Then follows the sublime minor premise of the syllogism, I and the Father (we) are one. As Augustine and Bengel have said, the first clause is incompatible with Sabelliauism, and the second clause with Arianism.
The Lord is conscious of his own Personality as distinct from that of the Father, and yet he asserts a fundamental unity. But what kind of unity is it? Is it a unity of wish, emotion, sentiment, only?
On the contrary, it is a oneness of redemptive power. The Divine activity of the Father's eternal love did not come to any arrest or pause when he gave the sheep to the Son, but with its irresistible might is present in the "hand" of Jesus (no one "can," not no one "shall").
Therefore the ἕν, the one reality, if it does not express actual unity of essence, involves it. Some have endeavored to minimize the force of this remarkable statement by comparing it with John 17:21-23, where Jesus said believers are "to be in us," and "to be one, even as we are one," i.
e. to have the same kind of relation with one another (being a collective unity) as the Father and Son sustain towards each other, "I in them, thou in me, that they may be perfected [reach their τέλος, by being blended] into one;" i.
e. into one Divine personality by my indwelling. Now, it is nowhere there said that believers and the Father are one, but such a statement is scrupulously avoided. Numerous attempts have been made to escape from the stupendous assumption of this unity of power and essence with the Father.
The whole gist of the assertion reveals the most overwhelming self-consciousness. The Lord declares that he can bestow eternal life and blessedness upon those who stand in close living relation with himself, and between whom and himself there is mutual recognition and the interchanges of love and trust.
He bases the claim on the fact that the Father's hands are behind his, and that the Father's eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity.
If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?