Archive for September, 2013|Monthly archive page

1 Who 3 Whats !!!

In Apologetics on September 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Mat 26:1 When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples,
Mat 26:2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
Mat 26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,
Mat 26:4 and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.
Mat 26:5 But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”

When we define the Trinity we talk in terms of one who and three what’s. Language will always fall short in its ability to define an infinite God in its finite ability. One who would be the essence or nature of God, three what’s are used to describe the persons of the Godhead. We cannot divide the being of God, but he reveals himself in time and space through the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Matthew Jesus says that he will be delivered up to be crucified in two days. For those that hold he was an idea or plan in eternity past will have a difficult time crucifying an idea. The Unitarians claim that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, that is correct as far as it goes. But a person, a man, a very unique man with two natures one human and one divine will be put to death on the cross.

Joh 11:49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all.
Joh 11:50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”
Joh 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Joh 11:53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.

that Jesus should die for that nation; these words, with what follows in the next verse, are the words of the evangelist, interpreting the prophecy of Caiaphas, according to the sense of the Holy Ghost that Jesus should die, which was contrary to a notion the Jews had imbibed, concerning the Messiah; see Joh_12:34. But Jesus the true Messiah must die; this was determined in the counsel of God, agreed to by Christ in the covenant of grace, foretold by the prophets from the beginning of the world, typified by sacrifices and other things, under the former dispensation, predicted by Christ himself, and accordingly came to pass; and upon the above accounts was necessary, as well as for the salvation of his people, who otherwise must have perished; and yet was free and voluntary in him, and a strong expression, and a demonstrative proof of his love to them: and not only this prophecy declared, that Jesus should die, but that he should die for that nation, for the nation of the Jews; not for every individual in it, for all of them were not saved by him; some received him not; they rejected him as the Messiah, Saviour, and Redeemer, and died in their sins; but for all the elect of God among them, the sheep of the house of Israel, to whom he was sent, and whom he came to seek and save; and whom he blessed, by turning them away from their iniquities, and by taking away their iniquities from them: and moreover, this prophecy suggests, that Jesus was to die, not merely as a martyr, to confirm with his blood the doctrine he preached, nor only as an example of courage, meekness, patience, and love, but for, or in the room and stead of his people, as their surety; giving his life a ransom and himself a sacrifice to the justice of God, for them; there by fulfilling the law and satisfying it, and appeasing the wrath of God on their account.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Father decreed that a perfect sacrifice was needed in order for the sins of the world to be atoned to for. The Son volunteers to the will of the Father and surrenders his will to the point of death, death on a cross. We learned this in Philippians chapter 2 in the hymn of Christ.

In this account we learn… On the cross the person of Jesus Christ suffered and died to pay a debt of sin we owe. An idea or thought could not have physically accomplished what the person of Jesus Christ did.

trinity ring

The followers of Christ recognized his Sonship Diety and Personhood

In Apologetics on September 16, 2013 at 7:59 am

oh 11:3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”
Joh 11:4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”
Joh 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.

Jesus states His mission and purpose at the illness of Lazarus death. He makes it clear that not only will God be glorified but the Son of God will be as well. In scripture we are told that God will not share His glory with another, is this in direct conflict with His earlier statements or how would we understand this passage? In a unitarian view how does God share His glory? If God was made manifest in the flesh then what sense do we make of v.4? In his being manifested in the flesh then we would necessarily have a separation of God because v.4 states it is for two glories?

Joh 11:21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.
Joh 11:22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.”
Joh 11:23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Martha and those close to Jesus had reconciled their monotheism as evidenced by their discussions, trust, faith and requests. Martha acknowledges God as being separate from Jesus yet the same as God. How are we as monotheist to have any understanding of this if God is numerically one? The syntax of the statement plainly shows God in as distinct from Jesus. Martha says that Jesus will request something from God. If God were a manifestation then she simply could have stated was is implied God you can raise Lazarus from the dead. Why is the text confusing? If God is only manifested in the flesh we have an overwhelming and confusing amount of statements separating the Son and the Father. We must make a conclusion something other is taking place. If we are monotheistic and God is God alone, then the idea of sharing His nature while revealing himself in separate persona becomes plainly in view. When we see Jesus followers behaving in that manner what other conclusion is left? They had to reconcile God’s distinctions exisiting somewhere else yet plainly in their presnece. The the confrimation her bother will rise again. This indicates that there is a somewhere else where God exists with those of his Kingdom, while at the same time we exist in time and space here.

oh 11:24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
Joh 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Joh 11:27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

John Gill-Exposition of the Entire Bible
Signifying, that he was able of himself to raise men from death to life, without asking it of his Father; and that he could do it now, as well as at the general resurrection; at which time Christ will be the efficient cause of it; and which will display both his omniscience and his omnipotence; as his resurrection is the earnest and pledge, and will be the model and exemplar of it. This is true of Christ, with regard to a spiritual resurrection, from a death of sin, to a life of grace; he is concerned both in the life itself, and in the resurrection to it: he is the meritorious and procuring cause of it; he died for his people, that they, being dead to sin, might live unto God, and unto righteousness: he is the author of it; he says unto them, when dead in sin, live; he speaks life into them: he commands it in them, and by his Spirit breathes into them the breath of spiritual life, and implants the principle of it in their souls; and he supports and maintains it by giving himself to them as the bread of life to feed upon, and by supplying them with grace continually; yea, he himself is their life; he lives in them, and their life is hid with him. It is owing to his resurrection, that they are begotten again to a lively hope, or are quickened, that has a virtual influence upon it; and it is not only the cause, but the exemplar of it. Saints, as they are planted together in the likeness of his death, so in the likeness of his resurrection: to which may be added, that it is his voice in the Gospel, attended with an almighty power, which is the means of quickening them, which they hear, and so live; and it is his image that is stamped upon them; and by his Spirit they are made to live, and to walk in newness of life.
25. Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life—“The whole power to restore, impart, and maintain life, resides in Me.” (See on Jn 1:4; Jn 5:21). What higher claim to supreme divinity than this grand saying can be conceived?
he that believeth in me, though … dead … shall he live—that is, The believer’s death shall be swallowed up in life, and his life shall never sink into death. As death comes by sin, it is His to dissolve it; and as life flows through His righteousness, it is His to communicate and eternally maintain it (Ro 5:21). The temporary separation of soul and body is here regarded as not even interrupting, much less impairing, the new and everlasting life imparted by Jesus to His believing people.
Believest thou this?—Canst thou take this in?
27. Yea, … I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, &c.—that is, And having such faith in Thee, I can believe all which that comprehends. While she had a glimmering perception that Resurrection, in every sense of the word, belonged to the Messianic office and Sonship of Jesus, she means, by this way of expressing herself, to cover much that she felt her ignorance of—as no doubt belonging to Him.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
