John 10:30

THE ASSAULT

Joh 10:30-39. “I and My Father are one.” There is but one God, but three persons — i.e., three characters — manifested by the Deity to the world. I am a preacher, a teacher, and a book editor, three characters, and yet but one. “Again the Jews took up stones that they may stone Him.” As they felt that they were prepared to sustain their condemnation of blasphemy against Him because He claimed to be the Son of God, they thought if they could raise a row and excite the rabble, they might get rid of Him by stoning Him to dearth, and cover up the whole transaction under the charge of blasphemy. Though they take up stones, and show every manifestation of instantaneous death, Jesus remains perfectly tranquil. “And Jesus responded to them, Many good works have I shown to you from the Father, on account of which work of these do you stone Me? The Jews responded to Him, We do not stone Thee for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.” According to the Mosaic law, the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning. The same also was the penalty for Sabbath-breaking. Consequently His enemies, who hounded Him day and night, thirsting for His blood, were constantly on the alert, ready to catch up anything whatever, and use it as a charge against Him. It so happened, in the normal administration of His official Messiahship, He was really under the necessity of rendering Himself vulnerable to the charge of blasphemy, in order to enunciate and vindicate His claims to the Messiahship, as it would have been really impossible for any one to preach and testify in harmony with the Messianic office without exposing Himself to the liability of the charge of blasphemy; whereas His constant works of philanthropy, healing the multitudes of sick people everywhere He went, would have necessitated Him to intermit His work on the Sabbath or become vulnerable to the charge of Sabbatic violation. Consequently His enemies, having these two strings to their bow, pulled on them incessantly, making music for the bottomless pit.

“Jesus responded to them, Is it not written in your law that I said, Ye are gods?” (Psalms 80.) Here the word is applied to tyrannical world-rulers. “If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do you say that Thou blasphemest because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, believe not Me, believe the works, in order that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Then they were seeking to arrest Him, and he went out from their hand.” Our Lord’s ministry is now rapidly winding to a close. Consequently it is important to emphasize the great, salient point of His earthly mission, and everywhere prominently hold up His Christhood, so that all the people would clearly apprehend and indubitably witness His claims to the Messiahship, thus exposing Himself to the constant liability of arrest and arraignment, as they had a rabbinical law specifying that any man claiming to be the Christ should be brought before the Sanhedrin for investigation and examination. Now that He boldly meets the issue, despite their charge of blasphemy, they proceed to arrest Him. Of course, the Sanhedrin would have condemned Him to death by stoning (Lev 24:16), thus cutting off His earthly ministry about one month before the time. Consequently He passed away from their hands, of course unobserved, all losing sight of Him, and thinking He was somewhere in the crowd; but no one being able to find Him, meanwhile He passes clearly away.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:30 The Father and the Son are two separate persons with one purpose and nature (1:1, 14; 14:9; 20:28). This is the basis of Jesus’ power to protect God’s flock (10:28-29) and a stunning expression of Jesus’ divinity.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 10:30. Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν, I and the Father are one) One, not merely in agreement of will, but in unity of power, and so of nature: for omnipotence is an attribute of the nature [of God]; and His discourse is of the unity of the Father and the Son. In these words of Jesus, the Jews, blind as they were, saw more meaning than Antitrinitarians see in the present day. If the Jews had supposed that Jesus wishes merely to be accounted as a divine man, and not as the Son of God, who is as truly God as sons of men are men, they would not have said, whereas Thou art a man, thou makest Thyself God [Joh 10:33]; nor would they have arraigned Him for blasphemy. By the expression, we are, Sabellius is refuted:[285] by the word, one, Arius is refuted;[286] see Joh 10:33; Joh 10:36; Joh 10:38, “The Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Comp. the close of Joh 10:29 with that of 28.[287] Especially also the first person of the plural number has a pre-eminent signification, as applied to the Son and Father; Jesus seldom uses it of Himself and men. See note on Matt. ch. Joh 5:11, “Blessed are ye” etc. [not we],

[285] Who denied the distinctness of the persons. “I and the Father are.”—E. and T.

[286] Who denied the divinity of the Son.—E. and T.

[287] “Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand,”—“No man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand:” therefore the Father and Jesus are one.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 30. 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. I and my Father are one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to him, so that he could promise to his disciples that it would assuredly protect them. He therefore testifies that his affairs are so closely united to those of the Father, that the Father’s assistance will never be withheld from himself and his sheep The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(30) I and my Father are one.—The last clause of Joh_10:29 is identical with the last clause of Joh_10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with “My.” This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for “one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. “The Son is of one substance with the Father.” In the plural “are” there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel instance in Joh_8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the words conveyed but one meaning, and they sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (Joh_10:33).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one. Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Rev_20:6; Rev_22:3.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. The Jew (p) objects, that

"if the sense of this expression is, that the Father and the Son are one, as the Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself destroys this saying, as it is written in Mar 13:32, for saith Jesus, "that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only"; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son does not know what the Father knows.''

