in these verses: Of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves. So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union. Other lexicons similarly stress that en in these verses means more than “in union with” in the sense of mere association: A marker of close personal association – ‘in, one with, in union with, joined closely to’ (Louw & Nida ) The en of religious fellowship, often with einai (Jn 10:38; 1 Jn 2:5b, etc.) or menein (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 2:6, etc.). Reciprocity is frequently stressed (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 3:24, etc.). The Father is brought into the relationship, either with Jesus (Jn 10:38) or with us (1 Jn 4:12 – 13). We thus have a triangle (Jn 14:20; 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24). The formulas are neither ecstatic nor eschatological but mystical in a very broad sense with a strong personal and ethical reference (TDNT ). This fully nuanced meaning is particularly true in John 14:17 – 18, where Jesus specifically equates the Spirit being “in” the disciples with the Spirit being “with” them, and then affirms that this indwelling is the means by which Jesus can affirm His promise not to leave His disciples as orphans. A similar thought permeates Jesus’ prayer in John 17:21ff. 2. “One” in this verse is the Greek mian, the feminine form of eis. This form is grammatically required because “one” modifies “flesh,” which is also feminine in Greek. 3. D.A. Carson identifies the juxtaposition of texts like these as a “target rich” environment for interpretive errors: Consider the Arian efforts to link John 10:30…and John 17:20 – 23…. What gives interpreters the right to link certain verses together and not others? The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the interpretation of other texts. There may be fallacies connected not only with the way individual verses are interpreted, but also with the way several verses are linked – and then also with the way such a link affects the interpretation of the next verse that is studied! (Carson , Fallacies, p. 139).

Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary

That is, one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, and not barely one in will and affection, one in concord or consent. That this is the genuine signification of the words, appears by a three-fold argument.

1. From the original words: it is not said, I and my Father are one person in the masculine gender, but in the neuter I and my Father are one thing. Now if that thing be not the divine Being, they cannot be one; for since the Father is confessed to be God, the Son cannot be one thing with the Father, if he be not God too.

2. It appears from the context; our Saviour, in the preceding versed, ascribed the preservation of his sheep to the power of his Father; None can pluck them out of my Father’s hand; and he ascribes it also to his own power; None shall pluck them out of my hand; plainly intimating, that his sheep were equally safe in his own hand, as well as in his Father’s; for, says he, I and my Father are one; that is, one in power: and, if they be one in power, they must be one in nature; unless we make an almighty creature, which is a contradiction.

3. It appears evidently by what follows in the next verse, that the Jews understood our Saviour in this sense; why else did they take up stones to stone him? We stone thee, say they, for blasphemy, because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews took our Saviour’s meaning aright, and were satisfied, that when he said, I and my Father are one, he asserted himself to be God, and deserved to die; and well he had deserved it, if he had not been God. The adversaries of our Saviour’s divinity, to elude the force of these words, which make so much agaainst them, interpret the words thus, I and my Father are one; that is, say they, we are Mia bdlhsiv one in will and affection, one in concord and consent: this is a truth, but not the great truth contained in these words; for thus believers are one with God, and one with one another; namely, by a harmony of wills and desires: so far as they are regenerated, God’s will and theirs are unisons, they will and desire the same thing, and are of one heart and of one mind.

But God and Christ are one, in a much higher sense than Christ and believers are one; namely, one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, Christ being con-substantial with God.

Learn hence, That the Lord Jesus Christ is for nature co-essential, for dignity co-equal, and for duration co-eternal with the Father.

2. That although Christ be one in essence with the Father, yet are they distinct persons one from antoher. I and my Father, we are one.

3. Learn hence, That the Son being one in essence, one in power, one in consent and will, with the Father, they are both equally concerned for the perseverance of the saints, for preserving them in grace, and for bringing them to glory. None shall pluck them out of mine or my Father’s hand: for I and my Father are one. If the power be the same, the essence must be the same.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

THE ASSAULT

Joh 10:30-39. I and My Father are one. There is but one God, but three persons i.e., three characters manifested by the Deity to the world. I am a preacher, a teacher, and a book editor, three characters, and yet but one. Again the Jews took up stones that they may stone Him. As they felt that they were prepared to sustain their condemnation of blasphemy against Him because He claimed to be the Son of God, they thought if they could raise a row and excite the rabble, they might get rid of Him by stoning Him to dearth, and cover up the whole transaction under the charge of blasphemy. Though they take up stones, and show every manifestation of instantaneous death, Jesus remains perfectly tranquil. And Jesus responded to them, Many good works have I shown to you from the Father, on account of which work of these do you stone Me? The Jews responded to Him, We do not stone Thee for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. According to the Mosaic law, the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning. The same also was the penalty for Sabbath-breaking. Consequently His enemies, who hounded Him day and night, thirsting for His blood, were constantly on the alert, ready to catch up anything whatever, and use it as a charge against Him. It so happened, in the normal administration of His official Messiahship, He was really under the necessity of rendering Himself vulnerable to the charge of blasphemy, in order to enunciate and vindicate His claims to the Messiahship, as it would have been really impossible for any one to preach and testify in harmony with the Messianic office without exposing Himself to the liability of the charge of blasphemy; whereas His constant works of philanthropy, healing the multitudes of sick people everywhere He went, would have necessitated Him to intermit His work on the Sabbath or become vulnerable to the charge of Sabbatic violation. Consequently His enemies, having these two strings to their bow, pulled on them incessantly, making music for the bottomless pit.

Jesus responded to them, Is it not written in your law that I said, Ye are gods? (Psalms 80.) Here the word is applied to tyrannical world-rulers. If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do you say that Thou blasphemest because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, believe not Me, believe the works, in order that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Then they were seeking to arrest Him, and he went out from their hand. Our Lords ministry is now rapidly winding to a close. Consequently it is important to emphasize the great, salient point of His earthly mission, and everywhere prominently hold up His Christhood, so that all the people would clearly apprehend and indubitably witness His claims to the Messiahship, thus exposing Himself to the constant liability of arrest and arraignment, as they had a rabbinical law specifying that any man claiming to be the Christ should be brought before the Sanhedrin for investigation and examination. Now that He boldly meets the issue, despite their charge of blasphemy, they proceed to arrest Him. Of course, the Sanhedrin would have condemned Him to death by stoning (Lev 24:16), thus cutting off His earthly ministry about one month before the time. Consequently He passed away from their hands, of course unobserved, all losing sight of Him, and thinking He was somewhere in the crowd; but no one being able to find Him, meanwhile He passes clearly away.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action. This explanation also harmonized with the context since Jesus had said that He would keep His sheep safe (Joh 10:28) and His Father would keep them safe (Joh 10:29).

This verse has been at the center of serious discussions about Jesus’ nature that have taken place over the centuries. Those who believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man (the orthodox) and those who believe that Jesus was not fully God (Arians) have appealed to it to support their positions. Therefore we need to look at it carefully.

First, Jesus’ claim to oneness does not in itself prove the Son’s unity in essence with the Father. In Joh 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one as He and the Father were one, namely, in their purpose and beliefs. Second, other passages in the Gospel declare that the Father and the Son are one in more than just their purpose and beliefs (cf. 1, 18; Joh 8:58; Joh 12:41; Joh 20:28). Third, the context of this verse also implies that Jesus did everything His Father did (cf. Joh 5:19) and that Jesus and the Father united in fulfilling a divine will and a divine task. Fourth, this Gospel has consistently presented Jesus as a unique Son of God, not one of many sons. Fifth, 17:55 uses the Father Son unity as the basis for the disciple disciple unity in the analogy, not the other way around, implying that the former is the more fundamental unity. [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., pp. 394-95.]

In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father. However the context and other statements in this Gospel show that His unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential metaphysical unity.

The Jews had asked Jesus for a plain statement about His messiahship. Jesus gave them far more, a claim that He fully and completely carried out the Father’s will, which strongly hinted at Jesus’ deity. This statement is the climax of the preceding discussion (Joh 10:22-29; cf. Joh 5:18; Joh 8:59).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles