[OBW]

I had a few moments and went hunting for the Pulpit Commentary. First, I looked for Rawlinson and discovered that he was only one of many contributors. And when I go to the portion that you quoted, it is not evident (from the source I found) who specifically wrote it.

But I will accept that you at least have a source that does give that attribution.

When I read the whole passage, I find a sea of flowing back and forth between the separateness of the Father and the Son, and the idea that they are sort of a unity that we are incapable of being. And this is exactly what I would expect from any kind of grappling with the incomplete descriptions of the Father and the Son and their Oneness as God.

I say incomplete because none of the descriptions were intended to provide sufficient details to answer the question that we are grappling with here.

But after reading all of it, I see someone who has pondered so many possibilities and then makes this one statement as follows:

He bases the claim on the fact that the Father's hands are behind his, and that the Father's eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity.

This is at least partly nothing more than spiritual-sounding fluff. Not saying it is bad analogy. But it is statements as if fact that are not supported by anything other than the fact that they are said in this sentence. And I do note that it ends with the word "entity." Yet that fact is not supported as simply true by even all that he has said (in the rest of the write-up on the verse). And given that lack of support (at least at the level of meaning you presume) it would seem from the context that using the word was not intended to negate the separateness of the Godhead, but rather to indicate that in their unity a singleness of "entity" might be a reasonable statement.

But that is not a singleness of entity in all aspects. Just a singleness of entity in the sense of God being One.

This sentence is immediately followed by the last sentence in the comment:

If he merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?

And the answer is simple. Jesus effectively stated that he was God. And unless you were already fully behind that idea, to say that to a Jew was to utter blasphemy. Of course they were going to start gathering stones.

And Jesus was/is God. It doesn't matter whether you think of it in terms of a single being in modes, like a modalist, or as three separate gods of the true tritheist. Jesus was claiming to be God. That would rile up a good Jew. So the question raised really does not provide any clarity on the subject.

And after reading the statement provided, if it is truly attributable to George Rawlinson, it might reasonably explain how he was so prolific in so many arenas of writing and study, including being a theologian. Maybe he wasn't as strong a theologian as you might want on your committee. Not saying this as a certainty. But definitely questioning whether it might be true.