Albert Barnes Commentary John 10:30

"I and the Father are one." — John 10:30 (ASV)

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:

1. 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.
2. The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy (John 10:31, 33), and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God (John 10:33).
3. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See Barnes on John 10:34; also on Matthew 10:35-37.
4. He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner (John 10:37–39). 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.