11:25–26. I am the Resurrection and the Life. This is the fifth of Jesus’ great “I am” revelations. The Resurrection and the Life of the new Age is present right now because Jesus is the Lord of life (1:4). Jesus’ words about life and death are seemingly paradoxical. A believer’s death issues in new life. In fact, the life of a believer is of such a quality that he will never die spiritually. He has eternal life (3:16; 5:24; 10:28), and the end of physical life is only a sleep for his body until the resurrection unto life. At death the spiritual part of a believer, his soul, goes to be with the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:6, 8; Phil. 1:23).
11:27. Martha gave a great confession of faith in Christ. She agreed with Jesus’ exposition about eternal life for those who believe in Him. Then she confessed three things about Jesus. He is (a) the Christ (“Messiah”), (b) the Son of God—which is probably a title of the Messiah (cf. 1:49; Ps. 2:7)—and (c) the One who was to come into the world (lit., “the Coming One”; cf. John 12:13). She believed that Jesus is the Messiah who came to do God’s will, but as yet she had no hint of the coming miracle regarding her brother.
Edwin A. Blum, “John,” ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 314.
John 11:25
I am the resurrection and the life (Ἐγω εἰμι ἡ ἀναστασις και ἡ ζωη [Egō eimi hē anastasis kai hē zōē]). This reply is startling enough. They are not mere doctrines about future events, but present realities in Jesus himself. “The Resurrection is one manifestation of the Life: it is involved in the Life” (Westcott). Note the article with both ἀναστασις [anastasis] and ζωη [zōē]. Jesus had taught the future resurrection often (6:39), but here he means more, even that Lazarus is now alive. Though he die (καν ἀποθανῃ [kan apothanēi]). “Even if he die,” condition (concession) of third class with και ἐαν [kai ean] (καν [kan]) and the second aorist active subjunctive of ἀποθνησκω [apothnēskō] (physical death, he means). Yet shall he live (ζησεται [zēsetai]). Future middle of ζαω [zaō] (spiritual life, of course).
John 11:26
Shall never die (οὐ μη ἀποθανῃ εἰς τον αἰωνα [ou mē apothanēi eis ton aiōna]). Strong double negative οὐ μη [ou mē] with second aorist active subjunctive of ἀποθνησκω [apothnēskō] again (but spiritual death, this time), “shall not die for ever” (eternal death). Believest thou this? (πιστευεις τουτο; [pisteueis touto?]) Sudden test of Martha’s insight and faith with all the subtle turns of thought involved.
John 11:27
Yea, Lord (Ναι, κυριε [Nai, kurie]). Martha probably did not understand all that Jesus said and meant, but she did believe in the future resurrection, in eternal life for believers in Christ, in the power of Christ to raise even the dead here and now. She had heroic faith and makes now her own confession of faith in words that outrank those of Peter in Matt. 16:16 because she makes hers with her brother dead now four days and with the hope that Jesus will raise him up now. I have believed (πεπιστευκα [pepisteuka]). Perfect active indicative of πιστευω [pisteuō]. It is my settled and firm faith. Peter uses this same tense in 6:69. That thou art the Son of God (ὁτι συ εἰ ὁ Χριστος ὁ υἱος του θεου [hoti su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou]). The Messiah or the Christ (1:41) was to be also “the Son of God” as the Baptist said he had found Jesus to be (1:34), as Peter confessed on Hermon for the apostles (Matt. 16:16), as Jesus claimed to be (John 11:41) and confessed on oath before Caiaphas that he was (Matt. 26:63f.), and as John stated that it was his purpose to prove in his Gospel (20:31). But no one said it under more trying circumstances than Martha. Even he that cometh into the world (ὁ εἰς τον κοσμον ἐρχομενος [ho eis ton kosmon erchomenos]). No “even” in the Greek. This was a popular way of putting the people’s expectation (6:14; Matt. 11:3). Jesus himself spoke of his coming into the world (9:39; 16:28; 8:37).
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933).
Joh 11:39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.”
Joh 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
Joh 11:41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
Joh 11:42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.”
Joh 11:43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.”
Joh 11:44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
Joh 11:45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him,
Joh 11:46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Joh 11:47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.

Jesus starts praying, why? If he being singulary one and God manifested in the flesh would such a thing be neccessary, since all that is required is to proclaim Lazarus come forth. Why the misdirection, and subtrifuge if God is One in being and person then this has no menaing. But of God is one in being and three in person then the context of this event is not only supernatural but super revealing? How God chooses to reveal Himself in time and sapce.

John 11:40
Said I not unto thee? (Οὐκ εἰπον σοι; [Ouk eipon soi?]). Jesus pointedly reminds Martha of his promise to raise Lazarus (verses 25f.). That if thou believedst (ὁτι ἐαν πιστευσῃς [hoti ean pisteusēis]). Indirect discourse with ἐαν [ean] and the first aorist active subjunctive (condition of third class) retained after the secondary tense εἰπον [eipon]. He had not said this very phrase, ἐαν πιστευσῃς [ean pisteusēis], to Martha, but he did say to her: Πιστευεις τουτο [Pisteueis touto]; (Believest thou this?). He meant to test Martha as to her faith already hinted at (verse 22) on this very point. Jesus had also spoken of increase of faith on the part of the disciples (verse 15). Thou shouldest see the glory of God (ὀψῃ την δοξαν του θεου [opsēi tēn doxan tou theou]). Future middle indicative of the old defective verb ὁραω [horaō] retained in the conclusion of this condition in indirect discourse. Jesus means the glory of God as shown in the resurrection of Lazarus as he had already said to the disciples (verse 4) and as he meant Martha to understand (verse 25) and may in fact have said to her (the report of the conversation is clearly abridged). Hence Bernard’s difficulty in seeing how Martha could understand the words of Jesus about the resurrection of Lazarus here and now seems fanciful and far-fetched.
John 11:41
So they took away the stone (ἠραν οὐν τον λιθον [ēran oun ton lithon]). First aorist active indicative of αἰρω [airō], but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus “from the place where the dead was laid” (not genuine). I thank thee that thou heardest me (εὐχαριστω σοι ὁτι ἠκουσας μου [eucharistō soi hoti ēkousas mou]). See 6:11 for εὐχαριστεω [eucharisteō]. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. “No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored” (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.
John 11:42
And I knew (ἐγω δε ᾐδειν [egō de ēidein]). Past perfect of οἰδα [oida] used as imperfect. This confident knowledge is no new experience with Jesus. It has “always” (παντοτε [pantote]) been so. Which standeth around (τον περιεστωτα [ton periestōta]). Second perfect active (intransitive) articular participle of περιιστημι [periistēmi]. It was a picturesque and perilous scene. That they may believe (ἱνα πιστευσωσιν [hina pisteusōsin]). Purpose clause with ἱνα [hina] and first ingressive aorist active subjunctive of πιστευω [pisteuō], “that they may come to believe.” That thou didst send me (ὁτι συ με ἀπεστειλας [hoti su me apesteilas]). First aorist active indicative of ἀποστελλω [apostellō] and note position of συ με [su me] side by side. This claim Jesus had long ago made (5:36) and had repeatedly urged (10:25, 38). Here was a supreme opportunity and Jesus opens his heart about it.
John 11:43
He cried with a loud voice (φωνῃ μεγαλῃ ἐκραυγασεν [phōnēi megalēi ekraugasen]). First aorist active indicative of κραυγαζω [kraugazō], old and rare word from κραυγη [kraugē] (Matt. 25:6). See Matt. 12:19. Occurs again in John 18:40; 19:6, 12. Only once in the LXX (Ezra 3:13) and with φωνῃ μεγαλῃ [phōnēi megalēi] (either locative or instrumental case makes sense) as here. For this “elevated (great) voice” see also Matt. 24:31; Mark 15:34, 37; Rev. 1:10; 21:3. The loud voice was not for the benefit of Lazarus, but for the sake of the crowd standing around that they might see that Lazarus came forth simultaneously with the command of Jesus. Lazarus, come forth (Λαζαρε, δευρο ἐξω [Lazare, deuro exō]). “Hither out.” No verb, only the two adverbs, δευρο [deuro] here alone in John. Lazarus heard and obeyed the summons.
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933).

Jesus Claims

In Apologetics on September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am

Jesus claims to be the Son of God and God

Joh 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,
Joh 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 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.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Joh 10:39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Are we guilty of the same thing? “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” We wrestle with who Christ is in his claims of being the son of God and God at the same time. It is caused division in the modern church so much so that we have to turn the language upside down and on it instead of letting the Scripture speak plainly.Jesus tells us the works that he does he does in his Father’s name and bears witness to himself. If God were Unitarian how does the language makes sense if God being singularly one in person would make such silly claim to do things in the name of another? For this first makes sense he would simply make the statement the works I do bear witness about me since I am one. Instead Jesus distinctly and uniquely says that what he does he does in his father’s indicating more than one person and verify the shared nature of God.
To reinforce his first statement Jesus then says is sheep here his voice and follow him. He makes claim to the sheep as his, and obviously the crowd was in awe because he claims to give them eternal life which never perishes. Now the distinction in verse 28 no one will snatch them out of his hand, and in verse 29 no one will snatch them out of the father’s hand.

From John Gill:The Scripture is clear I and the father we are one.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.

Daniel Wallace:
Notes for 10:30
72 tn Grk “I and the Father.” The order has been reversed to reflect English style.
73 tn The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν (hen esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).

Vincent word Studies
One (ἕν)
The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.
Clarkes Commentary on the Bible
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, εγω και ὁ πατηρ ἑν εσμεν – 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.
Barnes Notes on the Bible
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes at Joh_10:34-37.
4. 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.
JFB Commentary of the whole Bible:
30. I and my Father are one—Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. “Are” is in the masculine gender—“we (two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter—“one thing.” Perhaps “one interest” expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father’s hands, as if they had not been given out of them. “Neither have they,” says He; “though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever—they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for He and I have all in common.” Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And Augustine was right in saying the “We are” condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the “one” (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence).

Word Pictures in the New Testament: AT Robinson
One (ἑν [hen]). Neuter, not masculine (εἱς [heis]). Not one person (cf. εἱς [heis] in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural συμυς [sumus] (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by ὐνυμ [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 ἑν [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.
From Augustine 4th Century:
8. But that there may be no more room for hesitation, hear what follows: “I and my Father are one.” Up to this point the Jews were able to bear Him; they heard, “I and my Father are one,” and they bore it no longer; and hardened in their own way, they had recourse to stones. “They took up stones to stone Him.” The Lord, because He suffered not what He was unwilling to suffer, and only suffered what He was pleased to suffer, still addresses them while desiring to stone Him. “The Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? And they answered, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Such was their reply to His words, “I and my Father are one.” You see here that the Jews understood what the Arians understand not. For they were angry on this account, that they felt it could not be said, “I and my Father are one,” save where there was equality of the Father and the Son.

JOHN 10:30

ἐγὼ (Root: εγω, LN: 92.1; pronoun, personal, first person, nominative, singular)
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Personal pronoun functioning as Subject.
Words That Modify ἐγὼ
• conjunctive relation: The word ἐγὼ is modified by καὶ (conjunction) in Jn 10:30, word 2 (καὶ is within the current clausal unit, after ἐγὼ).
• adjectival relation: The word ἐγὼ is modified by ἕν (adjective) in Jn 10:30, word 5 (ἕν is within the current clausal unit, after ἐγὼ).

καὶ (Root: και, LN: 89.92; conjunction, logical, connective)
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Copulative conjunction
Words Modified by καὶ
• conjunctive relation: The word καὶ modifies ἐγὼ (pronoun) in Jn 10:30, word 1 (ἐγὼ is within the current clausal unit, before καὶ).
• conjunctive relation: The word καὶ modifies πατὴρ (noun) in Jn 10:30, word 4 (πατὴρ is within the current clausal unit, after καὶ).

ὁ (Root: ο, LN: 92.24; article, nominative, singular, masculine)
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Attributive article
Words Modified by ὁ
• articular relation: The word ὁ modifies πατὴρ (noun) in Jn 10:30, word 4 (πατὴρ is within the current clausal unit, after ὁ).

πατὴρ (Root: πατηρ, LN: 12.12; noun, nominative, singular, masculine)
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Subject
Words That Modify πατὴρ
• conjunctive relation: The word πατὴρ is modified by καὶ (conjunction) in Jn 10:30, word 2 (καὶ is within the current clausal unit, before πατὴρ).
• articular relation: The word πατὴρ is modified by ὁ (article) in Jn 10:30, word 3 (ὁ is within the current clausal unit, before πατὴρ).
• adjectival relation: The word πατὴρ is modified by ἕν (adjective) in Jn 10:30, word 5 (ἕν is within the current clausal unit, after πατὴρ).

