One With the Father
John 10:22—39
One With the Father
A oneness of mission claimed by the Son who was sent
He and the Father are one in purpose, not one and the same --- the Son was sent, the Father sent Him.
--- The Standing Stone ---
Behind “LORD” in your Bible lies a hidden name --- in the Hebrew it is Yahuah Psalm 83:18**; Yahuah is the Father** Isaiah 63:16**; Yahuah is the only God, beside Him there is no other** Isaiah 45:5**; therefore Yahuah the Father is the only true God, leaving no room for a second or third person** 1 Corinthians 8:6**.**
Part One
Framing the Problem
1.1 --- The Question at the Feast of Dedication
The confrontation in John 10:22—39 begins during the Feast of Dedication. The Jewish leaders came to Yahushua (Jesus) and asked him directly: If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly (John 10:24). To readers raised on Trinitarian teaching, this looks like a simple question. But to first-century Jews, the Messiah (Greek: Christos; Hebrew: Mashiach) meant something very specific.
It meant a descendant of David who would sit on his throne. Yahuah (God) promised David, I will raise up thy seed after thee…and I will establish his kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12). Every king in David’s line carried the title Son of God --- not as a claim to be Yahuah, but as a royal title. Yahuah said of Solomon, I will be his father, and he shall be my son (2 Samuel 7:14). The Psalmist records Yahuah’s decree to the anointed king: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (Psalm 2:7). The Jews expected a human deliverer empowered by Yahuah --- not Yahuah Himself in human form.
The deeper problem was that the leaders expected a political kingdom. They wanted a warrior-king who would smash Rome and restore Israel’s glory. Yahushua brought a kingdom that would change hearts, not borders. This gap between what they expected and what he offered set the stage for the misunderstanding that follows.
1.2 --- The Old Testament Background Every Jew Already Knew
Before we look at John 10, we need to see the picture every Jew in that crowd already carried. The shepherd image runs all through the Hebrew Scriptures. The LORD [Yahuah] is my shepherd (Psalm 23:1). Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock (Psalm 80:1). He shall feed his flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:11).
Ezekiel 34: The Prophecy That Explains Everything
The most important background is Ezekiel 34. Yahuah rebukes Israel’s corrupt leaders --- the shepherds who scattered the flock --- and makes a two-part promise. First: Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out (Ezekiel 34:11). Second: And I will set up one shepherd over them…even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23). Then Yahuah says: And I the LORD [Yahuah] will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them (Ezekiel 34:24).
Pay close attention. Yahuah promises to shepherd His people both directly and through the Davidic Messiah. These are not two competing plans; they work together. Yahuah shepherds through His chosen agent. This pattern --- Yahuah doing His work through appointed representatives --- is the key to everything Yahushua says in John 10.
1.3 --- What the Trinitarian Reading Claims
Trinitarians draw three main arguments from this passage. First, they say I and the Father are one (John 10:30) proves Yahushua and the Father share the same divine essence. Second, they point to the Jews picking up stones for blasphemy as proof the audience understood Yahushua to be claiming deity. Third, they use the mutual-indwelling language in verse 38 (the Father is in me, and I in him) to argue for a co-equal relationship within the Godhead.
As we will see, every one of these arguments collapses when tested against the Greek grammar, the immediate context, and Yahushua’s own words.
Part Two
Verse-by-Verse Examination
2.1 --- Verses 25—27: The Testimony of the Works
When the leaders demanded a plain answer, Yahushua said: I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me (John 10:25). Notice what he does not say. He does not say, I am Yahuah in the flesh. He points to his works and says they are done in my Father’s name. That is agency language --- the language of one acting on behalf of another.
All through John’s Gospel, Yahushua appeals to his works as proof that the Father sent him. The works that the Father has given me to accomplish…bear witness about me that the Father has sent me (John 5:36). The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works (John 14:10). This pattern makes no sense if Yahushua is Yahuah Himself. Why would Yahuah need to prove He is Yahuah by doing works in His own name?
The phrase in my Father’s name carries real weight. Throughout Scripture, to act in someone’s name meant to act with their full authority as their appointed representative. When Abraham sent his servant to find a bride for Isaac, the servant spoke and acted with Abraham’s full authority, yet remained entirely distinct from Abraham (Genesis 24). When Yahuah sent Moses to Pharaoh, Moses carried Yahuah’s word and power, yet was never confused with Yahuah Himself. The sent one bears the sender’s authority but is not the sender. Yahushua does works in the Father’s name because he is the Father’s appointed agent --- the promised Messianic Shepherd.
Yahushua then explains why the leaders do not recognise him: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep (John 10:26). He describes his sheep: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). This fulfils Ezekiel’s promise that Yahuah’s people would know their shepherd’s voice. The issue is not Yahushua’s nature; it is the leaders’ failure to recognise the promised Shepherd standing in front of them.
2.2 --- Verses 28—29: The Two Hands and the Greater Father
These two verses are the foundation for understanding verse 30. Yahushua says: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand (John 10:28). Then he adds: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand (John 10:29).
Notice two distinct hands: Yahushua’s hand and the Father’s hand. If they were one being sharing one nature, why mention two separate hands? Both hold the sheep safely. Both have power to protect. Both work toward the same goal. But they are still two hands --- the Father’s and the Son’s. This picture fits unity of purpose, not unity of being.
The Father Is Greater
Here is a statement that creates a real problem for Trinitarian theology. Yahushua says the Father is greater than all (John 10:29). If the Father is greater than all, then the Father is greater than Yahushua. The word all leaves no exceptions. This lines up with Yahushua’s later words: My Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Together these set a clear order: the Father is the source; the Son is the appointed agent who receives authority from the Father.
Delegated Authority Over the Sheep
The phrase which gave them me shows delegation. The Father, as the ultimate owner of the flock, handed the sheep into Yahushua’s care. All through John’s Gospel, Yahushua speaks of those whom thou hast given me (John 17:2, 6, 9, 24). His ministry flows from the Father’s will, not from his own independent authority.
The logic of verses 28—29 leads straight into verse 30. Both hold the sheep safely. Both work toward the same protective goal. The conclusion follows: they are one in this mission.
2.3 --- Verse 30: The Greek Word That Changes Everything
This is the verse Trinitarians lean on hardest. In the Greek it reads, Egō kai ho Patēr hen esmen --- literally, I and the Father one we are. The whole reading hangs on one Greek word: the word translated one. That word is hen, and it stands in the neuter form. This detail is everything.
ἕν
hen
one --- neuter in form; one thing, one purpose, one mission (John 10:30)
εἷς
heis
one --- masculine in form; one individual, one single being
Greek has two different forms for one. The masculine form, heis, means one individual --- one single being. When the Shema declares, The Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29), the Greek uses heis: one being. If Yahushua had meant that he and the Father together make one God, he would have used heis. He did not. He chose hen --- the neuter form. Hen means one thing, one purpose, one mission. Not one individual. Not one being.
This is no small point; it dismantles the reading. Yahushua picked a word that describes unity of purpose, not unity of identity. Greek speakers knew the difference. His audience would have heard a claim about shared mission, not shared being.
The Plural Verb Confirms Two Distinct Subjects
The verb esmen means we are --- first person plural. Some Trinitarians point to this as proof of a plurality within the Godhead, but it actually works against them. The plural we are requires two distinct subjects. If Yahushua meant they are one being, he would have used a singular verb. The plural highlights their distinction, while the neuter one describes their unity of purpose.
John 17:21—22: The Argument That Settles It
This is the passage that ends the debate. In his prayer the night before the cross, Yahushua uses the exact same Greek word for the disciples’ unity that he used for his unity with the Father:
John 17:21
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 17:22
That they may be one, even as we are one.
Both times, the word for one is hen --- neuter, just like John 10:30. And Yahushua uses the comparison word kathōs, meaning in the same way as. He is saying the disciples’ unity should look like his unity with the Father.
Here is the question that cannot be answered: do the disciples become part of Yahuah’s divine nature when they are one with the Father and Son? Do they share the divine essence? Of course not. They become one in purpose, will, and mission. That is exactly what John 10:30 means.
Even Trinitarian Scholars See This
R.V.G. Tasker, himself a Trinitarian scholar, conceded that the expression in John 10:30 mainly implies that the Father and the Son are united in will and purpose. The NET Bible’s own translation notes acknowledge that hen is neuter --- meaning not that Yahushua and the Father are one being, but one thing. Even within Trinitarian scholarship the grammar cannot be escaped. The NET Bible adds that this unity is expressed in the immediate context of protecting the sheep (John 10:28—29), and that the same word hen appears again for the unity of believers in John 17:11 and John 17:21—23 --- pushing the reader toward unity of action, will, and mission.
2.4 --- Verses 31—33: The Stoning Attempt and the Accusation
The Jews pick up stones (John 10:31). Yahushua responds with a sharp question: Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (John 10:32). He knew the issue was his words, not his works. But by framing it this way, he forces them to state their accusation plainly --- and he sets up his scriptural defence.
They answer: For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (John 10:33). This reveals their misunderstanding. They heard Yahushua’s claim to oneness with the Father and took it as a claim to be Yahuah Himself. But as his defence makes clear, they missed his meaning entirely.
A note on the Greek. The word translated God here is theon, and it appears without the definite article. The original Greek had no capital letters --- capitalisation is an English choice. The accusation reads, you, being a man, make yourself theos. This could mean a god --- a divine representative or authority figure --- which fits perfectly with the Psalm 82 defence that follows. The key is that Yahushua does not accept their framing (I am God). He redirects to Scripture and restates his claim: I said, I am the Son of God (John 10:36).
2.5 --- Verses 34—36: Yahushua’s Defence from Psalm 82
Yahushua’s answer to the blasphemy charge takes apart any notion that he claimed to be Yahuah. He replies: Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34). He is quoting Psalm 82:6: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
The setting of Psalm 82 is Yahuah standing in judgment over gods who ruled unjustly. These gods were human judges who represented Yahuah’s authority in Israel. The Hebrew word is elohim. It can mean the one true God, or it can mean human authorities who carry Yahuah’s delegated power. Yahuah told Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1). Moses was not Yahuah; he represented Yahuah with full authority. Judges in Israel were likewise called elohim in passages such as Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8 because they carried out Yahuah’s justice.
אֱלֹהִים
elohim
God; also gods, judges, or authorities who carry Yahuah’s delegated power
Even Trinitarian scholarship grants the point. The NET Bible notes on John 10:34 observe that Psalm 82 addresses unjust judges who were called gods because of their delegated role to administer Yahuah’s justice. J. H. Neyrey, writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1989), treats Yahushua’s appeal as a legal and scriptural defence: the term gods can carry a subordinate, functional sense, so calling himself the Son of God is not blasphemy.
The Logic of Yahushua’s Argument
Yahushua reasons from the lesser to the greater:
John 10:35—36
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Notice carefully what he says he claimed to be. He does not say, because I said, I am God. He says, because I said, I am the Son of God. This is the heart of the passage. Yahushua is defending a messianic claim, not a divine-essence claim. If mere human judges could be called gods because they received Yahuah’s word and authority, how much more fitting is it for the one whom the Father set apart and sent to call himself the Son of Yahuah?
“Sanctified and Sent” --- Agency Language
Two words in verse 36 lock in the reading. Sanctified (hēgiasen) means set apart for a holy task --- the same kind of language used for priests, prophets, and sacred objects appointed for a mission. Sent (apesteilen) means commissioned as a representative; it is the root of the word apostle. Yahushua is called the sent one more than twenty times in John (John 3:17; 5:36; 6:29; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21). This is representation and agency --- not incarnation.
Here is something easy to miss. John tells us this scene takes place at the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22) --- a festival about the rededication of the temple. Then Yahushua says the Father sanctified (set apart, dedicated) and sent him (John 10:36). At a festival about dedication, Yahushua frames his identity in dedication-and-mission language. The Father appointed him for a holy task and sent him into the world. That supports agency --- the Sent One acting for the Sender --- not the idea that Yahushua is the Father.
2.6 --- Verses 37—38: The Works and Mutual Indwelling
Yahushua presses his defence: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not (John 10:37). His works are the works of my Father. He does nothing on his own. This pattern fills John’s Gospel:
John 5:19
The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing.
John 8:28
I do nothing of myself.
John 14:10
The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The same principle works in the lives of believers. Paul writes, I am crucified with the Messiah: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but the Messiah liveth in me (Galatians 2:20). For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). The pattern is the same at every level: the Father works through the Messiah, and the Messiah works through believers. This is agency and spiritual union --- not shared divine essence.
“The Father Is in Me, and I in Him”
Yahushua then says: But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him (John 10:38). Trinitarians seize this mutual-indwelling language as proof that Yahushua and the Father share one nature. But Yahushua uses the exact same language for believers:
John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us.
John 17:23
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.
1 John 4:13
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
The Greek is identical in every case. If the Father is in me, and I in him proves Yahushua shares the divine essence, then ye in me, and I in you proves believers share it too. Trinitarians cannot have it both ways. Either all of these passages describe shared divine nature --- which would make believers part of Yahuah --- or all of them describe relational and spiritual unity. Consistency demands the second.
2.7 --- Verse 39: They Sought to Seize Him
Even after the clear scriptural defence, the leaders still tried to arrest him: Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand (John 10:39). They stayed locked in their misunderstanding. They wanted a political messiah, not a spiritual one. They could not accept that Son of God did not mean God Himself. Yahushua escaped because his hour had not yet come (John 7:30; 8:20; 13:1).
Part Three
The Key Verse Deep Dive: “I and the Father Are One”
3.1 --- What John 10:30 Actually Claims
Everything in this passage flows toward and away from a single verse: I and the Father are one. As we saw above, the Greek hen (neuter) means one thing or one purpose, while heis (masculine) means one individual or one being. Yahushua chose hen. He was declaring unity of mission, not unity of essence.
The context confirms it. Verses 28—29 set up verse 30 by describing two hands protecting the same sheep toward the same goal. The oneness of verse 30 is the conclusion of that picture: we are one in this mission of guarding the flock. It is not a standalone statement about shared divine nature.
3.2 --- John 17 as the Interpretive Key
Yahushua uses the same word hen for the disciples’ unity and for his own unity with the Father, and he ties them together with the comparison word just as (kathōs). If John 10:30 proves an essential unity between Yahushua and the Father, then John 17:22 proves an essential unity between believers and Yahuah. Since no Trinitarian accepts that conclusion, the premise falls.
3.3 --- The Parallel No Trinitarian Can Answer
Here is a simple way to see it. If a husband and wife say, We are one in raising our children, no one thinks they have merged into one being. They are two people with one shared purpose. That is the force of the neuter hen in John 10:30: two --- the Father and the Son --- united in one shared mission of protecting the sheep.
Part Four
Supporting Evidence and Broader Patterns
4.1 --- The Agency Pattern Throughout John
Yahushua’s entire ministry in John is framed in the language of agency. He is the one who was sent. He does nothing of himself. He speaks only what the Father taught him. He was given authority. He was sanctified and sent into the world. Every one of these words points the same direction: Yahushua is the Father’s appointed representative, not the Father Himself.
A sent one, throughout Scripture, carries the full authority of the one who sent him. The agent speaks with the sender’s authority. The agent carries the sender’s name. The agent can even be addressed by the sender’s title. But the agent is never confused with the sender. This is Yahushua’s role to perfection.
4.2 --- The Feast of Dedication Context
John marks this confrontation as happening at the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22) --- the festival celebrating the rededication of the temple after it had been desecrated. Its themes are setting apart and consecrating for holy use.
Yahushua then says the Father sanctified (set apart, dedicated) and sent him (John 10:36). He is drawing a deliberate connection. At a festival about dedication, Yahushua presents himself as the one Yahuah dedicated and sent into the world. This is mission language, not incarnation language.
4.3 --- “Son of God” Is a Royal Title, Not a Deity Title
When Yahushua says I am the Son of God (John 10:36), Trinitarians hear I am God. But in the Old Testament, Son of God was the title of the king of Israel. Yahuah said of David’s heir, I will be his father, and he shall be my son (2 Samuel 7:14). The Psalmist records, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (Psalm 2:7). Son of God meant appointment and relationship; it did not mean deity.
When Yahushua calls himself the Son of God, he is claiming the Davidic throne --- the messianic title Yahuah promised to the king in David’s line. This is exactly what the leaders asked about in the first place: are you the Messiah?
Part Five
Summary
5.1 --- What the Text Actually Says
John 10:22—39 is the account of Yahushua being asked whether he is the Messiah and answering through the image of the shepherd. He does works in the Father’s name (John 10:25). His sheep hear his voice (John 10:27). He and the Father both hold the sheep securely (John 10:28—29). He and the Father are one in this protective mission (John 10:30). When the Jews misunderstand and accuse him of blasphemy, he appeals to Scripture (Psalm 82) and identifies his claim as being the Son of Yahuah (John 10:36) --- a messianic title, not a deity title. He offers his works as proof that the Father is at work in him (John 10:37—38). The passage is about the Messiah’s role, not the Messiah’s divine essence.
Conclusion
The Verdict
First-century Jews rejected Yahushua because they could not accept that the Son of Yahuah, perfectly one with the Father in purpose, was not claiming to be the Father. Today’s Trinitarians make the opposite mistake from the same misreading: they accept Yahushua as divine by affirming the very error he corrected.
He is the Son of Yahuah, the promised Shepherd --- sanctified and sent, acting with the Father’s full authority. The Father works through him; he works through those who believe. And the Shema still stands: Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahuah] our God is one LORD [Yahuah] (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Yahushua was asked if he is the Messiah, and he spent eighteen verses answering “yes” --- yet Trinitarians insist he was answering a question nobody asked: “Are you God?”