Continuing along with our analysis of Sean Finnegan’s paper concerning the Trinity we come to John 10:30.  He examines the passage in context and concludes:

The context focuses on how Jesus is the good shepherd (in contrast to the bad shepherds of Ezekiel 34). Jesus had just said that, as the shepherd, he keeps the sheep so that no wolf or thief can snatch them. The next verse says that also the Father (who is greater than all) keeps the sheep so that no one can snatch them out of His hand. Thus, the Son and the Father are one in that they are both working to keep the sheep. This has nothing to do with substance or equality. Furthermore, it is clear that the Father is greater than all because he gave the flock to the Son. In addition, we are to have the same sort of oneness that the Father shares with the Son

Immediately I’d like to point out that the assessment of John 10 that the Father and Son are one in the context of bringing about the salvation of the sheep is correct.  This is something that I commented on at Higher Ground where I first came into contact with Mr. Finnegan’s writings.  I reproduce my comments here:

When we examine the overall context of John’s Gospel then we see a constant theme of the Father and the Son working together to bring about salvation, especially in passages such as John 10:30 in which Jesus makes the argument that he is one with the Father in the context of bringing about the salvation of God’s sheep (and by extension nature/being).

Now how does this extend to nature/being?  Grammatically speaking the author of John uses the neuter έν as opposed to the masculine έις to describe the oneness showing that it is not one person (contra modalism) that the Father and Son are, but rather one thing.  Contextually speaking, the broad context of Scripture shows that it is God alone who saves/redeems and for Jesus to identify himself as one with the Father in this was perceived as a claim to deity.  What follows certainly shows that this was the thinking of the Jews to whom Jesus spoke.

Mr. Finnegan then continues along the lines of all anti-Trinitarians in trying to connect John 17 and the oneness that Jesus prayed for for believers to John 10 and the oneness Jesus has with the Father.  I have stated this innumerable times and unfortunately I will have to state it again — John 17 is NOT a commentary on John 10!

We have two different contexts — in John 10 the context as has been noted by Mr. Finnegan and myself is the salvation of the sheep.  The context of John 17 is a prayer for unity which is also acknowledged by Sean when he says: 

The oneness in the context is unity (love of the brethren).

If this is recognized then one wonders why immediately before this Sean writes: 

The oneness that the Father and Son share is to be shared by the disciples as well. If the oneness spoken of is a oneness of substance, then this statement is either impossible or meaningless. It is impossible for you and me actually to share the same substance (i.e. the same human body). It is meaningless to say we should be one in substance if what is meant is sharing humanity because that is shared no matter what.

He recognizes completely different contexts in which completely different things are said yet he still attempts to equate the oneness — why?  Grammatically the same word is used but context and usage determines the definition, not mere lexical agreement.  Again, Jesus’ primary intention was to say that he was one with the Father in saving the elect–but this necessarily extends to the identity of God which is why the Jews wanted to stone him for what they perceived to be blasphemy–namely identifying himself with God.

We’ll finish up with one more post looking at Mr. Finnegan’s proof texts for the ontological inequality of the Father and the Son in the next post.

To be continued…

B”H

Your response: