A Perspective on John 10:30

[Fath]

One of the things I have noticed about many Christians is how they will use John 10:30 as evidence to justify that Jesus was God. However, with a little research I offer a perspective that disputes this claim.

The only way to offer this perspective is to analyize the verse, as well as the subsequent verses. Also, you should be aware that I am a hobbiest at Greek translation, and will be using the Greek to explain the interpretation you will see below. I have been translating Koine Greek for 18 years.

Therefore, let's take a good long look at John 10:30

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one!"

The above is Jesus' claim of being "one" with the Father. In the Greek, the use of "one" is very similar to the English definitions, and the use of it in this quotation means "in agreement." You will noticed that's exactly what Jesus meant in the following verses.

John: 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

The above is the reaction of the Jews, who believed that Jesus was making himself out to be God the Father, because either delibertly, or in their ignorance, theyd did not recognize what Jesus meant by "one."

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me?"

Perplexed by their reaction, Jesus turns to them to ask why they were wanting to stone him. Clearly Jesus had not realized their intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of his use of the word "one."

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

In the above we now see the reason why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. We must bear in mind that many Jews were looking very hard to find fault in Jesus, and I am more inclinded to believe they intentionally misunderstood Jesus' use of the word "one" to justify their actions.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, You are gods?'"

This is the beginning of Jesus' explanation to the Jews. Jesus begins by quoting a verse from the Book of Psalms, which is: Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High. Now below, I will quote verses 10:35 and 10:36 together to provide clarity. I will also give you the clearest translation I could manage from the Greek to preserve the clarity:

Joh 10:35 - 10:36 If He called those people whom had the word of God with them as 'gods,' and that scripture cannot be disputed, why then do you say of me whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme?' Is it because I had said that I am also a son of God?"

And now you cans see exactly why Jesus quoted from the Book of Psalms. The verse from Psalms was to illustrate to the Jews two things:

a) That Jesus had not called himself God, as in God the Father.
b) That his intended meaning was that since God has called those who had the word of God with them as 'gods' and 'sons of the Most High,' then why should the Jews object to Jesus referring to himself as a son of God.

Please note that in my Greek the word "the" in the last part of "The Son of God" in John 10:36 is one of many choices, with the "a" that I used as one of those choices. The reason I chose "a" is because it appears to be a much better choice in this verse when considering the context.

Mind you, this by no means disputes that Jesus was THE son of God, but only that in this particular verse the word "the" does not fit, and in my opinion, was a poor choice of translation.

Comments?

Thank you.

 

[Georges]

I agree....another verse that is mis interpreted....

Jhn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

theos {theh'-os}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 3:65,322 of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

a) refers to the things of God

b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

a) God's representative or viceregent

1) of magistrates and judges

 

[HisFriend]

One of the things I have noticed about many Christians is how they will use John 10:30 as evidence to justify that Jesus was God. However, with a little research I offer a perspective that disputes this claim.

The only way to offer this perspective is to analyize the verse, as well as the subsequent verses. Also, you should be aware that I am a hobbiest at Greek translation, and will be using the Greek to explain the interpretation you will see below. I have been translating Koine Greek for 18 years.

Therefore, let's take a good long look at John 10:30

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one!"

The above is Jesus' claim of being "one" with the Father. In the Greek, the use of "one" is very similar to the English definitions, and the use of it in this quotation means "in agreement." You will noticed that's exactly what Jesus meant in the following verses.

John: 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

The above is the reaction of the Jews, who believed that Jesus was making himself out to be God the Father, because either delibertly, or in their ignorance, theyd did not recognize what Jesus meant by "one."

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me?"

Perplexed by their reaction, Jesus turns to them to ask why they were wanting to stone him. Clearly Jesus had not realized their intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of his use of the word "one."

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

In the above we now see the reason why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. We must bear in mind that many Jews were looking very hard to find fault in Jesus, and I am more inclinded to believe they intentionally misunderstood Jesus' use of the word "one" to justify their actions.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, You are gods?'"

This is the beginning of Jesus' explanation to the Jews. Jesus begins by quoting a verse from the Book of Psalms, which is: Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High. Now below, I will quote verses 10:35 and 10:36 together to provide clarity. I will also give you the clearest translation I could manage from the Greek to preserve the clarity:

Joh 10:35 - 10:36 If He called those people whom had the word of God with them as 'gods,' and that scripture cannot be disputed, why then do you say of me whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme?' Is it because I had said that I am also a son of God?"

And now you cans see exactly why Jesus quoted from the Book of Psalms. The verse from Psalms was to illustrate to the Jews two things:

a) That Jesus had not called himself God, as in God the Father.
b) That his intended meaning was that since God has called those who had the word of God with them as 'gods' and 'sons of the Most High,' then why should the Jews object to Jesus referring to himself as a son of God.

Please note that in my Greek the word "the" in the last part of "The Son of God" in John 10:36 is one of many choices, with the "a" that I used as one of those choices. The reason I chose "a" is because it appears to be a much better choice in this verse when considering the context.

Mind you, this by no means disputes that Jesus was THE son of God, but only that in this particular verse the word "the" does not fit, and in my opinion, was a poor choice of translation.

Comments?

Thank you.

Well there is no definite article with the word theos in this verse. Grammatically speaking this means one can translate this as "make yourself a god." In fact, one wonders why translators would translate this verse as "you being A man" but are not consistent when it comes to the word theos in the same sentence.

Jesus reponds to the Jewish charge with a discussion on gods. This response would make absolutely no sense if the Jews were charging him with making himself God. It makes more sense , fits the grammar, the sentence structure, and the context better to translate it as "make yourself A god" or at the very least, "make yourself god." There really is no warrant for translating as some do except Trinitarian tradition.

Moreover, the ONENESS to which Jesus is referring is not a oneness of identity or substance but a oneness of function. He even says so. It is the same kind of oneness we find at John 17:20-23 where Jesus prays we are ONE with he and the Father, "JUST AS" he and the Father are one.

It is quite plain to the unbiased intelligent mind.

 

[Fath]

Well there is no definite article with the word theos in this verse. Grammatically speaking this means one can translate this as "make yourself a god." In fact, one wonders why translators would translate this verse as "you being A man" but are not consistent when it comes to the word theos in the same sentence.

Jesus reponds to the Jewish charge with a discussion on gods. This response would make absolutely no sense if the Jews were charging him with making himself God. It makes more sense , fits the grammar, the sentence structure, and the context better to translate it as "make yourself A god" or at the very least, "make yourself god." There really is no warrant for translating as some do except Trinitarian tradition.

Moreover, the ONENESS to which Jesus is referring is not a oneness of identity or substance but a oneness of function. He even says so. It is the same kind of oneness we find at John 17:20-23 where Jesus prays we are ONE with he and the Father, "JUST AS" he and the Father are one.

It is quite plain to the unbiased intelligent mind.

The definite article is indeed missing in much of what was translated, with the meaning then being inferred and, with much agreement with you, inferred with biasness.

I do, however, disagree with your opinion on the reason why the Jews charged him. I refer to the evidence of the Jew's claim of "blasphemy," which would not apply if Jesus had been speaking of multiple gods, since the Jews believe there is only one true God. Hense, blasphemy would not apply. However, your interpretation of "a god" is sensible and worthy of consideration.

I don't think we are far off in agreement with the "oneness" issue. My understanding of greek lexicon and idiom of the day conceeds to it's meaning of "unity or agreement." It is indeed a function, but a function of unity, agreement.

 

[HisFriend]

Well there is no definite article with the word theos in this verse. Grammatically speaking this means one can translate this as "make yourself a god." In fact, one wonders why translators would translate this verse as "you being A man" but are not consistent when it comes to the word theos in the same sentence.

Jesus reponds to the Jewish charge with a discussion on gods. This response would make absolutely no sense if the Jews were charging him with making himself God. It makes more sense , fits the grammar, the sentence structure, and the context better to translate it as "make yourself A god" or at the very least, "make yourself god." There really is no warrant for translating as some do except Trinitarian tradition.

Moreover, the ONENESS to which Jesus is referring is not a oneness of identity or substance but a oneness of function. He even says so. It is the same kind of oneness we find at John 17:20-23 where Jesus prays we are ONE with he and the Father, "JUST AS" he and the Father are one.

It is quite plain to the unbiased intelligent mind.

The definite article is indeed missing in much of what was translated, with the meaning then being inferred and, with much agreement with you, inferred with biasness.

I do, however, disagree with your opinion on the reason why the Jews charged him. I refer to the evidence of the Jew's claim of "blasphemy," which would not apply if Jesus had been speaking of multiple gods, since the Jews believe there is only one true God.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would not make any difference.

Hense, blasphemy would not apply.

Incorrect. Why did they stone Stephen?

However, your interpretation of "a god" is sensible and worthy of consideration.

I don't think we are far off in agreement with the "oneness" issue. My understanding of greek lexicon and idiom of the day conceeds to it's meaning of "unity or agreement." It is indeed a function, but a function of unity, agreement.

Jesus makes it quite plain all over John's gospel that his oneness with the Father was a unity of purpose in the works that he did.

 

[HisFriend]

Well there is no definite article with the word theos in this verse. Grammatically speaking this means one can translate this as "make yourself a god." In fact, one wonders why translators would translate this verse as "you being A man" but are not consistent when it comes to the word theos in the same sentence.

Jesus reponds to the Jewish charge with a discussion on gods. This response would make absolutely no sense if the Jews were charging him with making himself God. It makes more sense , fits the grammar, the sentence structure, and the context better to translate it as "make yourself A god" or at the very least, "make yourself god." There really is no warrant for translating as some do except Trinitarian tradition.

Moreover, the ONENESS to which Jesus is referring is not a oneness of identity or substance but a oneness of function. He even says so. It is the same kind of oneness we find at John 17:20-23 where Jesus prays we are ONE with he and the Father, "JUST AS" he and the Father are one.

It is quite plain to the unbiased intelligent mind.

The definite article is indeed missing in much of what was translated, with the meaning then being inferred and, with much agreement with you, inferred with biasness.

I do, however, disagree with your opinion on the reason why the Jews charged him. I refer to the evidence of the Jew's claim of "blasphemy," which would not apply if Jesus had been speaking of multiple gods, since the Jews believe there is only one true God.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would not make any difference.

Hense, blasphemy would not apply.

Incorrect. Why did they stone Stephen?

However, your interpretation of "a god" is sensible and worthy of consideration.

I don't think we are far off in agreement with the "oneness" issue. My understanding of greek lexicon and idiom of the day conceeds to it's meaning of "unity or agreement." It is indeed a function, but a function of unity, agreement.

Jesus makes it quite plain all over John's gospel that his oneness with the Father was a unity of purpose in the works that he did.

Jesus prays that we would be one with the Father and he himself and he says "JUST AS". If indeed, John 10:30 was a reference to deity then Jesus was praying that we would all be God.

 

[Fath]

I do, however, disagree with your opinion on the reason why the Jews charged him. I refer to the evidence of the Jew's claim of "blasphemy," which would not apply if Jesus had been speaking of multiple gods, since the Jews believe there is only one true God.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would not make any difference.

I think I make a sensible argument. Yet, you say it isn't true. Why? Also, it would make a difference considering the charge of blasphemy, since if Jesus had been speaking of multiple gods it would have been rather obvious that he was speaking of the God of the Jews.

Hense, blasphemy would not apply.

Incorrect. Why did they stone Stephen?

No connection to Stephen's situation, really. He was stoned immediately after saying that in his vision he'd seen the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

The accusation of the Jews upon Jesus was one of blasphemy based upon the interpretation of the word "one." Jesus also refers to himself as "a son of God" and used the Psalm to justify it. He illustrated to them that since it was okay for God himself to call others 'gods and sons of the Most High," then why did the Jews abject to him refrring to himself in like manner.

Hense, the sense of what is being said does not reflect the plural of gods, but of the single; as one of those gods illustrated in the Psalm.

It is indeed a function, but a function of unity, agreement.

Jesus makes it quite plain all over John's gospel that his oneness with the Father was a unity of purpose in the works that he did.

Jesus prays that we would be one with the Father and he himself and he says "JUST AS". If indeed, John 10:30 was a reference to deity then Jesus was praying that we would all be God.

Not arguing that it was a unity of purpose, but in order for that to occur an agreement in purpose must exist. The word "one" in the Greek means "unity or agreement" and purpose is an addition that works with the verse, but it is not the only addition that can be used overall.