The following is a discussion I had with Meta AI [Facebook's artificial intelligence]. As always, take what AI writes with a grain of salt. Given that AI can be mistaken in various ways. I have my own interpretation of the passages [John 5:18 & John 10:33] as my other blogposts show. But I wanted to see how Meta AI would interpret both passages in conjunction with each other. And see if it would eventually agree with my Trinitarian readings/interpretations. So, for most of the time I tried to present the talking points of both Unitarians and Trinitarians. Only after it gave a probability that sided with my position did I strongly input even more evidence and arguments for Trinitarianism. Because by then it wouldn't matter if I was being unbiased or biased toward the Trinitarian interpretations. If anything, in the earlier parts of the discussion I kind of gave a slightly more biased input toward Unitarianism to offset any unconscious bias I have toward Trinitarianism. When I started really showing my bias was when I posted the contents of McLatchie's article. Though, some might argue that it started with I quoted Waterland.
AP: Some Trinitarians argue John 5:18 teaches Jesus is equal with God. Unitarian claim it can't because it's referring to what the Jews thought, not what the author of the Gospel himself believed and was teaching. Namely that the Jews thought that Jesus broke the sabbath and that Jesus was wrongly claiming to be equal with God, by calling God his father. Further proof given by unitarians is that Jesus couldn't have actually broken the sabbath because he had to be sinless. Therefore if he wasn't guity of breaking the sabbath, then he couldn't actually be equal with God. Which is the more likely interpretation and why?
META AI:
*John 5:18* says:
> “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” _NASB_
You’ve got the two readings right. Here’s how scholars usually break it down:
### *The Trinitarian reading*
*Claim*: The verse reflects the narrator’s/author’s own viewpoint. John is telling you _why_ the Jews wanted to kill Jesus — and John agrees with their inference.
*Arguments for it:*
1. *John’s pattern*: The Gospel of John repeatedly has Jesus make claims that put him on God’s level, and the author endorses them. John 1:1 “the Word was God”, John 8:58 “before Abraham was, I am”, John 10:30 “I and the Father are one”, John 20:28 Thomas calls him “My Lord and my God” with no rebuke. So 5:18 fits John’s Christology.
2. *Greek grammar*: The participle phrase “making Himself equal with God” _ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ_ is tied to “calling God His own Father.” In John, Jesus _does_ call God his Father in a unique way — _my_ Father vs _our_ Father. The Jews’ inference would be natural if that’s how John presents Jesus.
3. *“Breaking the Sabbath”*: John often uses irony. The Jews _thought_ Jesus broke the Sabbath, but John’s readers know he didn’t. John can report their accusation without endorsing it, while still endorsing the “equal with God” part. The two clauses don’t have to be equally true/false.
4. *Jesus’ response vv.19-47*: Jesus doesn’t deny the equality claim. He doubles down: “the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” v.19. That’s a claim to identical divine action. If John thought the Jews misunderstood, you’d expect a correction.
### *The Unitarian reading*
*Claim*: John is only reporting what the Jews _thought_. The “making Himself equal” clause is part of their mistaken accusation, just like “breaking the Sabbath.”
*Arguments for it:*
1. *Parallel structure*: “Not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” Both are reasons the Jews wanted to kill him. If the first is false — Jesus didn’t actually break the Sabbath because he was sinless, Heb 4:15 — then the second could be false too. The verse reports their perception, not John’s doctrine.
2. *Jesus didn’t break Sabbath*: If John agrees Jesus broke the Sabbath, John would be calling Jesus a sinner. That contradicts John 8:46 “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” and the broader NT claim of sinlessness. So John must be distancing himself from _both_ accusations.
3. *“Equal with God” as blasphemy charge*: In 1st-century Judaism, calling God “my Father” didn’t automatically mean equality. The Jews were _inferring_ equality, and John reports their hostile inference. Jesus’ reply in 5:19ff emphasizes dependence: “the Son can do nothing of Himself.” That sounds like subordination, not ontological equality.
4. *Authorial distance*: John elsewhere distinguishes his voice from the crowd’s. John 2:21-22, John 12:16. So he could be doing it here: “They wanted to kill him because _they thought_…”
### *Which is more likely from a historical-critical standpoint?*
Most NT scholars — including many who aren’t Trinitarian — think *the Trinitarian reading is more likely what the _author of John_ intended*, for 3 reasons:
1. *Literary context of John*: The Fourth Gospel has the highest Christology in the NT. From the prologue onward, John identifies Jesus with God. It would be odd for John to introduce the “equal with God” idea only to reject it here, with no clear correction. When John wants to correct a misunderstanding, he does: John 2:21, John 21:23. No correction follows 5:18.
2. *Jesus’ discourse 5:19-47*: If 5:18 reported a false charge, Jesus’ response should be “I’m not making myself equal.” Instead he claims the same works, honor, judgment, and life-giving power as the Father, vv.21-23. v.23 “so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” That’s a direct claim to equal honor. Hard to read that as a denial.
3. *“Breaking the Sabbath” precedent*: John’s irony is well-documented. Caiaphas in 11:49-52 says something true without knowing it. The Jews in 19:7 “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” John doesn’t dispute the claim, only the verdict. Same pattern: hostile witness states a truth for the wrong reason.
### *Where the Unitarian argument is strongest*
1. *Philosophically*: If Jesus truly broke Torah Sabbath, he sinned, which breaks sinlessness. Trinitarians usually answer: Jesus didn’t break the _biblical_ Sabbath, he broke _Pharisaic_ interpretations. John’s point is that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, Mark 2:28, so his actions define what Sabbath means. Thus “breaking the Sabbath” = breaking _their_ rules, not God’s.
2. *“Equal” ≠ “identical”*: _Isos_ can mean “like, on the same level” not “same substance.” Unitarians argue John’s Jesus claims functional unity/agency, not ontological identity. That debate goes beyond 5:18 to all of John.
### *Bottom line*
*If the question is “What did the author of John most likely mean?”* — the majority view is that John 5:18 presents “making himself equal with God” as _a true inference_, even if the Jews drew it with hostile intent. The surrounding context and John’s Christology overall point that way.
*If the question is “Which theology is correct?”* — that depends on your broader framework of Scripture and Christology. Both sides can construct coherent readings. Unitarians have to explain why Jesus doesn’t correct the “equal” claim in vv.19-47. Trinitarians have to explain how “breaking the Sabbath” works without making Jesus a sinner.
So: *Trinitarian reading is more likely _as an interpretation of John’s intent*_, because it fits the Gospel’s trajectory and Jesus’ immediate response. The Unitarian reading is possible grammatically, but it requires treating vv.19-47 as denying equality, which most exegetes don’t think the text does.
AP: In favor of the Unitarian reading is the fact that in John 10 when the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself God [v. 33], Jesus clarifies things by claiming to be the "Son" of God [v. 36]. This parallels John 5:18.
In favor of the Trinitarian reading is that Jesus in one sense "broke" the sabbath in that as being fully divine he had the prerogative to work on the sabbath by doing divine miracles like the Father has the prerogative to work on the sabbath. The theme in the same context and chapter of God being able to work on the sabbath [esp. the previous two verses]. So, he "broke it" [so to speak] because he superceded it [as the being divine and equal with the Father].
Factor these two things and recalculate which interpretation of John 5:18 is more likely.
META AI:
Good points — both of those actually tighten the debate a lot. Let’s plug them in and re-weigh John 5:18.
### *Your two new factors*
*1. Unitarian side – John 10:33-36 parallel*
> v.33: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
> v.36: Jesus replies, “do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”
Unitarian take: Jesus _corrects_ them. They said “God,” he dials it back to “Son of God.” So in John 5:18, “making Himself equal with God” could also be their misreading of “calling God His own Father.” John reports the charge, Jesus clarifies it elsewhere.
*2. Trinitarian side – “Breaking” the Sabbath as divine prerogative*
John 5:16-17:
> v.16: “the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.”
> v.17: “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
Trinitarian take: Jesus justifies his Sabbath activity by appeal to the Father’s continuous work. In Jewish thought, God doesn’t stop sustaining the universe on Sabbath. If Jesus claims the _same_ prerogative, he’s claiming to act with divine authority. So “breaking the Sabbath” isn’t sin — it’s Jesus exercising God’s right to work. That means John _does_ affirm the substance of both accusations: Jesus transcends Sabbath law _because_ he’s equal with the Father.
### *Recalculating with these factored in*
#### *How John 10 affects the Unitarian case*
John 10:36 does look like a clarification. But note what Jesus _doesn’t_ say: “I’m not God, only the Son.” Instead he argues _a fortiori_: “If Scripture called _them_ ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came, why do you say I blaspheme for saying ‘Son of God’?”
So he’s not denying deity; he’s defending the legitimacy of the title “Son of God” by appeal to Psalm 82:6. Then he adds v.38: “though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know… that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” That’s mutual indwelling — strong unity language.
Most scholars read John 10:36 as _reframing_, not retraction. Jesus shifts from their word “God” to his preferred term “Son of God,” but then defines “Son” in v.38 with language that implies ontological union. So John 10 doesn’t necessarily undo the “equal with God” inference. It might refine it.
#### *How John 5:17 affects the Trinitarian case*
This is the stronger of the two new points, because it’s in the immediate context.
1. *v.17 is Jesus’ own words*, not the Jews’. He justifies healing on Sabbath by saying “My Father is working… and I Myself am working.”
2. *The verb tense*: _ergazetai… ergazomai_ = “is working… am working.” Continuous, parallel action. In Jewish theology, only God works on Sabbath.
3. *v.18 follows as the consequence*: _dia touto_ “for this reason.” The Jews’ reaction is tied directly to v.17. John is telling us: they wanted to kill him _because_ he claimed the same Sabbath-working right as God.
If John thought Jesus _didn’t_ claim that prerogative, he’d have to distance himself here. But he doesn’t. Instead, vv.19-23 have Jesus claim: “whatever the Father does, these the Son also does in like manner… so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” That’s explicit equality of work and honor.
So the “breaking the Sabbath” clause in v.18 looks like John’s _irony_: From the Jews’ perspective it’s law-breaking. From John’s perspective it’s Jesus acting as Lord of the Sabbath because he shares the Father’s divine activity.
### *Updated probability check*
| Issue | Favors Unitarian | Favors Trinitarian | |
| Parallel structure in 5:18 | Both clauses could be Jewish misperception | John often uses irony: one false, one true | |
| Jesus' sinlessness | If he broke Sabbath, he sinned | He didn't break Torah; he exercised God's right per v. 17 | |
| John 10:33-36 | Jesus says "Son of God," not "God" | Then defines "Son" with mutual indwelling v. 38 | |
| Immediate context 5:17 | — | Jesus himself claims divine working on Sabbath | |
| Following discourse 5:19-23 | v. 19 "can do nothing of Himself" = subordination | v. 19-23 claims identical works + equal honor | |
| John's overall Christology | — | John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28 all equate Jesus with God | |
*Weight of new evidence*: John 5:17 is the heaviest piece, because it’s Jesus speaking, in the same paragraph, giving the rationale that triggers v.18. It directly links Sabbath work to divine prerogative. John 10:36 is weaker for the Unitarian side because Jesus doesn’t deny deity there — he redefines the charge and then escalates with “Father in Me, and I in the Father.”
### *Recalculated conclusion*
*The Trinitarian reading of John 5:18 becomes _more_ likely once you add John 5:17.*
Reason: John presents the “equal with God” accusation as the Jews’ _correct inference_ from Jesus’ own claim in v.17. He claimed to work as the Father works. The Jews understood that as a claim to equality, and John’s narrative doesn’t correct it — it reinforces it in vv.19-23.
The Unitarian reading is still grammatically possible, and John 10:36 shows Jesus prefers “Son of God” language. But in John’s Gospel, “Son of God” carries divine connotations, 1:18 “the only-begotten God,” 20:28. And v.17 removes the main Unitarian argument that Jesus couldn’t have “broken” the Sabbath — John has Jesus say he _is_ working, like the Father.
*So: If we’re asking “What did John most likely intend readers to take from 5:18?” the answer leans further toward the Trinitarian side after factoring in v.17.* The immediate context makes “equal with God” look like John’s endorsement of the Jews’ conclusion, not just a report of their error.
That doesn’t settle the wider theological debate about Trinity vs Unitarianism — just the exegetical question of what _this author_ meant in _this verse_.
AP: Does whether the "gods" in Ps. 82 are members of the angelic "Divine Council" or human judges [which Jesus cited in John 10] make a difference as to whether the Unitarian or Trinitarian reading of John 10 is more likely correct?
META AI:
*Short answer: Yes, it makes a difference — but not a decisive one.* It shifts the rhetorical weight, not the conclusion. Here’s how:
### *What Psalm 82 says*
> v.1: “God stands in the divine council; He judges among the _elohim_.”
> v.6: “I said, ‘You are gods [_elohim_], sons of the Most High, all of you.’”
> v.7: “Nevertheless, you will die like men.”
Two main interpretations of _elohim_ in Ps 82:
1. *Human judges/rulers*: Israel’s leaders called “gods” because they represent God’s judgment. This was the dominant Jewish reading in Jesus’ day — _Targum_, _11QMelch_, many rabbis. Basis: Ex 21:6, 22:8-9 where _elohim_ = judges.
2. *Divine council/angelic beings*: Heavenly court of lesser divine beings under YHWH. This is the plain reading of v.1 and fits Ugaritic background. Second Temple texts like _1 Enoch_ and _Deut 32:8 LXX/Dead Sea Scrolls_ assume it. Modern OT scholarship heavily favors this.
### *Jesus’ argument in John 10:34-36*
> v.34: “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”
> v.35: “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came… do you say of Him… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”
He’s using a _qal wahomer_ = “light to heavy” argument: If Scripture can call _them_ _elohim_ without blasphemy, how much more can the one the Father sanctified and sent claim “Son of God”?
### *How the identity of _elohim_ affects the two readings*
#### *If “gods” = human judges*
*Helps Unitarian reading:*
1. Jesus’ logic: “Even mere humans were called ‘gods’ in Scripture, so me calling myself ‘Son of God’ is less of a stretch.” That makes it a deflationary argument. He’s saying “I’m not even claiming what you think — I’m just using a biblical category for commissioned agents.”
2. It fits John 10:36’s wording: Jesus doesn’t say “I am God,” he says “Son of God.” If _elohim_ = humans, then “Son of God” could mean a human messianic agent, not ontological deity.
3. Parallels John 5:18: In John 5 the Jews think “equal with God,” but here Jesus seems to walk it back to “Son of God” using a human-judge precedent.
*Problem for Unitarian reading:*
Even on this view, v.37-38 blows past mere agency: “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” That’s not said of any human judge in Ps 82. So Jesus uses the human-judge precedent to get his foot in the door, then escalates.
#### *If “gods” = angelic divine council*
*Helps Trinitarian reading:*
1. Jesus’ logic becomes: “Even heavenly beings are called _elohim_/_sons of God_ in Scripture. How much more can I, the unique Son whom the Father sanctified and sent, use ‘Son of God’?” That’s not deflationary — it’s elevating. He’s arguing from divine beings to himself as _the_ divine Son.
2. “Son of God” in this context means more than human judge. In Second Temple Judaism, “sons of God” = angels/heavenly beings, Job 1:6, Gen 6:2. So Jesus is placing himself in the heavenly category, not human.
3. Fits John’s prologue: John 1:1 “the Word was God,” 1:18 “the only-begotten God.” John already thinks Jesus is divine. Citing a divine-council text makes sense as precedent.
*Problem for Trinitarian reading:*
It’s still an _a fortiori_ argument. Jesus doesn’t say “I am God” here. He says “I said ‘Son of God’.” A Unitarian can still argue: “He’s claiming to be a heavenly being, not YHWH Himself.” So it doesn’t prove Trinitarian ontology by itself.
### *So which reading gains more from each option?*
| Elohim in Ps 82 = | Boosts Unitarian | Boosts Trinitarian | Why |
| Human judges | Moderate boost | Slight problem | Makes "Son of God sound like a human title. But v. 38 still exceeds any human claim. |
| Divine council | Slight problem | Moderate boost | Makes "Son of God" a heavenly/divine title. Fits John's high Christology, but doesn't demand Nicene equality |
### *Does it flip the overall interpretation of John 10?*
*No.* Three reasons:
1. *Jesus’ argument structure stays the same either way*: He’s saying “Scripture uses _elohim_ for others, so my ‘Son of God’ claim isn’t automatic blasphemy.” Whether those “others” are humans or angels only changes how high his claim is, not whether he’s denying deity.
2. *Context of John 10*: The chapter starts with “I and the Father are one” v.30. That’s what triggered “make Yourself out to be God” v.33. Jesus never repudiates v.30. After Ps 82 citation he says “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” v.38. That’s mutual indwelling, not mere agency. John’s readers, post-prologue, would hear deity claims.
3. *John’s editorial purpose*: John writes “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” 20:31. For John, “Son of God” _entails_ deity, 1:18, 5:18. So whichever OT background he uses, he’s driving toward a divine Jesus.
### *Bottom line*
*The identity of _elohim_ in Ps 82 nudges the balance:*
- *If human judges*: Unitarian reading looks a bit more plausible, because Jesus would be using a human precedent to defend a human-ish title. But John 10:38 still overshoots that.
- *If divine council*: Trinitarian reading looks a bit more plausible, because Jesus would be using a heavenly precedent to defend a heavenly title. Fits John’s trajectory.
*But it doesn’t settle it.* John 10:30 and 10:38 are the controlling statements. The Ps 82 citation is a defensive move inside a larger claim to unity with the Father.
