A friend of mine received a letter from someone named James1 who admits he is a heretic by his own understanding of the term. In his letter he candidly gives his interpretation of John 10.30 where Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” While insisting that he is a Christian who believes Scripture, “James the Heretic” (hereafter JH) openly denies the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
As my friend’s pastor, I know it is my duty for her good and the good of others to answer such heretics. A man in my position must “be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit 1.9), or, “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (ESV). This requirement is given “to the end that every overseer may be able by means of his sound teaching to incline will and heart to the joyful service of God, and to expose the errors of those who rebel; that is, to withstand these opponents, if at all possible bringing them to an acknowledgment of their error and to repentance; at least, convincing believers that these adversaries are wrong” (William Hendriksen, in loc.). So whether JH ever reads this or not, I would answer his letter.
To help the reader understand, I will cite unedited the relevant portions of his letter, and then respond to each. The only omissions are matters of a personal nature between JH and the letter’s recipient.
JH’s Paragraph 1
Concerning your comment that a teacher is more responsible because he teaches others, I couldn’t agree more. That is precisely the burden that driven [sic] me from the beginning to search God’s word for myself to come to a place where I was sure my believers were based on my understanding of the scriptures and not merely a reflection of others. I do not condemn any of my brothers and sisters for not agreeing with me for we shall all stand before God and our Lord. I am convinced there is none since the Apostles that will not be found guilty of heresy of some degree.
My Response
JH’s arrogance appears immediately when he exalts his own judgment about doctrinal matters above the judgment of everyone else in the world and in the history of the church. He implies that arriving at sound and sincere convictions requires ignoring all teachers and coming to one’s own doctrinal conclusions in complete isolation. In JH’s view, objectivity requires that our beliefs come straight from the Bible itself, without even considering the teaching of others about the Bible. If he happens to agree with anyone on a particular matter, it is mere coincidence, because, in his view, to learn from anyone else would make his beliefs “merely a reflection of others.”
JH’s position is extremely naïve, censurably simplistic, and perversely ironic. It is naïve because it is apparently ignorant of biblical warnings about spiritual isolation. It is simplistic because it does not take into account that Christ Himself appoints human teachers in the church for our discipleship. He gives His church on earth “pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ” (Eph 4.11–12). We have a rich legacy in the tradition of doctrinal instruction found in all kinds of written materials handed down to us by champions of the faith who have gone before. It is ironic because JH’s repudiation of human teachers is a very strange idea to be coming from one who has been teaching doctrine to other people for many years, and indeed, who attempts to teach my friend in his letter to her.
Scripture soberly warns us about isolating ourselves from others so that we may think and do as we please instead of remaining humbly accountable to our brethren. Proverbs 18.1–2 says, “Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion” (ESV). The lone heretic has much in common with “the sluggard [who] is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly” (Prov 26.16 ESV). No matter how overwhelming the evidence that he is wrong, he will not change his mind and his ways. This arrogant incorrigibility is very dangerous because “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Prov 14.12 ESV). Has JH never read, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” (Prov 11.14)?
The fact is that sound believers all confess the same Christian faith as others because we learned it from them and, together, we find it in Scripture. The true church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3.15). It is the church’s corporate responsibility to preserve, to proclaim, and to defend the truth. We all confess the same Christian faith as a body spelled out in that earliest of creeds found in 1 Timothy 3.16. Within the true Church, certain things are “without controversy,” and first among them is that “God was manifest in the flesh,” which JH effectively denies, thus parting doctrinally from all orthodox Christians. As those in fellowship with Christ and the apostles, and therefore in fellowship with one another, we must be “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit” based on our fundamental spiritual and doctrinal unity, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4.3–6).
Scripture affirms in countless places the legitimacy of our learning the Christian faith from Christians and from the church as an institution. We need a recovery of appreciation for this or we are all the more vulnerable to JH’s doctrinal isolationism. Remember how Paul reminded Timothy of how he learned the gospel from his mother and grandmother, and even appeals to those credible teachers as reinforcement in Timothy’s mind and judgment (2 Tim 1.5; 3.14–15). Remember how Philip readily taught the Ethiopian eunuch when he said he could not understand what he was reading “unless some man should guide me” (Acts 8.31). Remember how Jesus commissioned His Church to teach unbelievers the gospel and believers the specific requirements of His revealed will (Matt 28.19–20). Even as John the apostle was telling the early Christians “ye need not that any man teach you,” they learned it by the teaching of his letter (1 Jn 2.27). I could multiply examples.
The scriptural position toward the church’s teaching ministry, both historic and modern, lies between two extremes. The first extreme is taken by the Roman Catholic Church which insists that “both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #82 [2nd edition, pub. 2000]). The opposite extreme is represented by JH in his suspicion and even hostility to the church’s teaching ministry. The right position is great respect and appreciation for Christian tradition and fallible preaching and teaching without idolizing it. The Bereans are praised in Acts for first receiving the word preached and then daily comparing that with the Scriptures (Acts 17.11). They were “more noble” than others, not only because they tested what they heard, but also because they were open-minded enough to hear it in the first place, seriously considering it and deriving all the benefit from it that they could.
If we each were to reminisce about our own experience, we can see how God used churches and Christians to bring us to faith and to nurture us in it. And these people received the faith from other fallible people. They did not just somehow come across a Bible, lock themselves up in a closet with it for a month, and then emerge born again Christians believing in the Trinity and substitutionary atonement and many other doctrines that real Christians hold in common whatever their denominational association. Almost without exception, we all learn the basics of the Christian faith from other Christians and from the institutional church, and then we seek confirmation of what we have heard from Scripture. This is as it should be, and as God has ordained it to be. Objectivity does not require isolation.
JH also informs us, “I am convinced there is none since the Apostles that will not be found guilty of heresy of some degree.” So we are all heretics in JH’s view, more or less, and that makes him, in his view, a typical Christian. Again most ironically, this repudiates the apostles’ view of the matter recorded for us in the New Testament itself. For example, we read in Romans 16 that we should “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (vv. 17–18). Paul distinguishes between orthodox Christians and heretics, and brands the latter self-idolaters and deceivers. If any of these heretics should be discovered in the church’s membership, they are to be marked out as heretics and excluded from that recognition. JH’s doctrinal position qualifies him for such spiritual repudiation by Christians who are essentially sound in the faith.
JH’s Paragraph 2
The definition of heresy is simple: it is a view or believe that is in opposition to the popular beliefs, doctrines and opinions of the church. (not necessarily the scripture)
My Response
JH’s definition of “heresy” stands aloof from any biblical context and authority and is completely innocuous, stated very craftily for appeal to the non-conformist streak in all of us. He says heresy is “a view or belief that is in opposition to the popular beliefs, doctrines and opinions of the church (not necessarily the Scripture).” “Popular” is a loaded term since we know, broadly speaking, that the majority is often wrong. “Opinions” is also loaded, for we are under no obligation to agree with anyone else’s mere “opinions,” which can be defined as “beliefs stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge” (MWCD). Also according to JH, a heresy is judged by its opposition to “the church” and not “the Scripture.” Thus, conceivably, a heretic may agree on a given point with Scripture while “the church” opposes Scripture and the heretic. By this reasoning, some heresies are scriptural and true, and the whole church stands in need of the correction offered by the few heretics that stand outside the church. These are manifest absurdities stemming from such a deceptive definition of the word “heresy.”
The NT takes a very dim view of all heretics. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Tit 3.10–11). “Heresies” give an opportunity for those Christians who are “approved” to be “made manifest” (1 Cor 11.19)—clearly because they adhere to the apostles’ doctrine and oppose the heresies. The obvious works of the flesh include, besides adultery, idolatry, witchcraft, murder, and drunkenness, that other sin to be dreaded which is labeled “heresies.” Paul insists that people who “do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5.19–21). In other words, heretics are among the notorious sinners in the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt 7.13). Peter warns real Christians about “false teachers” who will be found “among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet 2.1).
There is only one NT instance of the word “heresy” referring to the truth. Paul testified of himself, “that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Acts 24.14). “They” in this verse refers to apostate Jews who did not really believe the Scriptures, as evidenced by their rejection of Jesus as the Christ. From their perspective, the truth was “heresy,” but even here, the term “heresy” has the worst connotation of serious doctrinal error. The Jews judged the Christians to be guilty of idolatry for worshipping Jesus Christ as the Lord God. They were wrong in their judgment, but not in thinking that heresy is serious doctrinal error and a grave sin. The New Testament always denounces genuine heresy and heretics in the strongest terms.
R. C. Sproul makes a helpful distinction: “Historically, the church has distinguished between ‘heresies’ and ‘errors,’ indicating a difference in degree rather than in kind. That is, though all heresies are errors, not all errors are elevated to heresy. That heinous word heresy is reserved for an error of a most severe sort. All errors of truth matter, but not all errors threaten the very substance of the truth,” as heresy does (Symposium Volumes, “A Serious Charge”). A fair definition of heresy is “extreme theological error, that is, teaching that denies essential elements of the gospel. . . . The NT as well as theologians have generally used the word heresy in accordance with [this] definition” (Naselli, A. D. Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, p. 219).
When we use the term properly, we easily see how ludicrous it is to conceive of the whole body of Christ in common holding to any “heresy,” or imagining any “heresy” that is consistent with Scripture. This would be, in effect, to identify the heretics as the true church, and to condemn the church as heretical.
JH’s Paragraph 3
I guess by that definition you could call me a heretic and my beliefs heresy. I hold many beliefs that are contrary to what has been taught for years by the church. I’ve even been ex-communicated by those who called me brother and even a gifted teacher (smile) until they heard me say something that didn’t line up with what they have been taught and come to believe and cherish at all costs. However, I believe the views I hold are scriptural, and reflect the heart, character and nature of God and His gospel of the man He raised to be Lord and Christ. I am also open to being wrong if someone can convince me with scripture. Not by simply telling me the bible says such and such a thing, but by actually showing me all these scriptures that are supposedly there. I am a truth seeker and the truth I seek can only be found in the scripture, not in the creeds that the church is so fond of. You stated it very well, “the only truth is God’s.” Like I have stated to you in the past, I really don’t care what I end up believing as long as I can stand before my GOD with assurance that I can personally demonstrate in HIS word why I believe what I believe. I am very comfortable with the thought that I can do that.
My Response
The smug self-confidence JH exhibits here is breathtaking. He admits he was once part of “the church” and that he has been excommunicated by those who had formerly counted him a brother, yet he remains proudly impenitent, heedless of the serious implications of church discipline. His own private judgment trumps everyone else’s, though he stands virtually alone. Do not be fooled by his claim of being “scriptural;” this is common among heretics seeking credibility. Nor should any be deceived by JH’s claim of openness to correction, for he has persistently rejected all attempts of correction, whatever they may have been, through the years of his doctrinal delusion. His ultimate reference point is clearly not Scripture but his own nefariously twisted interpretation of Scripture. JH seems utterly unable to distinguish between the two. This statement is telling, “The truth I seek can only be found in the Scripture, not in the creeds that the church is so fond of.” If we restate this slightly but fairly, JH is saying, “The truth I seek cannot be found in the church’s creeds.” Taking this statement at face value, it clearly indicates that JH is firmly committed to a repudiation of all creeds since they are utterly devoid of “the truth he seeks.” With that kind of virulent hostility to creeds as his basic presupposition and starting point, JH is and must necessarily continue as a wicked heretic in the worst possible sense of the term. He also demonstrates he is closed-minded to the doctrinal positions advocated in those “deceitful creeds”—an inevitable conclusion of his unreasonable prejudice against them as devoid of truth.
Note also JH’s boast: “I can . . . personally demonstrate in HIS [God’s] word why I believe what I believe.” Demonstrate to whose satisfaction? To JH’s, of course. Many of JH’s fellow heretics, as well as his theological opponents, make the same claim. The whole approach is self-referential and narcissistic. If JH’s doctrinal positions are so obviously and demonstrably scriptural, why do the vast majority of those who claim to believe the Bible utterly reject them as serious doctrinal errors? And they certainly do! JH must think he has either superior intellectual prowess or immense powers of spiritual insight grossly lacking in the rest of us here today as well as in the millions of saints who have gone before us since the Lord established His Church. How else could he maintain his peculiar and false doctrines against the united testimony of the body of Christ around the world and throughout history?
JH’s Paragraph 4
I did not come to this position overnight. It took a lot of time and study and prayer. I too once believed what I was taught by men concerning the trinity but always wondered how they ever figured out a doctrine that the Trinitarian scholars themselves eventually end up saying that it is a mystery that we can’t understand? We can’t understand it because it is equivalent to trying to explain or draw a squared circle. It’s nonsensical.
My Response
JH informs us that he formerly held to the doctrine of the Trinity but now rejects it because he considers it “nonsensical” to embrace “a mystery that we can’t understand.” If by this phrase, our self-proclaimed heretic purports to represent the orthodox church’s view of the Trinity, he fails absurdly. This is not only a misrepresentation of the church’s judgment about the Trinity but also an unmitigated adoption of an ancient and idolatrous philosophy fairly called rationalism, where man’s reason is the judge and defining boundary of all things, including the doctrines of Holy Scripture. It is true that the doctrine of the Trinity has been associated with the term “mystery” by some of the church’s greatest teachers through the centuries. It is also true that the orthodox readily confess that our Triune God is far beyond human comprehension. But this is a completely reasonable belief! How could finite man, not to mention sinful man, ever imagine to fathom the fullness of the Deity within our limited minds when we are as nothing before Him (Job 11.7; Psa 145.3)?
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is both rational and supra-rational, but certainly not irrational. Its component verbal assertions are consistent with Scripture and sound reason, and yet the reality it describes is far beyond our ability to comprehend. In this sense it is mysterious. It is mysterious like “infinity” and “love” and “omnipresence”—all concepts which we are only able to apprehend in a limited measure but of which we will never be able to gain an exhaustive knowledge and a sufficient appreciation.
JH further claims that the doctrine of the Trinity is “equivalent to trying to explain or draw a squared circle,” but he makes no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate any contradictions within the doctrine as classically formulated. Assertion is not proof. Our spiritual forefathers were concerned to be not only scriptural but also reasonable in their doctrinal formulations, and in general, I believe they succeeded.
But JH’s “god” is evidently one he can understand, one that makes sense to him. Again, see how JH considers his own mind the litmus test for any being who claims to be God. JH admits no possibility of being humbly amazed and spiritually enlightened by divine revelation, and makes no allowance for divine mystery and incomprehensibility. Sadly, this necessarily rules out JH’s discovery of the true and living God as He really is, and as He has revealed Himself.
Rationalism [is the] conviction that reason provides the best or even the only path to truth. . . . In theology the term rationalism often designates a position that subordinates revelation to human reason or rules out revelation as a source of knowledge altogether. In this sense an empiricist can be a rationalist who gives precedence to human reason over revelation (Evans, C. S., Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion, pp. 98–99).
From church history, we can see that denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ, as JH denies them, are the quintessential heresies, being condemned by general and repeated consensus in the earliest ecumenical creeds (e.g., Nicene and Athanasian) and all major confessions of faith ever since (e.g., Westminster, 2LCF). The early church was Trinitarian. The medieval church was Trinitarian. Despite its historic slide into apostasy over centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has always been and still is Trinitarian. The Reformers were Trinitarian. All the major branches of Protestantism are solidly founded, in part, upon Trinitarianism (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Baptists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.). Those who repudiate the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ wickedly cut themselves off from His holy church and her united testimony to these biblical truths. They cannot credibly consider themselves Christians in the historic and biblical sense. From the beginning, Christians have confessed Jesus as Lord. It is easily demonstrable that this was an implicit confession of His deity (e.g., John 20.28).
JH’s Paragraph 5
I can only assume you wrote John 10:30 on the envelope to point me to a verse that so many people (not all) in the church have been taught is clear textual support for the notion that Jesus was claiming to be God Himself. If you never again believe anything I say to you, you can believe this, there is no verse you can come up with in the scripture, that you have been told supports the Trinitarian position, that I haven’t already studied.