ἕν (Root: εις.2, LN: 60.10; adjective, nominative, singular, neuter)
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: This word functions as Cardinal (number) adjective and Numerical adjective and Predicate adjective.
Words Modified by ἕν
• adjectival relation: The word ἕν modifies ἐγὼ (pronoun) in Jn 10:30, word 1 (ἐγὼ is within the current clausal unit, before ἕν).
• adjectival relation: The word ἕν modifies πατὴρ (noun) in Jn 10:30, word 4 (πατὴρ is within the current clausal unit, before ἕν).

ἐσμεν (Root: ειμι, LN: 13.1; verb, present, active, indicative, first person, plural)
to be
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Finite verb

oh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

The reaction of the Jews is extraordinary they were going to stone Jesus for the claim of a “man” making himself to be God! They being steeped in the tradition of Monotheism and living in an extremely pagan and heathen culture understood the claim of Christ! Clearly calling God His Father, offering eternal life, and then the final statement I and the Father we are one was understood by the Jews that way, as their planning to stone Jesus on the spot. Jesus did not walk around Palestine saying “I am God,” but His interpretation of the Sabbath and His words about His union with the Father revealed His claim of oneness in nature with God. One in nature or essence is not he same as one in Person.

John Gill Exposition of the entire Bible:
They concluded very rightly, from his saying, Joh_10:30, that God was his Father, and that he and his Father were one; that is, in nature and essence, and therefore he must be God; but then this was no blasphemy, but a real truth, as is hereafter made to appear; nor is there any contradiction between his being man, and being God; he is truly and really man, but then he is not a mere man, as the Jews suggested; but is truly God, as well as man, and is both God and man in one person, the divine and human nature being united in him, of which they were ignorant: two mistakes they seem to be guilty of in this account; one that Christ was a mere man, the other that he made himself God, or assumed deity to himself, which did not belong to him, and therefore must be guilty of blasphemy; neither of which were true: the phrase is used by the Jews, of others who have taken upon them the name and title of God; as of Hiram king of Tyre, of whom they say, שעשה עצמו אלוה, “that he made himself God” (r); the same they say of Nebuchadnezzar; and the modern Jews still continue the same charge against Jesus, as their ancestors did, and express it in the same language, and say of him, that he was a man, and set himself up for God (s).

(r) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 96. fol. 83. 4. & Tzeror Hammor, fol. 134. 4. (s) Aben Ezra in Gen. xxvii. 39. & Abarbinel Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 5. 1.

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

First to refute those who say Jesus never says he is the Son of God clearly havent seen this incident in John. Jesus boldly asserts and defends His position in the Godhead and is almost stoned for it. His language, behavior and miracles attest the fact of His statement.

Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;

Jesus uses a polimic to confirm His claim- If I (singular distinct) am not doing the works of my (possive) Father (how are we to undertatnd this title?) then don’t beleive.
These signs were given for their learning so that by pondering their significance they might recognize Jesus’ oneness with the Father (the Father is in Me, and I in the Father). Nicodemus had recognized this for he said, “No one could perform [those] miraculous signs… if God were not with Him” (Joh_3:2).

Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

The final of seven statements that clearly define the separation of persons while maintaining the one nature that is shared. Jesus clearly illustrates his existance, purpose and position. He and the Father they are one since there was only one person standing physically the only clear understanding is they must be one in some other way. The Jews recognized distinction as their reaction was to stone Him for blashphemy. To this day the Jewish religion denies all that is true about the Messiahs birth, death and ressurection. The most basic attack from the Jewish religion and their anti-missaries is the three oneness or one threeness of the Godhead aka as the Trinity. Not only is the attack from the Jewish religion but from every other belisf system and non-belief system. The uniqueness of the Christian faith has been since its inception and contiunues in the orthordox belief in the montheisic being known as God revealed in the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Joh 10:39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

%d bloggers like this: