Is Jesus God in JOHN 10:30?

 Is Jesus God in JOHN 10:30?

There are some trinitarians who will refer to John 10:30 where Jesus said that he and the Father are "one" to show that Jesus is therefore "God." For example, Bob Stanley, a catholic anti-JW website owner, writes simplistically on a page devoted to discussing the New World Translation: "I and the Father are ONE." John 10:30 If they are ONE, then both have to be GOD." However :

The Gospel According to St John, Professor R.V.G.Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1960, p.136:

"One translates the Greek neuter hen. This verse was much quoted in the Aryan controversy by the orthodox in support of the doctrine that Christ was of one substance with the Father. The expression seems however mainly to imply that the Father and the Son are united in will and purpose. Jesus prays in [John 17:11] that His followers may all be one(hen), i.e. united in purpose, as He and His Father are united."

Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, Reinecker/Rogers, Zonderavn Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, © 1970 Brunnen-Verlag, Giessen, 1997 edition:

"[EN] n[euter]. "one thing." Identity is not asserted, but essential unity is(Morris[=Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972)."

The Gospel According to John by J.N.Sanders and B.A.Mastin, Black's New Testament Commentaries(London, 1968):

"30 That the Son and the Father are one )EN, neuter, literally one thing), is not offered as a proposition in metaphysics, but simply as the explantion why an attack on the Son is also an attack on the Father, and so bound to fail."-p.258

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, J.H.Bernard, T.& T.Clark, Edinburgh, 1928, pp. 365, 366:

"[EGO KAI HO PATNR HEN ESMEN[Lit: "I and the Father one we-are]]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 sumnus refutator Sabellius, per unum Arius"; the words this being taken to prove the identity of essence between the father and the Son, while the difference of persons is indicated by the plural [ESMEN]. 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 [EN ESMEN[Lit: "One we-are"]] in 1 Cor.3:8, where Paul says [HO PHUTEUWN KAI HO POTIZWN EN EISIN[Lit: "The planting and the making-to-drink one they-are]], 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 indentity of [OUSIA['essence']], is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century."

At the beginning of this page we quoted a Catholic critic of the NWT. However, the noted German Catholic theologian Hans Kung in his book Judaism: The Religious Situation of Our Time (p.382) quotes H.Strathmann who quotes Kuschel from his Geboren vor aller Zeit?(n.10).52 in Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Gotingen 1951, p.170 :

"..."I and the Father are one." This statement has nothing to do with any dogmatic-speculative statements about the relationship of the natures within the Godhead."

Kung in his note(n.31, p.700) states that Kuschel's statement here is how he

"...convincingly sums up the state of recent Catholic and Protestant exegesis,..."-Judaism, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1995 English paperback edition(ISBN 033402580X).

Hence John 10.30 cannot and should not be used to support the Trinity doctrine.