A third post regarding the Christology of John the Apostle. His fundamental anchor points…in faith. What we know of his dynamic point-of-view. Cherry-picking then…a list of unitarian concepts from the nineteenth century unitarian, Samuel Barrett of the 100 most prolific unitarian verses in general, and then picking out John’s: 15. Because our Saviour, after having said, “I and my Father are one,” gives his disciples distinctly to understand that he did not mean one substance, equal in power and glory, but one only in affection and design, &c; as clearly appears from the prayer he offers to his Father in their behalf, –“that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us,” John 17:21 Of course Jesus did not mean “one substance,” the new claim eventually coming to fore at Nicaea, 325 A.D. (The homoousios claim). The Jn 10 claim used the word “one” likely in Aramaic, which was close enough to the “one” of…the Echad of Adonai, by which his detractors took offense and raised rocks to stone him. “I and my Father are one,” then, was seen by them as offensive. Every Jewish heart knew then…the absolute uniqueness and solitary aloneness this Echad of Adonai was. For Jesus to be using the same word in relation to himself, has to be seen in context of the Jn 17 verse which includes other believers. Barrett has done this, key to the unitarian interpretations. There is no way under this sun believers were considered to be opportuned with absolute deity, as THEIR OWN SUBSTANCE or essence was not considered in that category of deity. “That they may be one as we are one,” is the context of that passage, and the only possible glitch would be that Jesus COULD HAVE possibly be speaking of an equal and symmetrical sense of being one…with his Father? “As thou Father art in me, and I in Thee?” How could Jesus be IN the Father, if he was…a “mere man?” What Barrett calls “affection” is…what? Is he using the archaic definition, apart from…love, as in: 1.
a gentle feeling of fondness or liking? My view is that the unity or “one” OF SPIRIT has this element or aspect highlighted. LOVE IS a dominant aspect of the Holy Spirit in us. Thus the unity of Jesus “IN” his God. It was not an equal “power and glory” just as Barrett says, and note how a non-pentecostal still uses the words of Text. The POWER and GLORY of Spirit, is also the LOVE PRESENCE of YHWH near unto us. Thus the Son of YHWH was CLOSE or INTIMATE to YHWH by virtue of the love relationship they had, yes in Spirit. “That they may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they may also be one in us.” This unity is one of Spirit and its most dynamic characteristic, love. And, Jesus was "in" the Father's bosom, as the Beloved Son. So then, God the Father "IN" Jesus was, His Holy Spirit anointing Jesus, but Jesus being "IN" the Father, was instead differently meaning of this same Spirit unifying both. INdwelling the heart and soul of Jesus. Thus the differentiating and yet same...unity of Spirit and Love. The SAME AS our Covenant with God. (What God blesses us with, far exceeds what we can bless Him with).
Thus the Echad of Adonai…DIFFERS GREATLY from the unity Jesus was speaking of. OF COURSE, it has to be. Believers cannot become itty bitty Gods Almighty. They are Judaically speaking, categorized in the CREATURE/CREATION category. So too, the anointed and sent man. And yes…we IDENTIFY with this anointed and sent IDEAL MAN, who suffered and died at the hands of his own detractors, both Jewish and Gentile. The anchor point dynamic for John is this: the Echad of Adonai is the MOST ABSOLUTE and unique solitary word of all existence, that of God...in Judaism. And, the neuter "hen" Jesus relates of himself with God and us with them both...is a definite unity, INSTEAD of...the numerical "one" meaning, of the Shema Principle.