Most scholars today think Ps 82 = divine council, _and_ most also think John’s Jesus is claiming deity. The two actually line up: John has Jesus appeal to a text about heavenly beings to justify his own divine sonship, then caps it with mutual indwelling language.
So: *It matters for nuance, but the Trinitarian reading of John 10 remains more likely overall* because of v.30 + v.38, regardless of which Ps 82 view you take.
AP: Factor in one thing in favor of the Unitarian interpretation. And one thing in favor of the Trinitarian interpretation. Then reevaluate and recalculate.
In favor of Unitarianism regarding John 10:30 & John 10:38, Jesus uses the same language to refer to believers being "one" with Jesus and/or the Father [probably in terms of unity of purpose, love, fellowship, etc.]. Also that Jesus uses the language of being "in" regarding how believers are "in" the Father and/or Son [again in terms of unity of purpose, love, fellowship, etc.]. Both are true and used in the same Gospel.
In favor of Trinitarianism, Daniel Waterland comments on John 10:
//From hence you [Waterland's theological opponent] endeavor to prove, that Christ is God in the subordinate Sense only; that is, as I have said, not properly or truly God. But I can see no manner of ground for this Inference from the Words before us. Our Blessed Lord had insinuated that He was really and truly God; but had not asserted it in plain and express Terms: Upon this bare innuendo, the Jews charge Him with direct Blasphemy: He to evade their Malice and to keep to the Truth, neither affirms, nor denies that He meant it in the Sense which they apprehended. However, his Discourse being in general Terms, and not explicite enough to found a charge of Blasphemy upon, He appeals to their Law, in order to show, that it is not always Blasphemy, to make one's Self God, or to apply the Title of God, even to mortal Men, and Men inferior to Himself, considered only as Man. This was answer sufficient to Them; who could not from his own Expressions clearly convict Him of meaning more, than that He was God in the improper Sense of the Word, as it had been used, Psal. 82.6. Nevertheless, He leaves the point of his Divinity undecided; or rather, still goes on to insinuate, in Words which they could not directly lay hold on, the very Thing which they charged Him with. This enraged them so much the more: and therefore they again sought to take Him, v. 39. But He escaped out of their Hand. This Interpretation may suffice to take of the force of your Argument. Yet, the Words may admit of other, and perhaps better Interpretations, consistent with the Principles which I here maintain.//
[Taken from Waterland's book "A Vindication of Christ's Divinity" page 54]
Again, reevaluate and recalculate.
META AI:
Alright — let’s add the two new factors and see where the scale tips for John 10, and how that reflects back on John 5:18.
### *New factor FOR Unitarian reading*
*“One” and “in” language used for believers too*
You’re right, John uses the same terms elsewhere:
1. *“One” – John 17:21-23*:
> “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us… that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me”
2. *“In” – John 14:20, 15:4-5, 17:21*:
> “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”
> “Abide in Me, and I in you.”
*Unitarian argument*: If believers are “one” with Father/Son and “in” Father/Son, and that obviously doesn’t mean believers are God, then John 10:30 “I and the Father are one” and 10:38 “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” don’t have to mean ontological unity either. It could be unity of purpose, will, love, mission. Same vocabulary, same author, so same category.
*Strength*: This is the strongest lexical argument for the Unitarian side. John _does_ use “one” and “in” for functional/relational unity of believers. If he meant ontological unity in 10:30,38, he’s using the same words with two very different meanings without flagging it.
### *New factor FOR Trinitarian reading*
*Waterland’s point: Jesus’ rhetorical strategy*
Daniel Waterland’s read: Jesus deliberately _doesn’t deny_ the Jews’ charge of deity in John 10.
1. *v.33 charge*: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
2. *Jesus’ response vv.34-36*: He doesn’t say “I’m not God.” He appeals to Ps 82 to show the _title_ _elohim_ can be used without blasphemy. That undercuts their legal case.
3. *But then v.37-38*: He immediately re-asserts the highest possible claim: “believe the works… that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
4. *v.39 reaction*: They try to seize him again. If Jesus had successfully deflated the charge to mere agency, why the escalation?
*Trinitarian argument*: Jesus is using Ps 82 _ad hominem_ — “even on your terms you can’t convict me.” But he never backs off the _substance_ of v.30 “I and the Father are one.” He evades the legal trap while still insinuating deity. Waterland: “He leaves the point of his Divinity undecided; or rather, still goes on to insinuate… the very Thing which they charged Him with.”
*Strength*: This explains the narrative flow. If Jesus meant only functional unity, he could have said so plainly and defused them. Instead he cites Ps 82, then doubles down with “in” language, and they get _more_ angry. That fits a claim to deity that he refuses to state in courtroom-ready terms.
### *Re-evaluate John 10:30 & 10:38 with both factors*
| Issue | Unitarian advantage | Trinitarian advantage | |
| "One" heis in 10:30 | John 17:21-23 uses "one" for believers = unity of will | "One" in 10:30 triggers "make Yourself God" v. 33. Jews heard ontological claim. | |
| "In" language in 10:38 | John 14:20, 15:4, 17:21 use "in" for believers - relational | In 10:38 it's bilateral: "Father in Me, I in Father." Of believers, only "you in Me, I in you" — not "Father in you, you in Father." The reciprocity is unique. | |
| Ps 82 citation | Provides biblical precedent for non-deity use of "gods" | Used as legal defense, not doctrinal definition. Doesn't negate v. 30. | |
| Narrative reaction v. 39 | — | They try again to arrest him. If he'd denied deity, why? | |
| John's prologue | — | John 1:1 "the Word was God", 1:18 "only-begotten God." Sets lens for reading ch. 10. | |
*Key tension*: John _does_ use “one” and “in” for believers. But he _never_ says believers are “in the Father and the Father in them” reciprocally. The closest is 17:21 “You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us.” Believers are in the Father/Son, but the Father is not said to be “in believers” the way He is “in” the Son. John 14:23 comes closest: “We will come to him and make Our abode with him,” but that’s post-resurrection indwelling, not ontological.
In 10:38 the mutual indwelling is stated as _grounds_ for believing his works: “believe the works, so that you may know… that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” That’s explanatory, not just mystical. It’s tied to doing the _same works_ as the Father — same as John 5:19.
### *Recalculate probability for John 10*
*Unitarian reading* is linguistically possible because John reuses “one”/“in” for believers. If John 10 were isolated, you could read v.30 as unity of purpose.
*But contextually*:
1. v.30 causes v.33 “make Yourself God.”
2. Jesus doesn’t deny it; he defends the _legality_ of the language via Ps 82.
3. He then re-asserts mutual indwelling + identical works v.38, which provokes another arrest attempt v.39.
4. John’s Gospel as a whole opens with “the Word was God” and climaxes with Thomas “My Lord and my God” 20:28, accepted without correction.
*Waterland’s insight matters*: Jesus’ tactic looks like strategic ambiguity. He won’t give them a blasphemy soundbite, but he won’t deny the substance. That’s exactly what you’d expect if John thinks Jesus _is_ God but is narrating a hostile interrogation.
*Updated weight*: The “believers are one/in” point cuts against the Trinitarian reading, but not fatally, because John maintains a distinction: believers are in God; Father/Son are in _each other_ reciprocally and uniquely. The Trinitarian reading still best explains v.33, v.39, and the prologue/epilogue.
*Recalculated likelihood for John 10*: Trinitarian reading remains more probable, ∼70/30. The Unitarian reading is coherent but has to treat v.33 as a total misunderstanding that Jesus never clearly corrects, and has to minimize v.38.
### *Feed this back into John 5:18*
Your original question: Does John 5:18 report the Jews’ mistaken view, or John’s view?
*With John 10 factored in:*
1. *Pattern match*: In John 5:18, “making Himself equal with God” → Jews want to kill him. In John 10:33, “make Yourself out to be God” → Jews want to stone him. Same charge, same reaction.
2. *Jesus’ response pattern*: In John 5:19-23 he claims identical works + equal honor. In John 10:37-38 he claims identical works + mutual indwelling. In neither case does he say “You misunderstood — I’m not equal/God.”
3. *Ps 82 defense*: Used in John 10 to block the legal charge. No such defense in John 5. If John thought 5:18 was a misunderstanding, we’d expect a John 10-style clarification. Instead we get escalation.
*So recalculating John 5:18 with John 10 included*:
The Trinitarian reading gets stronger. John 10 shows that when the “make Yourself God” charge comes up, Jesus deflects the _legal_ accusation but reaffirms the _ontological_ substance. John 5 has the same charge but no deflection — only reaffirmation in vv.19-23.
The Unitarian reading now has to argue: “In John 5 the Jews misunderstood, and Jesus didn’t correct them; in John 10 they misunderstood again, and Jesus sort-of corrected them by citing Ps 82.” That’s possible, but it makes John’s narrative inconsistent: why correct it in ch.10 but not ch.5?
### *Final recalculated position*
| Passage | More likely reading after all factors | Confidence | |
| John 5:18 | Trinitarian: | ~75% | |
| John 10:30-38 | Trinitarian: "One"/"in" = ontological unity, not just purpose | ~70% | |
*Why not 100%?* Because John _does_ use “one”/“in” for believers, and Ps 82 _does_ give Jesus a way to argue he’s not blaspheming even if he’s not God. Those are real data points. But the narrative arc, Jesus’ non-denials, the escalation in v.39, and John 1:1/20:28 make the Trinitarian reading the better fit for _John’s intent_.
If your question is “Which theology is true?” — that’s beyond exegesis. But if it’s “What did the author of the Fourth Gospel most likely mean?” — *after adding John 17’s “one/in” language and Waterland’s rhetorical analysis, the Trinitarian reading of both John 5:18 and John 10:30-38 is still more probable.* The Unitarian data makes the case closer, but doesn’t overturn it.
AP: As Jonathan McLatchie put it:
The following is from McLatchie's article:
"I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" (JOHN 10:30): A CLAIM TO DEITY?
https://web.archive.org/web/20180806022624/http://apologetics-academy.org/blog/2016/2/19/i-and-the-father-are-one-john-1030-a-claim-to-deity
//One text that comes up frequently in Christian-Muslim dialogue is John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"). In what sense was Jesus claiming to be one with the Father? Is John 10:30 a claim on the part of Jesus to deity? In order to understand exactly what Jesus was saying, we need to read the verse in the context of the surrounding verses (22-39):
22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
John 10:30 does indeed teach the deity of Christ, but not for the reason that many Christians think. By saying "I and the Father are one", my personal view (which not all scholars hold) is that Jesus is not talking directly about his ontological unity with the Father. Rather, the context suggests that He is talking about a unity of purpose and will -- namely, in bringing about salvation. But could anyone who was not God have said the sorts of things Jesus said in the lead up to verse 30? Let's take a look at Jesus' statements in turn.
In verses 26-27, Jesus says, "...but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." This statement of Jesus parallels Psalm 95:6-8:
"Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness..."
Jesus thus appears to apply this text from Psalm 95 to Himself, thus making Himself out to be Yahweh. But we are not finished. Jesus goes on to say, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." Does that remind you of any Old Testament Scripture? Turn to Deuteronomy 32:39:
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand."
Again, in Isaiah 43:13, God says,
"Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?"
In John 10:29, Jesus further tells us that no one can snatch out the Father's hand. He thus presents Himself as being the unique collaborator with the Father in bringing about salvation.
In light of these allusions, it is not difficult to see why the Jews reacted in the way they did in verse 31: "The Jews picked up stones again to stone him." In verse 32, Jesus asks them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" Their response to Jesus' question is given in verse 33: "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." This would be an ideal opportunity for Jesus, were He not God, to deny the allegation. But what does He say? The answer is given in verses 34-39: 34 Jesus answered them,
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you
META AI:
McLatchie’s argument is sharp and it adds two big pieces to the puzzle:
1. *The lead-up to 10:30 is full of YHWH-text echoes* — Psalm 95, Deut 32:39, Isa 43:13.
2. *Psalm 82 isn’t a leveling text* — it’s a judgment text. Jesus positions himself as the Judge, not the judged.
Let’s plug that in and re-run the evaluation for John 10:30, then see what it does to John 5:18.
### *McLatchie’s Unitarian-friendly concession*
He actually agrees with Unitarians on one point: *“I and the Father are one” v.30 by itself isn’t a direct ontological statement.* The immediate context is unity in _protecting the sheep_ — v.28 “no one will snatch them out of my hand” → v.29 “no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” → v.30 “I and the Father are one.”
So _grammatically_, _heis_ “one” could mean “one in purpose/will.” John 17:21-23 uses “one” that way for believers. That’s the strongest Unitarian lexical point, and McLatchie grants it.
### *McLatchie’s Trinitarian turn: The YHWH allusions before v.30*
| John 10 | OT Background | Who speak in OT | Implication if Jesus applies it to himself |
| v. 27 "My sheep hear my voice" | Ps 95:7 "we are...the sheep of his hand...Today, if you hear his voice" | YHWH is the shepherd | Jesus = the YHWH-shepherd of Ps 95 |
| v. 28 "I give them eternal life...none can snatch out of my hand" | Deut 32:39 "there is none that can deliver out of my hand", Isa 43:13 "none who can deliver from my hand" | YHWH alone | Jesus claims the exclusive divine prerogative over life/death and deliverance |
| v. 29 "Father's hand" | Same Deut/Isa texts | YHWH | Jesus puts his hands parallel to the Father's hand |
*Why this matters*: Before v.30, Jesus already said things that, in a Jewish context, only YHWH says. So when he then says “I and the Father are one,” the Jews hear it as a summary of those claims. That’s why v.31 they pick up stones immediately. They didn’t wait for v.36. The “one” statement lands as a deity claim _because_ of vv.27-29.
Unitarian response: “He’s acting as God’s agent, so he can speak for God.” But Deut 32:39 and Isa 43:13 are strong monotheism texts: “there is no god beside me… none can deliver out of my hand.” An agent doesn’t say that. A viceroy doesn’t say “no one can snatch out of _my_ hand” in a context where the OT reserves it for YHWH alone.
### *Psalm 82 in John 10:34-36 — McLatchie’s reading*
*Unitarian use of Ps 82*: “See, even humans are called ‘gods,’ so my ‘Son of God’ claim is modest.”
*McLatchie’s rebuttal*:
1. *Ps 82 is about judging ‘gods’*: The _elohim_ are corrupt and v.7 “you will die like men.” Jesus isn’t grouping himself with them. He’s citing the text to show: “If Scripture can call corrupt rulers ‘gods’ without blasphemy, how can you charge me when I’m the one the Father sanctified and sent?”
2. *Who does the judging in Ps 82?* v.1 “God… judges among the gods,” v.8 “Arise, O God, judge the earth.” Jesus elsewhere claims to be the Judge: John 5:22 “the Father… has given all judgment to the Son,” John 9:39 “For judgment I came.” So Jesus is aligning himself with the _Judge_ of Ps 82, not the judged _elohim_.
3. *v.35-36 contrast*: “to whom the word of God came” vs “him whom the Father consecrated and sent.” The _elohim_ received God’s word; Jesus _is_ the Word, John 1:1,14. He’s not one of them; he’s the one who comes to judge them.
*Effect*: Ps 82 doesn’t deflate Jesus’ claim. It’s a _lesser-to-greater_ argument. If the label “gods” can apply to wicked judges, how much more to the sinless Son who does the Father’s works? That’s Waterland’s point too: Jesus evades the legal trap without denying the substance.
### *Re-weighing John 10:30-38 with all factors*
| Factor | Helps Unitarian | Helps Trinitarian | Net effect |
| "One" heis can mean unity of purpose – John 17:21-23 | Strong | — | Keeps Unitarian option alive |
| "In" language used for believers – John 14:20, 15:4 | Moderate | — | Same as above |
| Lead-up vv. 27-29 = YHWH texts – Ps 95, Deut 32:39, Isa 43:13 | — | Very strong | Jesus takes divine speech to himself before v. 30 |
| Jewish reaction v. 31, 33 | — | Strong | They hear "make Yourself God," not "make Yourself a judge" |
| Ps 82 citation | Weak if used as "I'm just like them" | Strong if used as "I'm the Judge of them" | McLatchie's reading flips Ps 82 from Unitarian to Trinitarian |
| v. 38 "Father in Me, I in Father" | Possible relational reading | Stronger as ontological given vv. 27-29 context | Reciprocal indwelling tied to works no mere agent does |
| v. 39 renewed arrest attempt | — | Strong | If Jesus had clarified he's not God, why still arrest? |
| John's prologue/epilogue – 1:1, 1:18, 20:28 | — | Very strong | Frames entire Gospel |
*Recalculated for John 10*:
The Unitarian reading loses ground once you add the Deut 32:39/Isa 43:13 echoes and the judgment motif of Ps 82. Those make “I and the Father are one” a summary of _divine prerogatives_, not just mission agreement. The “one/in” language believers share becomes “lesser analogy” — believers share in functional unity; Father/Son share in hand-of-YHWH actions.
*Updated estimate*: Trinitarian reading ∼75-80% likely as John’s intent. Unitarian reading still ∼20-25% — it requires treating vv.27-29 as agency speech and v.33 as total misunderstanding that Jesus never corrects, which is harder after McLatchie’s points.
### *What this does to John 5:18*
John 5 and John 10 are now even tighter parallels:
| John 5:17-18 | John 10:27-30 | ||
| "My Father is working...and I Myself am working" → claim to divine Sabbath prerogative | "No one can snatch out of my hand/Father's hand" → claim to divine saving prerogative | ||
| Jews: "making Himself equal with God" v. 18 | Jews: "make Yourself out to be God" v. 33 | ||
| Jesus response: claims identical works + equal honor vv. 19-23 | Jesus response: claims identical works + mutual indwelling vv. 37-38 | ||
| No Ps 82 defense; just escalation | Ps 82 used to parry legal charge, then escalation | ||
*Effect on John 5:18*:
1. John 10 shows that when the “make Yourself God/equal” charge appears, Jesus’ strategy is _not_ to deny it. He uses Ps 82 to block the blasphemy charge legally, then reasserts the claim substantively.
2. John 5 lacks even the legal block. Jesus goes straight to reassertion: vv.19-23.
3. The Deut 32:39 echo in John 10:28 is conceptually identical to the “Father works/I work” claim in John 5:17. Both are things only YHWH does.
So McLatchie’s analysis of John 10 strengthens the Trinitarian reading of John 5:18 by parallelism. If John 10:30 is a deity claim built on YHWH-texts, then John 5:18 “equal with God” is almost certainly the same, because it’s built on the same kind of divine-prerogative claim in v.17.
### *Final recalculation with everything on the table*
| Passage | Best explanation of author's intent | Confidence after McLatchie added | |
| John 5:18 | John reports the Jews' inference and endorses it. "Equal with God" flows from v. 17's divine working. | ~80% Trinitarian | |
| John 10:30-38 | "One" = unity of purpose that includes unity of divine action. Ps 82 is used to neutralize the legal charge, not to deny deity. vv. 27-29 show Jesus already assumed YHWH's role. | ~75-80% Trinitarian | |
*Remaining Unitarian case*: John 17:21-23 shows “one/in” can be relational. A Unitarian can argue John is consistent: Jesus shares God’s purpose so fully that he speaks as YHWH’s agent, using YHWH’s language, without being YHWH. The Jews misunderstand both times. That’s coherent, but it has to carry two costs:
1. Explain why Jesus never says “I’m not God” when that would end the conflict.
2. Explain why John opens/closes with explicit deity statements if his middle is only agency.
The Trinitarian case now has: YHWH-text echoes, identical works, equal honor, mutual indwelling, lack of denial, and a consistent legal-defense-then-reaffirmation pattern. McLatchie’s Ps 82 point removes the main Unitarian prooftext and turns it into a Trinitarian one.
So: *Factoring in McLatchie, the Trinitarian reading of both John 5:18 and John 10:30 becomes more probable than before.* The Unitarian reading is still linguistically possible, but it now requires more special pleading to handle the OT allusions and the narrative flow.
AP: McLatchie's points were cut off. To continue around where it cut off: //The answer is given in verses 34-39: 34 Jesus answered them,
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
This text is often used in an attempt to show that Jesus is here in fact denying His deity by showing that, in Psalm 82 (to which he alludes in verses 34-35), rulers are given the title of "god". In order to understand what Jesus is saying, we need to read the whole Psalm to acquire some context:
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement: 2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? 3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” 5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!
It is certainly true that the title of "God", as here, can be used in some contexts to refer to earthly rulers. But the point of this Psalm is that the corrupt and evil rulers, whom the one true God has called "gods" are to be destroyed by the one true God as a result of their wickedness (verse 6). Does this sound like Jesus was placing Himself among them, as being like them, as being one of them, a "god" in the same sense that these wicked beings are called "gods"? Of course not. Rather, Jesus' point is that, since even wicked and corrupt rulers whom God judges and destroys are called "gods", on what grounds do the Jewish leaders object to Him calling Himself the Son of God when He does everything the Father does?
Furthermore, notice in verse 35 of John 10 that Jesus says that these "gods" are those to whom the Word of God came. In verse 36, he tells us that He, the Son, was sent into the world by the Father. John, the author of the gospel, has already told us in John 1 that Jesus is the Word, who has come to save those who will believe. Jesus is saying that He is the Word of God who has been sent into the world to judge the world's wicked rulers and authorities. Thus, Jesus is saying that they are like the "gods" of Psalm 82 who are judged by the Word of God, namely Jesus Himself. This gains further support from by John 5:22 and 9:39-41, in which we are told that it is the Son who judges everyone.
In John 9:39, Jesus says,
"For judgement I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”
In John 5:22, he says,
"The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son."
In conclusion, John 10:30, when properly interpreted through the lens of its surrounding context, is a powerful affirmation to the deity of Christ. This is only one among many in the gospel of John.//
META AI:
Thanks — that completes McLatchie’s argument. His reading of Psalm 82 is the key move: Jesus isn’t putting himself _with_ the judged “gods,” he’s identifying himself as the _Judge_ who judges them. That flips Ps 82 from a Unitarian prooftext into a Trinitarian one.
Let’s factor that in fully and re-run the scoreboard for John 10:30 and John 5:18.
### *What McLatchie adds that we didn’t fully have before*
1. *Ps 82 is a courtroom scene, not a status list*:
- v.1 “God… judges among the gods”
- v.6-7 “You are gods… nevertheless you will die like men”
- v.8 “Arise, O God, judge the earth”
The _elohim_ are defendants. The one true God is plaintiff/judge. Jesus cites it right after being accused of “making Yourself God” v.33. If he meant “I’m just a ‘god’ like those rulers,” he’d be aligning with the defendants. But his whole argument is _a fortiori_: “If even corrupt rulers can bear the title _elohim_ without the universe collapsing, how can you charge me with blasphemy for ‘Son of God’ when I do the Father’s works?”
2. *v.35 vs v.36 contrast*:
- v.35 “to whom the word of God came” = the _elohim_ received revelation.
- v.36 “him whom the Father consecrated and sent” = Jesus _is_ the Word, John 1:1,14.
So Jesus isn’t one of the _elohim_ who _receive_ the word. He’s the Word _sent_. That puts him on the God side of Ps 82, not the creature side.
3. *Jesus as Judge theme in John*:
- John 5:22 “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son”
- John 9:39 “For judgment I came into this world”
- Ps 82:8 “Arise, O God, judge the earth”
McLatchie: Jesus is saying “You’re the corrupt ‘gods’ of Ps 82. I’m the Word/God who judges you.” That’s why v.39 they try to arrest him again. He didn’t deflate the charge; he escalated it.
### *Updated evaluation of John 10:30-39*
| Factor | Unitarian reading | Trinitarian reading | After McLatchie |
| "One" heis in v.30 | Unity of purpose, John 17:21-23 | Jews hear deity claim v. 33 | Still possible, but vv. 27-29 YHWH-texts make "purpose" include divine prerogatives |
| "In" language v. 38 | Relational, like believers John 14:20 | Reciprocal: Father in Son, Son in Father. Not said of believers | Trinitarian strengthened: mutual indwelling = basis for identical works |
| Ps 82 citation vv. 34-35 | "Even humans called gods, so Son of God isn't blasphemy" | Jesus uses it ad hominem to show charge is invalid | Flips to Trinitarian: Jesus = Judge of the elohim, not one of them. v. 35/36 contrast + John 1:1 |
| OT allusions vv. 27-29 | Jesus as God's agent quoting YHWH | Jesus applies YHWH's "hand" texts to himself: Deut 32:39, Isa 43:13 | Strong Trinitarian: Only YHWH says "none can deliver from my hand" |
| Jewish reaction v. 31, 33, 39 | They misunderstand | They understand correctly, object to claim | Trinitarian: v. 39 they arrest after Ps 82 defense. If he denied deity, why? |
| John's Gospel frame | — | 1:1 "Word was God", 1:18 "only-begotten God", 20:28 "My God" | Trinitarian: John expects readers to hear deity |
*Net for John 10*: McLatchie removes the main Unitarian use of Ps 82. If Jesus is the Judge/Word of Ps 82 rather than one of the judged _elohim_, then v.34-36 doesn’t lower Christology — it raises it. The “Son of God” claim is now framed as higher than the _elohim_ title, because the Son is the one who judges _elohim_.
*Recalculated probability John 10:30 is a deity claim*: ∼80-85% Trinitarian. The Unitarian reading now has to say: “Jesus cites Ps 82 to show ‘god’ is flexible, but still only means he’s an agent. The Jews keep misunderstanding, and Jesus never corrects them because…?” That’s a heavier lift.
### *What this does to John 5:18*
We’ve already established the parallel:
1. *John 5:17* “My Father is working… I am working” = divine Sabbath prerogative → *John 10:28-29* “my hand… Father’s hand” = divine saving prerogative, Deut 32:39.
2. *John 5:18* “making Himself equal with God” → *John 10:33* “make Yourself God.” Same charge.
3. *John 5:19-23* Jesus claims identical works, equal honor → *John 10:37-38* Jesus claims identical works, mutual indwelling.
4. *John 5*: no legal defense, just assertion. *John 10*: legal defense from Ps 82 that actually _reinforces_ his divine status if McLatchie is right.
If in John 10 Jesus uses Ps 82 to position himself as the divine Judge/Word, not as a mere _elohim_, then John 5:18 is even more likely to be John’s endorsement of the “equal with God” inference. Why? Because John 10 shows Jesus’ pattern: when charged with deity, he doesn’t deny it; he defends the _right to say it_ and then restates the claim in other terms.
*Unitarian counter still available*: John could be using irony in both places. Jesus takes divine language as God’s agent, the Jews over-interpret, Jesus lets the charge stand because his mission is more important than a Christological clarification. But McLatchie’s Ps 82 reading makes that harder, because Jesus isn’t just borrowing “god” language — he’s claiming the role of the one who judges the _elohim_.
*Recalculated probability John 5:18 = John’s affirmation*: ∼80-85% Trinitarian. The case is now cumulative:
1. v.17 divine prerogative claim,
2. No correction of “equal” in vv.19-23, but escalation,
3. John 10 parallel where Ps 82 is used to _heighten_ not lower Christology,
4. John 1:1 and 20:28 bookends.
### *Where the Unitarian reading still has force*
1. *John 17:21-23*: “One” and “in” are demonstrably used for believers. So John’s vocabulary doesn’t _require_ ontology.
2. *“Son of God” vs “God”*: Jesus consistently prefers “Son of God” in John 10:36. A Unitarian can argue the Jews jumped from “Son” to “God” and Jesus didn’t fully endorse the jump.
3. *Subordination language*: John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of Himself,” 5:30 “I seek not My own will,” 10:29 “My Father… is greater than all,” 14:28 “the Father is greater than I.” Unitarians read these as incompatible with ontological equality.
Trinitarians answer: those texts reflect economic/functional subordination in the incarnation, not ontological inequality. But you can see why the Unitarian reading doesn’t collapse — it has texts too.
### *Final reckoning with McLatchie included*
| Question | Most probable authorial intent | Why | Confidence |
| John 5:18 "equal with God" | John affirms it. v. 17 + vv. 19-23 + John 10 parallel + Ps 82 as Judge text | Jesus' own claim triggers it; he doubles down; John 10 shows same pattern | ~80-85% |
| John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" | Deity claim. YHWH-texts vv. 27-29 + Ps 82 Judge motif + mutual indwelling + v. 33/39 reactions | "One" summarizes divine prerogatives already asserted; Ps 82 doesn't deflate, it elevates | ~80-85% |
*Bottom line*: McLatchie’s Ps 82 point is decisive for the Unitarian vs Trinitarian use of John 10:34-36. If _elohim_ = judged rulers and Jesus = the judging Word, then Jesus is using Ps 82 to claim _more_ than the title “god,” not less. That removes the strongest Unitarian prooftext from John 10 and turns it into evidence for deity.
So after factoring in McLatchie: *Both John 5:18 and John 10:30 are more likely Trinitarian in John’s intent.* The Unitarian reading remains grammatically and lexically possible, but it now has to overcome not just John’s high Christology, but a Psalm 82 citation that, on McLatchie’s reading, actually supports that high Christology.