My Response
Here JH begins his discussion of John 10.30, the verse raised by my friend in her previous letter to him. He announces with great emphasis that there is no verse in Scripture related to Trinitarianism which he has not already studied. This gives the impression, especially with the foregoing expressions of confidence in his own personal and isolated judgment, that he is utterly convinced he could not be mistaken on these major doctrinal issues. Realizing this, we could understandably doubt the efficacy of engaging in dialogue with JH on these things. Clearly, only the power of divine illumination can break down JH’s fortress of self-deception (2 Tim 2.24–26).
JH’s Paragraphs 6–7
John 10:30 I and my father are one.
There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “…he who plants and he who waters are one…” (1 Cor. 3:8 -). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose….” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose” is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children “one.” In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” I think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered. The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the “sheep,” the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.
My Response
Citing John 10.30 out of context, which reads, “I and my Father are one,” JH denies that Jesus here claims “that he and the Father make up ‘one God.’” To state it that way involves either a deliberate deception about the orthodox view of the Trinity, or a fearful ignorance of that orthodoxy.
No well-instructed teacher of the doctrine of the Trinity would say that Jesus and the Father “make up” one God, as if God were composed of these two parts (God the Father and God the Son) put together into a single composite Being. Instead, we confess together that the true God is “without body, parts, or passions” (2LCF 2.1). The Persons of the Trinity are not three “parts” of the one God. Rather, the Trinity doctrine is classically formulated this way:
In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of one, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him (2LCF 2.3).
“Subsistences” is a technical term that here means “a particular being or existent, an individual instance of a given essence” (Muller, DLGTT, “subsistentia”)—not a “part” of a given essence. God is essentially simple, “without parts.” The Persons of the Godhead are not parts of the Godhead. The true God “is not to be divided in nature and being” according to the orthodox Trinitarian formulation.
Seeing that JH is such an ignorant and poor student of theology that he cannot even articulate accurately what the orthodox Trinity doctrine actually is, he ought to lose immediately all credibility as a judge of that doctrine. How can he meaningfully oppose a doctrine he does not really understand? The persuasive debater must be able to state his opponent’s position fairly and accurately before he proves himself competent to interact with it and critique it.
In response to the specifics of this part of JH’s letter, I would say four things.
1) The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon an isolated Scripture verse here and there like John 10.30 but rather upon the cumulative witness of a vast host of texts interpreted in a manner consistent with the whole biblical witness to the one true God and to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as divine Persons distinct from one another. The biblical case for the doctrine of the Trinity is complex and requires patient study of the entire biblical witness on these things.
2) John 10.30 in particular is a text where the oneness of the Father and the Son is intended to be understood as both functional and metaphysical, so that whatever validity there is of the “one purpose” or “one work” interpretation, it does not necessarily disprove possible connotations relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity.
3) It is clear from the context, which JH completely omits, that this particular declaration of Jesus aroused the Jews’ hostility, because they counted Him guilty of “blasphemy,” and because they understood He was claiming to be God. “Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10.33). Instead of correcting a supposed misunderstanding, Jesus strengthened His assertion by appealing to the Psalm where powerful judges are called “gods.” How much more appropriately, then, can the Son whom the Father sent into the world claim to be the Son of God (i.e., a title of divinity and equality with the Father)? These Jews should believe Jesus’ claim because He does the works of the Father, which demonstrate, according to Jesus, that “the Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10.34–38). We can certainly know from all this that Jesus is making a claim of ontological oneness with the Father.
4) Carefully consider D. A. Carson’s discussion of the text (PNTC) which follows:
10:30. Verses 28–29 affirm that both the Father and the Son are engaged in the perfect preservation of Jesus’ sheep. Small wonder, then, that Jesus can say, I and the Father are one. The word for ‘one’ is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest, for then the distinction between Jesus and God already introduced in 1:1b would be obliterated, and John could not refer to Jesus praying to his Father, being commissioned by and obedient to his Father, and so on. Rather, Jesus and his Father are perfectly one in action, in what they do: what Jesus does, the Father does, and vice versa (cf. notes on 5:19ff.).
This verse has generated profound and complex controversies over the question of Jesus’ nature. Arians (those who deny that Jesus is truly God) both ancient and modern have entered the lists, while many scholars of orthodox conviction nevertheless hold that this verse supports only a functional oneness. The following five points may help to clarify the issues:
(1) The language of ‘oneness’ itself is not decisive. This is made clear by 17:22, where Jesus prays that his disciples ‘may be one as we are one’.
(2) On the other hand, an appeal to 17:22 cannot decisively prove that the claim ‘I and the Father are one’, in this passage, refers merely to a oneness of will or action, and stands utterly devoid of metaphysical overtones. After all, this is a book in which the Word is openly declared to be God (1:1, 18), in which the climactic confession is ‘My Lord and my God!’ (20:28), in which Jesus takes on his own lips the name of God (8:58), in which numerous Old Testament references and especially allusions portray Jesus standing where God alone stands (e.g. 12:41). The reader should therefore hesitate before denying that there is any claim to deity whatsoever in these words.
(3) The immediate context is the most important single control. This includes not only the clearly functional categories of vv. 28–29 (viz. Jesus and his Father share the same will and task, the preservation of Jesus’ sheep), but two other factors. First, this is of a piece with 5:16ff. There, too, the Jews understood Jesus to be speaking blasphemy, because he claimed to be God. As we saw, they were partly right and partly wrong. They were wrong in that they envisaged another God, a competing God; they were right in that Jesus not only claimed that he could do only what his Father gave him to do, but that he did everything the Father did (5:19). No other human being in the stream of Jewish monotheism could meaningfully make such a claim. Second, 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.
(4) It is important to remember that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is the unique Son. Others are children of God; only he is the Son, the revealer, the one who has come down from heaven, the good shepherd who gives his life for his sheep, the true vine, the light of the world, the Word made flesh. The reader brings this sort of information to the interpretation of 10:30, and ought to.
(5) In 17:22, the order of the comparison is not reciprocal. The unity of the Father and the Son is the reality against which the unity of believers is to be measured, not the reverse (cf. Schnackenburg, 2. 308). And like any analogy that generates a comparison, the analogy cannot be pushed to exhaustion.
In short, although the words I and the Father are one do not affirm complete identity, in the context of this book they certainly suggest more than that Jesus’ will was one with the will of his Father, at least in the weak sense that a human being may at times regulate his own will and deed by the will of God. If instead Jesus’ will is exhaustively one with his Father’s will, some kind of metaphysical unity is presupposed, even if not articulated. Though the focus is on the common commitment of Father and Son to display protective power toward what they commonly own (17:10), John’s development of Christology to this point demands that some more essential unity be presupposed, quite in line with the first verse of the Gospel. Even from a structural point of view, this verse constitutes a ‘shattering statement’ (Lindars, BFG, p. 52), the climax to this part of the chapter, every bit as much as ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ forms the climax to ch. 8. The Jews had asked for a plain statement that would clarify whether or not he was the Messiah. He gave them far more, and the response was the same as in 5:18; 8:59.
My Conclusion
JH is a dangerous false teacher, personally and doctrinally isolated from the church of Christ, and willing to lure others away. At the same time, JH is a sinner in need of salvation, blinded by the god of this world (i.e., the Devil), lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto him (2 Cor 4.4). JH is our spiritual enemy, and also an object of our compassionate concern, that he might be saved.
In some ways JH has taken the common, contemporary disdain for the significance of church history and for our creeds and confessions to its reasonable conclusion: doctrinal and spiritual isolation in one’s own private interpretations of Scripture, unchecked by the consensus of the church’s best teachers through the ages and the reproofs of Christian leaders and friends.
Perhaps some of you have already taken a few steps along the same path as JH. You may still be quite ignorant and apathetic about the church’s united testimony across centuries and continents concerning the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. You may not yet appreciate how spiritually significant it is for you to be a committed member of a local church holding to an historic confession of faith and taught by a pastor who is both a true Christian scholar and a godly shepherd of souls. If this is your state, remember that JH was once as you are now, and he has now become what possibly horrifies you and, indeed, should horrify you. If you would not end up like him, then stop walking down his road toward heresy and ruin. Return to the historic faith of Christ’s church and to the spiritual safety of true fellowship and mutual accountability with orthodox believers. Amen. Ω
Notes:
1. “James” is a pseudonym.