But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the son of man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosom of his Father, and was privy to all his secrets, to all his thoughts, purposes, and designs; and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God omniscient; and in this respect is one with the Father, having the same perfections of power, knowledge, &c. but then as the son of man, he is not of the same nature, and has not the same knowledge; his knowledge of things was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reach to all things at once, but was capable of being increased, as it was: and it is with regard to him as the son of man, that Jesus speaks of himself in Mar 13:32; whereas he is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power; wherefore considered in the relation of the Son of God, and as possessed of the same perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no contradiction between the words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor is he chargeable with any blasphemy against God, or any arrogance in himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests; nor is what he produces from a Socinian writer, of any moment, that these words do not necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son are of the same essence; since it may be said of two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man, and the other another; for we do not say they are one and the same person, which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that they are one God, and two distinct persons.

(p) Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 50. p. 438, 439.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

30 I and my Father are one.

Ver. 30. I and my Father are one] Both for nature or essence, and for one consent, both in willing and working. Out of the harbour of Goodwin’s Sands the pilot cannot make forth, they say, without sinking in those sands, unless he so steer his ship, that he bring two steeples, which stand off, so even in his sight, that they may seem to be but one. So is it here.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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:

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. 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. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes at Joh 10:34-37. 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I and the Father are one,[2] or one being, not one person, nor one by an union of affection only, but in nature, substance, power, and other perfections, as appears by the whole text: for Christ here tells them that none of his elect shall perish, because no one can snatch them out of his hands, no more than out of the hand of his Father: and then adds, that he and his Father are one, or have one equal power: and if their power, says St. John Chrysostom, is the same, so is their substance. Christ adds, (ver. 38.) that the Father is in him, and he in the Father; which also shews an union of nature and substance, and not only of love and affection, especially when taken with other words of our Saviour Christ. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Unum sumus, Greek: en esmen, i.e. says St. John Chrysostom, secundum potentiam. Greek: kata ten dunamin entautha legon. See St. Cyril, p. 667.; St. Augustine, tract. 49. p. 617, Huc usque Judæi tolerare potuerunt ... tune vero more suo duri ad lapides concurrunt ... ideo irati sunt, quia senserunt non posse dici, Ego et pater unum sumus, nisi ubi æqualitas est Patris et Filii. ... Ecce intelligunt Judæi, quod not intellligunt Ariani.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

My Father and I are one, not only in counsel and will, (as Joh 17:11,22, and believers are said to be of one heart, Act 4:32), but in nature, power, and essence; for it is plain that our Saviour here ascribes the preservation of his sheep, not to the will, but to the power of his Father: None is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. And it is plain by what follows, that the Jews thus understood our Saviour. Some eminent protestant interpreters expound this of a oneness in consent and will, doing the same things, and driving the same design, both agreeing to preserve the sheep unto eternal life; but (with all respect unto them) I think the context implies more, though this be not excluded.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. Are one—One in will, but also one in power and surety. For it is upon this oneness of power and surety that the security of the believer’s salvation is grounded.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then follows the sublime minor premise of the syllogism, I and the Father (we) are one. As Augustine and Bengel have said, the first clause is incompatible with Sabelliauism, and the second clause with Arianism. The Lord is conscious of his own Personality as distinct from that of the Father, and yet he asserts a fundamental unity. But what kind of unity is it? Is it a unity of wish, emotion, sentiment, only? On the contrary, it is a oneness of redemptive power. The Divine activity of the Father"s eternal love did not come to any arrest or pause when he gave the sheep to the Son, but with its irresistible might is present in the "hand" of Jesus (no one "can," not no one "shall"). Therefore the en , the one reality, if it does not express actual unity of essence, involves it. Some have endeavored to minimize the force of this remarkable statement by comparing it with Joh_17:21-23, where Jesus said believers are "to be in us," and "to be one, even as we are one," i.e. to have the same kind of relation with one another (being a collective unity) as the Father and Son sustain towards each other, "I in them, thou in me, that they may be perfected reach their telov , by being blended into one;" i.e. into one Divine personality by my indwelling. Now, it is nowhere there said that believers and the Father are one, but such a statement is scrupulously avoided. Numerous attempts have been made to escape from the stupendous assumption of this unity of power and essence with the Father. The whole gist of the assertion reveals the most overwhelming self-consciousness. The Lord declares that he can bestow eternal life and blessedness upon those who stand in close living relation with himself, and between whom and himself there is mutual recognition and the interchanges of love and trust. He bases the claim on the fact that the Father"s hands are behind his, and that the Father"s eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father"s Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

That is, one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, and not barely one in will and affection, one in concord or consent. That this is the genuine signification of the words, appears by a three-fold argument.

1. From the original words: it is not said, I and my Father are one person in the masculine gender, but in the neuter I and my Father are one thing. Now if that thing be not the divine Being, they cannot be one; for since the Father is confessed to be God, the Son cannot be one thing with the Father, if he be not God too.

2. It appears from the context; our Saviour, in the preceding versed, ascribed the preservation of his sheep to the power of his Father; None can pluck them out of my Father’s hand; and he ascribes it also to his own power; None shall pluck them out of my hand; plainly intimating, that his sheep were equally safe in his own hand, as well as in his Father’s; for, says he, I and my Father are one; that is, one in power: and, if they be one in power, they must be one in nature; unless we make an almighty creature, which is a contradiction.

3. It appears evidently by what follows in the next verse, that the Jews understood our Saviour in this sense; why else did they take up stones to stone him? We stone thee, say they, for blasphemy, because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews took our Saviour’s meaning aright, and were satisfied, that when he said, I and my Father are one, he asserted himself to be God, and deserved to die; and well he had deserved it, if he had not been God. The adversaries of our Saviour’s divinity, to elude the force of these words, which make so much agaainst them, interpret the words thus, I and my Father are one; that is, say they, we are Mia bdlhsiv one in will and affection, one in concord and consent: this is a truth, but not the great truth contained in these words; for thus believers are one with God, and one with one another; namely, by a harmony of wills and desires: so far as they are regenerated, God’s will and theirs are unisons, they will and desire the same thing, and are of one heart and of one mind.

But God and Christ are one, in a much higher sense than Christ and believers are one; namely, one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, Christ being con-substantial with God.

Learn hence, That the Lord Jesus Christ is for nature co-essential, for dignity co-equal, and for duration co-eternal with the Father.

2. That although Christ be one in essence with the Father, yet are they distinct persons one from antoher. I and my Father, we are one.

3. Learn hence, That the Son being one in essence, one in power, one in consent and will, with the Father, they are both equally concerned for the perseverance of the saints, for preserving them in grace, and for bringing them to glory. None shall pluck them out of mine or my Father’s hand: for I and my Father are one. If the power be the same, the essence must be the same.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30, 31. I and my Father are one. Are so united that the Father is pledged to keep the sheep of the Son. These words the Jews held to be blasphemy, and sought to stone him. Compare 8:52.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

30. ἐγὼ κ. ὁ π. ἕν ἐσμεν. I and the Father are one; one Substance, not one Person (εἶς). Comp. Joh 17:22-23, and contrast ἅπαντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἶς ἐστε ἐν χρ. Ἰ.,—‘are one man, one conscious agent’ (Gal 3:28); and τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον (Eph 2:15). Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words must mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Substance is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which He would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Rev 20:6; Rev 22:3. S. Augustine is therefore right in stating that ἐσμέν refutes Sabellius, who denied the distinction, while ἕν refutes Arius, who denied the equality, between the Father and the Son. Comp. Tert. adv. Prax. 22; Hippol. c. Noet. 7.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. As has been shown (Introd., p. xxv), this great utterance seems to have been made in explanation of v. 18, upon which it immediately follows in our arrangement of the text. None the less, it would not be out of place if it followed on v. 29, in the traditional order.

It has been customary, following the habit of the patristic commentators, to interpret these significant words in the light of the controversies of the fourth century. Bengel, e.g. (following Augustine), says: “Per sumus refutatur Sabellius, per unum Arius”; the words thus being taken to prove identity of essence between the Father and the Son, while the difference of persons is indicated by the plural ἐσμέν. But it is an anachronism to transfer the controversies of the fourth century to the theological statements of the first. We have a parallel to ἕν ἐσμεν in 1Co 3:8, where Paul says ὁ φυτεύων καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, meaning that both the “planter” and the “waterer” of the seed are in the same category, as compared with God who gives the increase. A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 5:18, 19, 14:9, 23 and 17:11, 22), and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of οὐσία, is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century.

Ignatius expresses the same thought as that conveyed in this verse, when he writes ὁ κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν, ἡνωμένος ὤν (Magn. 7). Cf. 8:28 above.

The Jews Accuse Jesus of Blasphemy: He Defends His Claim to Be Son of God (vv. 31-39)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One [εν] . The neuter, not the masculine eiv, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.