hotrodhell

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)
I
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)
and
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)
the
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)
father
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)
one
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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: