17 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed (Jn 17:1-5).
v3 is a unitarian prooftext. On that interpretation, the "only true God" stands in contrast to the Son. The Father is the "only true God" and the Son is not. But is it John's intention to exclude Jesus from that category?
One barrier to that interpretation is:
I and the Father are one (Jn 10:30).
This echoes the Shema. So the Father and the Son are the one Yahweh.
In terms of pervasive Biblical precedent, the "only true God" stands in opposition to pagan polytheism and heathen idolatry. So that forms the natural backdrop to v3.
And here's a striking Johannine parallel:
20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols (1 Jn 5:20-21).
V21 seems a bit abrupt, but the point is the opposition between idols and the true God. By the same token, that's the implicit point of contrast in Jn 17:3. The Father, as the "only true God" stands in contrast, not to the Son, but to pagan impiety.
In addition, the Son is probably the referent of the "true God" in 1 Jn 5:20.
Heiser's view makes the most sense to me.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/SBL%20Psalm%2082%20in%20John%2010%20paper.pdf
Steve, your denial of the self-evident truth of the indiscernibility of identicals is stunning. Your reading of John is no better than an interpretation of scripture which assumes that 2+2=3. Your reading foists this claim onto John: that Jesus and the Father are numerically one being, and yet they have at one time differed. But we should not think that John stupidly assumes that something can at one time differ from itself, i.e. be and not be some one way. What you should say is: back to the drawing board!
ReplyDeleteIt also amazes me how ideology prevents people from seeing the logical form of what Jesus is assuming in v. 1-3. For those less blinded by partisan passions, here's the simple logic class type explanation. https://youtu.be/Pt_3LWElWRw?t=12m17s Also: https://youtu.be/nHPKzIGrJkQ?t=1m27s
Of course YHWH is contrasted with the alleged pagan deities. But in Isaiah he's the one god in all of time, sovereign over all creation, uniquely so. He's not the only God in Israel, or the only God *now*, or the only god out of a certain restricted set of contenders - his uniqueness is absolute. Who's this? Jesus's God - same god as yours and mine, the Father. (John 20:17) The one true god, yes, out of this set: YHWH + all the alleged pagan deities. But also, the one true god unrestricted. Yes, that excludes all others, even Jesus, as he differs from, and so is known to be numerically distinct from the Father. This is why God/the Father is the "other" (self) who testifies on behalf of Jesus, so he's not just testifying on his own behalf. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5%3A32%2C1+John+5%3A9&version=NASB
To give the old oneness / modalist misreading of John 10:30 - as if he's saying that he and the Father are the same god - is an egregious misreading, given Jesus's ingenious argument that follows, in which he corrects his opponents about what he's claiming for himself. http://trinities.org/blog/jesuss-argument-in-john-10/ Not God, according to Jesus - but Son of God. Also, according to John. See his thesis statement: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A30-31&version=NASB
That'd be kind of a letdown, wouldn't it, if his real point was to insinuate that Jesus is God himself?
"Dale Steve, your denial of the self-evident truth of the indiscernibility of identicals is stunning. Your reading of John is no better than an interpretation of scripture which assumes that 2+2=3."
DeleteYou're recycling your stale talking-points. I've addressed that objection on multiple occasion. Repeating yourself fails to engage my counterarguments.
"Your reading foists this claim onto John: that Jesus and the Father are numerically one being, and yet they have at one time differed."
Since Jesus didn't always exist, although the Son always existed, to say Jesus and the Father at one time differed is entirely consistent with the indiscernibility of identicals.
"But we should not think that John stupidly assumes that something can at one time differ from itself, i.e. be and not be some one way. What you should say is: back to the drawing board!"
Once again, you're recycling your stale talking-points. John has no control over what God is like. John is a witness. He doesn't create reality.
"Of course YHWH is contrasted with the alleged pagan deities. But in Isaiah he's the one god in all of time, sovereign over all creation, uniquely so. He's not the only God in Israel, or the only God *now*, or the only god out of a certain restricted set of contenders - his uniqueness is absolute."
Which is consistent with what I said.
"Yes, that excludes all others, even Jesus, as he differs from, and so is known to be numerically distinct from the Father."
Isaiah isn't referring to the Father, in contrast to the Son or Spirit. Your appeal is anachronistic. He's simply talking about Yahweh. Isaiah doesn't say or imply that the Father is Yahweh in opposition to the Son or Spirit.
"To give the old oneness / modalist misreading of John 10:30 - as if he's saying that he and the Father are the same god - is an egregious misreading."
Jews prayed the Shema every day. Any observant Jew would instantly register an allusion to the Shema in Jn 10:30. Jesus knew that.
"given Jesus's ingenious argument that follows, in which he corrects his opponents about what he's claiming for himself."
Jesus mounts an a fortiori argument.
"Not God, according to Jesus - but Son of God."
In Johannine usage, the "Son of God" is synonymous with the Son of the Father. "God" in "the Son of God" is a proper name for the Father.
That doesn't prevent John from teaching the deity of Christ.
Sorry, Steve - you don't have any coherent counter-arguments to the Indiscernibility of Identicals. Your memory is not serving you well here. In the past, you've just made confused statements and irrelevant points, like citing the reality of change.
DeleteD: "Your reading foists this claim onto John: that Jesus and the Father are numerically one being, and yet they have at one time differed."
S: "Since Jesus didn't always exist, although the Son always existed, to say Jesus and the Father at one time differed is entirely consistent with the indiscernibility of identicals."
In the NT, "the Son" and "Jesus" are co-referring terms. That is to say, it is assumed that Jesus just is the Son, and vice-versa. In plain English, these are not two characters, but one. You just asserted that one existed before the other; but that requires them to be two. Again, you go hard against the grain of the NT. But in any case, this (alleged) distinction between Jesus and the unique Son doesn't help with the point at hand. In *your* view, the Son has differed from the Father / God. Ergo, they are not the same being, by Ind Id.
The point stands that on your reading, John is foolishly committed to the falsity of a self-evident truth. To say "John has no control over what God is like" is wholly point-missing. Your reading is profoundly uncharitable to John, and to the divine author who moves through him. It should shake your confidence that you are attributing an obviously falsehood to John and to God - again, that one and the same thing at one time is and is not some one way. As a being with a reasonably capable mind, you will be held accountable for this slander.
"Jews prayed the Shema every day. Any observant Jew would instantly register an allusion to the Shema in Jn 10:30. Jesus knew that."
Again, you ignore the Lord's correction of the spiritually blind opponents in John 10:34-36, not to mention the context in John of that "one" statement. You also ignore the obvious implication of John's thesis - that Jesus is not God himself. The "Son of God" is (explicitly in John) none other than the Messiah, the man anointed by God. This special man, anointed by God, is not God himself. He, John has him explicitly say, has a God, who is the same god over you and me. That god is the Father. (John 20:17) In other words (John 5:43-44), the only god, Yahweh.
Why do you beat your head against these obvious facts of the text? For the sake of your confused speculation that "Jesus is God." This is a crystal clear case of catholic tradition (or really, the modern, pop-evangelical over-simplification of it) trumping explicit and clearly implied claims of scripture.
Steve, your thinking about God and his Son needs to be more Reformed. Back to the sources. Leave the confused speculations behind.
"In the NT, 'the Son' and 'Jesus' are co-referring terms. That is to say, it is assumed that Jesus just is the Son, and vice-versa. In plain English, these are not two characters, but one. You just asserted that one existed before the other; but that requires them to be two."
Deletei) Norma Jeane and Marilyn Monroe are coreferring terms. Does that mean Norma Jeane was always a movie star, Playboy centerfold, wife of Arthur Miller and Joe DiMagio? Things can be true of the same individual at one stage of life, but false at another stage of life.
ii) That's why your invocation of is the indiscernibility of identicals is arbitrary. You yourself make that consistent with change. But in that event, you're not using the the indiscernibility of identicals as your standard of comparison. Rather, you are using your theory of personal identity as your standard of comparison, and then adapting the indiscernibility of identicals to accommodate the reality of change in reference to the same individual. So you're very flexible in how you apply the indiscernibility of identicals in that case, but very inflexible in how you apply to the Trinity or the Incarnation.
iii) In addition, the NT doesn't assume that Jesus *just is* the Son, and vice-versa. To the contrary, it draws a distinction between the eternally preexistent Son who became Incarnate, and his resultant condition. As a unitarian, you deny it, but that's beside the point since the issue at hand is whether the *idea* of the Incarnation is incoherent. For the Son to assume a human nature doesn't violate the indiscernibility of identicals.
iv) In addition, since I think God is timeless, I don't even believe the Son underwent any change. From a mundane frame of reference, the Incarnation had a point of origin in time. From an extramundane frame of reference, the Incarnation did not effect a change in the status quo ante inasmuch as the Son does not subsist in the timeline. Rather, the Incarnation instantiates a timeless relation in time.
"In *your* view, the Son has differed from the Father / God. Ergo, they are not the same being, by Ind Id."
The doctrine of the Trinity requires them to be different in some respects, and the same in other respects. I've discussed your false dichotomy between identity and alterity using examples like the Mandelbrot set and mirror symmetries. But that invariably sails right over your head.
"Again, you ignore the Lord's correction of the spiritually blind opponents in John 10:34-36, not to mention the context in John of that "one" statement. You also ignore the obvious implication of John's thesis - that Jesus is not God himself. The "Son of God" is (explicitly in John) none other than the Messiah, the man anointed by God. This special man, anointed by God, is not God himself."
Deletei) The context of the Jn 10:30 is a dispute over the identity of Jesus. The context of 10:30 is a Jewish audience who recited the Shema every day. The only way Jesus could reasonably expect them to interpret his statement is an allusion to Deut 6:4. In context, the statement would inevitably trigger that association. Hence, he's claiming to be the Lord of the Shema.
ii) In v36, Jesus uses "son of God" as a synonym for "God" in v33. They accuse him of making himself "God". Yet, in v36, he translates their allegation as equivalent to the accusation that he's the "Son of God". So he himself uses "God" and "Son of God" as interchangeable labels in that context.
iii) To be anointed by "God" is to be anointed by the "Father". John typically uses "God" as a synonymous proper name for the "Father"–although there are some striking exceptions that accentuate the deity of Christ (Jn 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 Jn 5:20).
iv) Regarding vv34-36, his counterargument turns in part on the identity of the "gods" in Ps 82:6. I believe most modern scholars think the original referent is either God sarcastically addressing the "gods" of the nations, or God addressing the angels of the nations (i.e. angels put in charge of nations).
In either case, Jesus is presenting an a fortiori argument. If Scripture can property use a divine designation in the lesser case of angels or heathen deities, then with far more propriety can it be used in the greater case of the Son.
v) "Sent into the world" (36) implies the preexistence of the Son.
vi) Finally, you falsely assume that "God" is a divine designation, but "Son of God" is not. Yet it's demonstrable that in the Johannine corpus, as well as some other NT writings, "Son of God" is a divine title.
"This is a crystal clear case of catholic tradition (or really, the modern, pop-evangelical over-simplification of it) trumping explicit and clearly implied claims of scripture."
One of your polemical tactics is to shoehorn your theological opponents into blind adherence to "catholic tradition". However, I'm not a slave to "catholic tradition". For instance, I reject the eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Spirit, even though that's a central plank of Nicene orthodoxy. So you can't honestly cast me in the role of somebody who's uncritically conditioned by "catholic tradition". That charge won't stick.
D: "In the NT, 'the Son' and 'Jesus' are co-referring terms.
DeleteS: i) Norma Jeane and Marilyn Monroe are coreferring terms. Does that mean Norma Jeane was always a movie star, Playboy centerfold, wife of Arthur Miller and Joe DiMagio? Things can be true of the same individual at one stage of life, but false at another stage of life.
Steve, this is obviously true, but not relevant. You can choose to call this one self "Jesus" only after (or starting with) the Incarnation, and you can call him "Son" over all his life. But it remains that Jesus and the Son can never (at one time) differ in any way - given that these are co-referring terms.
S: ii) That's why your invocation of is the indiscernibility of identicals is arbitrary. You yourself make that consistent with change.
D: We *know* that things change (and this presupposes the numerical identity of the before thing with the after thing). We *know* that nothing can be and not be the same way at the same time. So it's far from arbitrary to put a time reference into the indiscernibility of identicals. You just don't like the consequences for your theological speculations.
S: But in that event, you're not using the the indiscernibility of identicals as your standard of comparison. Rather, you are using your theory of personal identity as your standard of comparison, and then adapting the indiscernibility of identicals to accommodate the reality of change in reference to the same individual.
D: No, in this context I'm not assuming any theory of personal identity whatever - only that things change (including selves/persons). This is all compatible with identity across time being basic, as Trenton Merricks thinks, so there will be no explanation of it (cross-time identity) in terms of anything else. But it's also compatible with other theories.
S: So you're very flexible in how you apply the indiscernibility of identicals in that case, but very inflexible in how you apply to the Trinity or the Incarnation.
D: Nope. You're just uncharitably projecting an arbitrariness that is not there. I consider Ind Id a necessary truth, with no exceptions, and it applies everywhere.
S: iii) In addition, the NT doesn't assume that Jesus *just is* the Son, and vice-versa. To the contrary, it draws a distinction between the eternally preexistent Son who became Incarnate, and his resultant condition.
D: Some incarnation theories distinguish Jesus or the Christ from the Logos, with only the Logos existing eternally. I don't know whether or not you do. On the face of it, a better position is to think that the Son/Logos simply changed in becoming incarnate, i.e. came to exist in a different condition.
S: iv) In addition, since I think God is timeless, I don't even believe the Son underwent any change. From a mundane frame of reference, the Incarnation had a point of origin in time. From an extramundane frame of reference, the Incarnation did not effect a change in the status quo ante inasmuch as the Son does not subsist in the timeline. Rather, the Incarnation instantiates a timeless relation in time.
D: I guess you do have to say that the Logos/eternal Son is one entity, and that Jesus is another. Jesus obviously changes, while your view is that the Logos or Son does not. Good luck with that theory! That looks like one Son too many.
S: The context of the Jn 10:30 is a dispute over the identity of Jesus. The context of 10:30 is a Jewish audience who recited the Shema every day. The only way Jesus could reasonably expect them to interpret his statement is an allusion to Deut 6:4. In context, the statement would inevitably trigger that association. Hence, he's claiming to be the Lord of the Shema.
DeleteD: You just choose your own speculations over Jesus's explicit correction. Really, you ought to take Jesus more seriously.
S: In v36, Jesus uses "son of God" as a synonym for "God" in v33.
D: Whoah. Stop right there. It is Jesus's blind enemies that say he's claiming to be God in v. 33. You need to see that you're siding with them, against Jesus!
S: They accuse him of making himself "God". Yet, in v36, he translates their allegation as equivalent to the accusation that he's the "Son of God". So he himself uses "God" and "Son of God" as interchangeable labels in that context.
D: So, you choose not to see his correction. :-/ Deity of Christ uber alles - never mind how John uses "the Son of God" interchangeably with "the Messiah" (John 20:31). The way to easily see how you're misreading John here in ch 10 is to see how your reading misfits the logic of Jesus's argument in correcting his opponents. http://trinities.org/blog/jesuss-argument-in-john-10/ Part of his point is that "Son of God" is a lesser title than "God." In any case, he can't here be claiming to *be* God - he immediately goes on to say that he's and God are cooperating together (vv. 37-39). This presupposes that they're two selves.
S: iii) To be anointed by "God" is to be anointed by the "Father". John typically uses "God" as a synonymous proper name for the "Father"–although there are some striking exceptions that accentuate the deity of Christ (Jn 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 Jn 5:20).
D: The overall pattern of usage is exactly what we'd expect if John's theology is unitarian, and a total shock if he's a trinitarian. More on this in a forthcoming presentation which I gave at a conference recently.
S: ...Jesus is presenting an a fortiori argument. If Scripture can property use a divine designation in the lesser case of angels or heathen deities, then with far more propriety can it be used in the greater case of the Son.
D: "Divine designation" LOL. Great way to smudge over the vast difference between "God" and "the Son of God."
S: vi) Finally, you falsely assume that "God" is a divine designation, but "Son of God" is not. Yet it's demonstrable that in the Johannine corpus, as well as some other NT writings, "Son of God" is a divine title.
D: A blatant anachronism. Won't settle this here though.
"You just choose your own speculations over Jesus's explicit correction. Really, you ought to take Jesus more seriously."
DeleteRevealing when a philosophy prof. is forced to resort to sophistry.
i) To begin with, your reply is a tacit admission that you have no direct rebuttal for my argument. You haven't bothered to explain how a Jewish audience, not to mention a Jewish audience in the context of a dispute over the identity of Jesus, could fail to take Jn 10:30 as anything other than a studied allusion to the Shema.
ii) You then pretend that I prefer my "own speculations" to Christ's "explicit correction". But, of course, I then spent some time exegeting the verses you appeal to.
"Whoah. Stop right there. It is Jesus's blind enemies that say he's claiming to be God in v. 33. You need to see that you're siding with them, against Jesus!"
More sophistry from you. Did I deny that the speakers in v33 are his adversaries? No.
But the truth or falsity of their allegation depends on how Jesus responds and/or how the narrator contextualizes their allegation.
In passages like Jn 8 and Jn 10, the mistake of the Jewish opponents is not in what they discern Jesus to be saying about himself, but in their refusal to believe what he says and intends.
It's not a simply question of right or wrong. Rather, they get the interpretation right, but refuse to believe it. That's part of the Johannine irony which threads its way through the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Hostile testimony that unwittingly bears witness to the true identity of Christ.
"So, you choose not to see his correction. :-/ Deity of Christ uber alles - never mind how John uses "the Son of God" interchangeably with 'the Messiah' (John 20:31)."
Yet more of your sophistry. Because, once again, you can't directly refute my argument, you change the subject.
In addition, you erect a false dichotomy between messiahship and divine sonship, as if there can't be a divine messiah.
"The way to easily see how you're misreading John here in ch 10 is to see how your reading misfits the logic of Jesus's argument in correcting his opponents."
Yes, you keep thumping that drum, but I reject your interpretation. What is more, I exegeted the verses you cite. I provided a justification for my own interpretation, refuting yours.
"Part of his point is that 'Son of God' is a lesser title than 'God.'"
That's a point you impute to him, but it's hardly his point.
"In any case, he can't here be claiming to *be* God - he immediately goes on to say that he's and God are cooperating together (vv. 37-39). This presupposes that they're two selves."
So you take refuge in your customary equivocations, which I've exploded on multiple occasions. You never advance the argument, Dale. You just push the rewind button and replay all the same oft-refuted arguments you always use.
"But it remains that Jesus and the Son can never (at one time) differ in any way - given that these are co-referring terms. "
Deletei) "At one time" meaning what? If by that you mean the timeframe they share, the point at which the terms intersect and coincide, even if that were so, it's hardly applicable outside that shared timeframe.
Norma Jeane and Marilyn Monroe are coreferring terms. They overlap because they share a common designee. But they represent different stages of life.
"We *know* that things change"
True, but what this means is that you're not using the indiscernibility of identicals as your standard of comparison. Rather, you begin with the experience of time as your standard of comparison. You then reformulate the indiscernibility of identicals to accommodate the experience of time.
Time is change. Change is difference. How is that consistent with the the indiscernibility of identicals? Not consistent if you absolutize the indiscernibility of identicals.
You're not using a necessary truth (indiscernibility of identicals) as your criterion. Just the opposite: your using a contingent truth (the experience of change) as your criterion. So you prioritize truths of fact over truths of reason.
"You just don't like the consequences for your theological speculations."
It would behoove you to try to be philosophically honest. For instance, McTaggart denied the reality of time, based on the "dissimilarity of the diverse" (his formulation of Leibniz's law).
Unlike you, he actually begins with that "self-evident" truth of reason, which he applies that with ruthless, fanatical consistency. By contrast, you approach the issue from the opposite end of the spectrum.
"I guess you do have to say that the Logos/eternal Son is one entity, and that Jesus is another. Jesus obviously changes, while your view is that the Logos or Son does not. Good luck with that theory!"
It's fine with me that you constantly take refuge in this simplistic reductionism. It's a relation between something timeless (the divine nature of the Son) and something temporal (the human nature).
About 1 John 5:20, I think we only need to notice who is *twice* called true in the first sentence: the Father. This makes it easy, in the second sentence, to go against the norm of attaching the pronoun to the nearest referent, reaching back to "him who is true" as the one who is being called "the true God." Especially in light of John 17:1-3 and John 5:43-44. This is just John's consistent teaching about who the one true God is, implicit in *many* places in the 4th gospel.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 1 Jn 5:20, as one commentator notes: "'Jesus Christ' is the nearest antecedent, and the identity of 'this one' as eternal life echoes 1 Jn 1:2d-3, 'the eternal Life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us'…Even if 'Christ' is not the explicit antecedent, John's logic requires this to be a statement of Jesus' deity, and all that Dodd sees gathered together is gathered in Jesus Christ. For by John's statement, to be 'in the True One' means to be 'in Jesus Christ'. It is only by being in the True God who is eternal life that anyone can have eternal life." K. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John (Zondervan, 2014), 241-42.
DeleteJust look at the text: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."
DeleteWho is "him who is true" (the second time)? It's someone who has a Son, Jesus. So, it ain't Jesus! Obviously, it's the Father.
So, who is referred to the first time, previous clause, as "him who is true"? Look at the first part of the sentence - it's the one whom Jesus enabled us to know. That's the Father. (John 1:18) Well, he's just calling the Father "him who is true" twice in a row then.
Of course, since John says that "eternal life" consists in knowing Jesus and God, he might call either "eternal life" here. It's not clear, btw, that "the eternal life" of 1 John 1:2 is supposed to be the pre-human Jesus. But in any case, since either can be called "eternal life," appealing to that text won't settle this issue. But that's OK, it settles itself. By grammar and just the meaning of the passage, John can be calling the Father "true God" here - which is exactly what we'd expect, given John 17:1-3, and John 5:43-44. John is just calling the Father "true" three times in a row, to put it loosely.
And it goes beyond John: look what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10.
It's not difficult.
If anyone is interested, I've collected quotes from scholars that argue for why, in all likelihood, 1 John 5:20 does refer to the Son as the "true God" in my blogpost here:
ReplyDeletehttp://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/concerning-1-john-520-from-trinity.html
Here are just two sample quotations:
Robert Bowman in his work The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity wrote in Part IV
10. 1 John 5:20. Admittedly, biblical scholars are split on whether the “true God” in this text is the Father or the Son. Three considerations favor the Son. First, the closest antecedent for “this one” is Jesus Christ (“in his Son Jesus Christ. This one…”). Second, in 1:2 the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father”), an apparent example of inclusio (repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text). Third, the confession form “This one is …” (houtos estin) strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6).
Here's a partial quotation from the NET Bible:
Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.
Regarding John 10:30ff., I independently came to an interpretation that I later found support from in a quote by Daniel Waterland did in his book A Vindication of Christ's Divinity. I've posted that quote at the following blogpost:
Deletehttp://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/god-gods-and-jesus-in-john-1030-39.html#Waterland
I've collected links to some of Waterland's books HERE.