I and my
Father are one. The word translated “one” is not in the
masculine, but in the
neuter gender. It expresses
union, but not the precise nature of the union. It
may express
any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were
united in the same object—that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was
this that gave occasion for this remark. Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and others.
Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the
oneness or
unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:
1st. The question in debate was not about his being united with the Father in
plan and
counsel,
but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from
all enemies, or that he had
power superior to men and devils—that is, that he had
supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father.
In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to
omnipotence.
2d. The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy (ver. 31, 33), and they said
to him that they understood him as affirming
that he was God, ver. 33.
3d. Jesus
did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See Notes on ver. 34–37.
4th. He
immediately made
another declaration implying the
same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the
same manner, ver. 37–39. If Jesus had not
intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly
disavow that such was his intention.
The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.
Barnes, A. (1884-1885).
Notes on the New Testament: Luke & John (R. Frew, Ed.) (293). London: Blackie & Son.
هل تذكرت الآن لماذا بترت تفسيره الكامل للنص، ببساطة لأنه يؤكد على ما قلته، برغم أنه لم يفسر النص لغوياً أصلاً.. ها هو الرجل يؤكد بل وبالدلالات على أن المسيح قصد هذا المعنى الذي فهموه (مساواته بالله) ويؤكد أنه لم ينكر فهمهم، ويؤكد لنا فهم آباء الكنيسة الذين يتحدثون اليونانية!! صراحة لا اريد التعليق أكثر من هذا على كلام الرحل، فنشكرك عليه..
وايضا نلقي نظرة على هذا الكلام الهام:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
I and my Father are one-Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. "Are" is in the masculine gender-"we (two persons) are"; while "one" is neuter-"one thing." Perhaps "one interest" expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father's hands, as if they had not been given out of them. "Neither have they," says He; "though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever-they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for He and I HAVE ALL IN COMMON." Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And Augustine was right in saying the "We are" condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the "one" (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence).
صراحة، لا أعلم، هل قرأت هذا الكلام للنهاية؟ هل حقا أكملت القراءة؟ تعالى لأظلل لك على ما أريد وما سهوت عنه:
I and my Father are one—Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. “Are” is in the masculine gender—“we (two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter—“one thing.” Perhaps “one interest” expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father’s hands, as if they had not been given out of them. “Neither have they,” says He; “though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever—they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for He and I have all in common.” Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And Augustine was right in saying the “We are” condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the “one” (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence).
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997).
A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Jn 10:30).
هل تقرأ -فضلا- ما تنقل؟! الرجل يوافق أغسطينوس في أن كلمة "واحد" هنا تدحض فكر الأريوسيين الذي ينكرون وحدانية الجوهر بين الآب والإبن!!
فما هذا الذي تفعله انت الآن؟ هل طلبنا منك أدلة لصالحنا؟ دع الأدلة التي لصالحنا لنا، فنحن على تمام الإستعداد لإغراقك بها، وإنتبه فقط للادلة التي تعتقد أنها لصحالك!!!
يعني كما نرى أن الكلمة قد تعني أي وحدة كما ورد في الكلام السابق
هذا كلامك أنت "الفارغ" لأنه مقتطع، فلماذا لا تترجم لنا النص الذي أتيت به لتري للقاريء ما نقلت؟ تفضل!
وكما قلنا أن القول بأن الشئ هو الطبيعة والجوهر هو اجتهاد ليس إلا ..
وهذا كلام فارغ لم (ولن ولا) يثبت على الإطلاق، ونحن فيها الآن، فحاول وأريني كل ما تملك :spor22:
