LogoTech
Prev Page  Next Page 

One-ness/In-ness

The one-ness/in-ness texts occur in key portions of John's account, and thus also account for its extensive usage in Paul's writings.  Other phrasology depends on this phraseology as well.  

We first encounter this phrasology in John 14:10 and 11.  I will quote the larger passage from verse 4 to 11:

And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

The cyan text in verses 10 and 11 are the "in-ness" texts, and are intertwined with two other kinds of phrases that I will analyze shortly. 

Another passage is John 14:20:

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

The next in-ness passage is John 17:21-23:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Do not be misled by the fact that there are only six of these passages since many other phrases used in the passage or by Paul are founded on these.  For instance, there is John 13:20:

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

The seriousness of this passage rests on the in-ness texts: if you do not believe Jesus is in the Father and the Father in him, then the implied threat in this passage of consequences of not receiving the one who sent Jesus is empty.  The in-ness texts establish the identity of Jesus with the Father. Here is John 14:1-3:

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The purpose of identity is to ensure substitutability with confidence: if A equals B, then where A appears, then B can be substituted as well.  If Jesus was not in the Father and the Father in Jesus, then the claim that one can believe in God and in Jesus equally is pure hubris.  In addition, Jesus here claims that he has the property right to add on to the Residence of God the Father, and to invite sinners to enter that residence and abide with Jesus and God!  I don't know how it goes in your house, but in mine, my sons still have to clear with me any invitation of someone over to our house.  If it appears they didn't vet it with me, it was because I gave a 'standing invitation', which meant I knew the person being invited enough to give that sort of authority to my son to invite just that person.

There is a type of equality that is called property-equality : for two entities to be truly interchangeable, every critical (significant) property of one must also exist in the other.  Interchangeability rests on the fact that the function of that which is being changed is tied to the properties that it has.  Consequently, interchangeability does not exist if a critical property required for some function is different between the two entities.  You can substitute painted wood for painted iron girders if the intent is to make a work of art, but not a skyscraper: strength is a critical property in the latter function, while color is the critical property in the former.  It is the critical properties that allow us to know that the two entities are truly "one" or not.  In John 14:7-10, Jesus builds on his "one-ness/in-ness" with the Father to state that they are property equivalent:

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

The John 14:20 passage adds something new:

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

as does John 17:21-23:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

These statements are carefully phrased so that there is no doubt that the one-ness/in-ness of Jesus with us is equivalent to that of the Father being in Jesus.

To what extent is this one-ness/in-ness a true one-ness/in-ness? There is no doubt about Paul's view of this "in-ness" relationship, since it can be deduced from this passage from 1 Corinthians 6:15-20

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. 

The language used here is quite graphic, and attempts to convey the literal shock Paul felt when thinking about Christian men sleeping with harlots and temple prostitutes.  Apparently, while eating meat offered to idols was of no import to his mind, he was truly offended and greatly objected to the practice of commercial or ritual sex outside of marriage, viewing it as Christ, through the Christian, joining himself as one body to a representative of a demonic spirit.  The language tells me that Paul viewed this oneness literally.  (An aside here: I have been guilty of picturing the Holy Spirit as being within my brain-case, the size of a pearl, and situated on the border between my cerebelium and my cerebrum toward the back of my head.  I now see that this is way too gnostic on my part based on this passage and on the observation that we are in him as well as him being in us.  This language implies a form of co-extension, compatible with the Jewish view of the creation of God (including the human body) as being good.  If we were to look at ourselves through the eyes of a spirit being such as an angel or a demon, I conjecture that we would see the Holy Spirit encasing our entire body quite closely, with the primary site of contact being where I imagined that pearl to be.  However, it would be false to believe that he forms a thin outer layer either, for that would convey the notion that, though protective, the Spirit is reluctant to touch the physical body.  Again, too gnostic: the "interface" between Sprit and the physical body of the Christian is three dimensional and thoroughly permeating and penetrating.  I will not be graphic concerning the physical act of sexual union, but those familiar with it should realize that "one-ness" is attained by a partial physical inclusion of one partner within the other, and it is that three-dimensional aspect of unity and one-ness that is happening when the Holy Spirit inhabits the believer.)

I believe that Paul, while witnessing this conversation in vision, nodded knowingly while the memory of this particularly embarassing incident passed through his mind (Acts 9:1-9):

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Paul could honestly say "Did Jesus mean exactly what he said when he said we are one with him?  You betcha!  Been there, done that, got the mental trauma scars to prove it!"

Verse 22 of John 17 (the yellow mark-up) gives us another clue as to how true this "one-ness/in-ness" relationship is: the glory that Jesus gets from the Father is given to us!  This builds on John 13:31-32:

31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

Here is John 14:12-14:

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

And here is John 15:7-8, finishing the parable of the Vine and the Branches:

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Here is John 17:1-5:

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:  2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 and we have already noted what John 17:20-23 has said.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

There are many who look at verse 22 with extreme discomfort and will hastily remind anyone bold enough to believe it that Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 48:11 state that God would not give his glory to another.  In a sense they are right, for an examination of the context of the Isaiah passages reveals that the "another" the Isaiah texts were referring to were the false gods represented by graven images.  God's glory is the glory of acting on behalf of His people, and the verses mean that He won't tolerate the granting of the credit for his working, such as giving the rains in their due season, to another, such as Baal.  The John 14:13 passage refers to Jesus getting glory because he answers the prayers of his disciples.  The John 15:7-8 passage also promises the granting of whatever is asked of God, but it is God the Father who gets the glory.  This goes against the assertions of those who hold it to be presumptuous or offensive for Christians who ask things of God based on a belief that He is a God who keeps His promises, pretending it is insulting to dare to "hold God to His Word!" 

I think it is due to the "problem" that John 17:22 poses that few pastors preach the full impact of the in-ness/one-ness verses I have cited (lest the people "get uppity"), preferring to preach the single "abiding in" passage, which is from John 15:1-7:

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Certainly the "Abide in me" phrasology is much more congenial for pulpiteering, since it is tied to the people bearing fruit, as well as providing a good excuse to chastise the people if they do not bear the fruit that the pastor thinks they must bear.  ("Ye are idle, Ye are idle!")

Holding the "abiding" verses as being distinct from the "in-ness/one-ness" verses is contrary to John's later teaching on the matter.  In 1 John 3:24, he says "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."  In 1 John 4:13 he says "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."  

In my mind, the "abide in me" verses illuminate the human side of the "in-ness/one-ness" phenomenon that the phrasology attempts to describe, for one has to be "in him" before you can "abide (stay) in him".  The implication of these verses is that, once we are "in him", the responsiblity for "staying (abiding) in him" is ours.  As mentioned above, this is accomplished by the Spirit's indwelling in us. 

To object to believing John 17:22 is clearly perilous, for Jesus' statement implies that the giving of the glory to us is necessary for us to be one "even as we (Jesus and the Father) are one".  Given the centrality and foundational character of the "one-ness/in-ness" terminology being used in this passage, and which Paul clearly copied from the visions Jesus gave him of this time period, the giving of this glory (and our reception of it), is vitally necessary.   It was very likely that this extensive use of this phrasology that led the disciples to believe he had really experienced a vision of Jesus Christ

So what are we to make of John 17:22?  I finish with this aspect of the In-ness/One-ness terminology because this leads into the next pertinent theme of these passages from the Gospel of John.


Prev Page  Next Page 
Pg-1  Pg-2  Pg-3  Pg-4  Pg-5  Pg-6  Pg-7  Pg-8  Pg-9  Pg-10  Pg-11  Pg-12 
Leave Feedback for This Page