Anth,
No need to apologize for tardiness. We are both busy. Just get to a response when you can, that's what I do.
Anth said:
Jn 10:30 follows directly on the heels of Jesus statement that no one can snatch His sheep out of the Father’s hands nor out his hands. That is the fundamental context of Jn10:30. In conclusion he states– I and my Father, we are one.
You are leaving out half of the verse that 10:30 is predicated on. The entire context is:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
28
and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one." (John (RSV) 10)
You conveniently left out “and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perishâ€Â, which, along with “the father and I are one†is the obvious catalyst for the Pharisees attempts at stoning.
Only GOD, the supreme being, can give eternal life. Being one in purpose and authority are assumed.
The obvious question is, “one†in what sense?
The precedent statement was regarding the respective capability and, presumably, authority of both
Jesus and the Father to keep His sheep from being snatched out of His hand.
Who’s “handâ€Â? You gloss over the words “his hand†and “my handâ€Â.
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.â€Â
Here it’s obvious that Jesus is asserting ontological equality with God because He is claiming for Himself things reserved for God alone, namely that HE can give eternal life and that HE can keep them ETERNALLY from anything but life. He goes on…
“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
I and the Father are one."
Here Jesus reinforces His theme of EQUALITY with God by directly comparing His hand to God’s. It assumes “capability†and “authorityâ€Â, but goes beyond them.
The bottom line is that Jesus has been given the position of God with respect to this creation (this concept is repeated many times throughout the NT – Phil 2:6ff is a great example but it is throughout John).
I don’t know what you mean by “the position of God with respect to this creationâ€Â. Are you saying God elevated Jesus to “God†of only this creation and there are other “Gods†of other “creationsâ€Â? Are you Mormon?
He fully substantiates this sense in v34 – recognizing the position of God has been given to those to whom the Word of God has been given (and the scripture cannot be broken).
You are completely misinterpreting what Jesus means when He quotes Ps. 82:6. First of all, if the “position of God†had been given to the Jews as well as Jesus, it would make Jesus no more “God†(capital G) than any other human being. You have said elsewhere (one example below) that you “worship†Jesus as God. Do you also worship the Jews to whom Jesus is referring as “gods�
BTW - there are some who will find this shocking (as in "disbelief" rather than "puzzling) - I worship, the man Christ Jesus - for I know that the worship of the son of God IS the worship of God.
Secondly, if Jesus is merely saying that He is "god" like the Jews are "gods" in Ps. 82, that assumes they can do the aforementioned things, grant eternal life and keep believers in their "hands", which they obviously can't.
He is not saying, in effect: “No, wait. You got me all wrong. I’m not claiming to be Yahweh, I‘m a god like YOU are all ‘gods’.†That novel interpretation doesn’t fit the text.
He is reacting to the Jews claim that
HE MADE HIMSELF God.
The Jews identified that Jesus was calling Himself “equal†to God. The question again is “equal†in what sense? The notion of a purely ontological identity is not substantiated for several reasons, the least of which is but sufficient is that the context is addressing oneness of position/authority and the related power/capability. This more than satisfactorily answers the Jews response who had a difficult time seeing any man as one in position with God.
Authority and capability are naturally incorporated if there is ontological equality. I agree that Jesus and God are one in purpose, authority, power, etc. The reason for all these things IS His oneness in being with God. The context of Jn. 10 IS Jesus’ true identity (“If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.") and His authority for that identity, which He answers in verse 34f. This is NOT the context of Jn 17:22, which is a prayer for unity.
Additionally, a compelling parallel is found in Jn 17:22 (Greek text). We see Jesus praying for his
disciples with the ultimate purpose that “they might be ONE “in the same way as†(according as) WE
ARE ONE.
To make it clear – Jesus is stating that His oneness with the Father is of the exact same nature as His
expectation of his disciples becoming one. Clearly there is NO notion of ontological unity implied in
this “oneness†(there is no theological or exegetical basis for such an odd assumption).
You are right. The difference between 10:30 and 17:22 is the context. In 10:30 Jesus has just made the statement that HE could give eternal life, and He could keep “my sheep†from eternal death by holding them in “my handâ€Â, things that ONLY GOD CAN DO. He is responding to the Jews’ question “"How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." In 17:22 (and 17:11, for that matter) Jesus is not claiming for Himself something reserved for God alone, or explaining His Nature. There are other meanings of “oneness†besides oneness of being. Context dictates.
Regardless, our primary goal was to eliminate an ontological sense to
the “oneness†in Jn10:30 as put forth by many traditional readers (NOTE: Dallas Theological
Seminary is a notable exception – they recognize the “oneness†in Jn10:30 as a “oneness of Purposeâ€Â
(concerning which I believe they are in error – BUT that is a lot closer than a “oneness of Essenceâ€Â).
We eliminated the sense of “oneness of essence†simply by reference to the context en loco.
Additionally, Jn17:22 fully demonstrates that a “oneness†between Jesus and His Father is not
required to be and perhaps even necessarily NOT ontological.
No, we did not. 10:30 and 17:22 are not in the same context. I prefer to interpret 10:30 in relation to other verses that assert that Jesus is 'God" and in what sense, since that is the context of 10:22-42. 17:22 does not speak to the subject of Jesus' nature. Jn. 5:18, 8:59 and 10:22 have in common an attempt at arresting or stoning, and an assumption of Jesus "equality" to God. Verse 8:58 has Jesus calling Himself "I AM", the name of God. Phil. 2:6 tells us Jesus is "being in very nature God". In Rev. 1:17, 2:8 Jesus is called "the First and the Last", and in Rev. 22:12–13, He is called "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end". These verses, and others like them explain the nature of Jesus and cannot be ignored, since this is what we are discussing.
The easiest way to establish this exegesis is no different than any other – read the context of the previous verse or two. It is obvious Jesus is in the realm of identical capability between Himself and His Father. He simply summarizes the reality of this “oneness†in Jn10:30.
You should take your own advice. In the few verses preceding 10:30 we have Jesus applying to Himself works that are only accomplished by God and in the verses after we have the actions of “the Jews†to factor into context. As you did in the Jn. 20:28 thread, you are bringing your preconceived bias into your study.
All this is mute anyway because of the following quote of yours from another thread. Is the entire text of John corrupted by all that “incipient trinitarianism†that crept in, or only the verses that disagree with you?
NOTE: This entire discussion is predicated that this was an original statement. Neither of us know that for certain since the extant texts of Jn are I believe at least two centuries past the autographa. We are aware of the incipient trinitarianism that crept into the church in the late 2nd and early 3rd C as is being discussed in the Tertullian threads.
Since there is no sound exegesis of the sense of Thomas statement - and we don't have Thomas here to interpret, I would rather adopt an exegesis that conforms to the clear text of scripture, e.g. ICor8:6 and ITim2:5, etc.
Here is another quote of yours that is confusing.
It is important to be honest with the Scripture (always with the assumption that we have an accurate text).
Which is it? Are we assuming we have an accurate text or not?
