09-30-2006, 01:33 PM
You yourself have said it: This verse is open to another interpretation. Even when Jesus comes straight out and says that he is God, you do not want to see it, and therefore, it is not to you.
The fact is, that you are asking the same questions, with almost the same language, as the Jews did who were asking Jesus about his divinity in John. Remember, they said, "Tell us plainly". Jesus replies with "I did tell you....I and the father are one". Their response to that is "You, a mere man, claim to be God". They ask for a straight answer. Jesus gives it. They respond with an appropriate answer for Jesus' response. Had Jesus' words been more likely to be another interpretation, or been incredibly loose, then he would have told them what he meant, and told them that he was united with the father in purpose only. However, the Jews pick up stones in verse 31 because they say that Jesus sets himself up as God, then in verse 39, after Jesus has had a chance to clarify his statement, and remove any doubt about what he said, they still want to arrest him/stone him/whatever.
The point? Jesus is speaking clearly enough. His audience gets it. I get it. And each attempt to make this passage vague is reaching more and more. Again, look at the structure. They ask for a straight answer. Jesus says that he and the father are one. The Jews want to kill him because he sets himself up as God. Jesus clarifies his statement. The Jews continue to want to kill him.
Had he meant that he was united in purpose with the father, their desire to mess him up would have gone away. But, they don't stop wanting to kill him right up until they do. With crucifixion.
And the body of Christ is a big long extended metaphor. It has a dual purpose; that we as believers should be united as a body, but also that Christ is as in charge of the church as the head is in charge of the body. And this unity happens through Holy Communion, where the body and blood of Christ, broken and shed for us, are partaken of, and "we must consider that Christ is in us, not only according to the habit which we understand as love, but also by a natural participation".
We won't get into communion now, but suffice it to say that the reason that mentality of purpose, community, etc. applies to those verses you brought up, and not to John 10 (and good verses they are, too), is that unlike in John 10, no equality is presented. In John 10 (which the Jews understood), snatching the sheep out of Jesus' hand is equal to snatching them out of the father's hand. And then Jesus and the father are one. That is plain. I understand the desire to make it appear as though Jesus is saying something else, but that is a lot more difficult than allowing Jesus to say what he says in this passage. Following your previous lines of questioning:
"If Jesus meant that he and the Father were of one purpose, why didn't he say so plainly in this passage?"
It would have been easy to do, but instead, we find Jesus saying that he and the father are one. This whole debate, you have been trying to say that Jesus does not speak plainly. And then, when he does, adressing your question of "when does Jesus say that he and the Father are one God?" you say he speaks vaguely again. But I put the question back to you. If all it would take to get the Jews to get the right idea would be to say "I and the father are of one purpose", then why does he not do it? Why does he not speak plainly there?
Unless he had already spoken plainly, twice in rapid succession, saying that before Abraham was, I AM, and I and the Father are one.