In John 17:3, Jesus addressed the Father as 'the only true God'' which semantically means that no one else is true God except the Father. However, Jesus is also addressed as ''God'' in the same gospel (John 1:1, 18, 10:33, 20:28) and still, Jesus addressed others as 'gods' in John 10:34.

John 1:1 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1:18 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants] θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

John 10:33 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.4

John 10:34 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants] ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα Θεοί ἐστε;

John 17:3 τη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι / γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

John 20:28 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

What is the meaning of the phrase 'only true God' in John 17:3? I am seeking an answer that sees John 17:3 in conjunction with other passages where others are being addressed as God/god. Please do not answer using preconceived Christological ideas (i.e. Unitarian or Trinitarian etc.). Your answer might reflect either of these, though. I highly encourage the usage of your own words as opposed to using traditional words (consubstantial, essence, trinity, unitarian etc. ) when expounding this scripture.

  • Did you mean to say "discouraged" in the final sentence?
    – Ruminator
    May 10, 2019 at 16:15
  • I encourage an answer that relies heavily on expounding the passage in question.
    – R. Brown
    May 11, 2019 at 3:38
  • Within the aforementioned Gospel, Christ is regarded as being the incarnation of God's divine word. However, the Word of God is precisely that: the divine (godly) Word of the one true God, as opposed to that of some other deity.
    – Lucian
    May 11, 2019 at 11:35

7 Answers 7


Jesus said :

I and my Father are one. John 10:30 KJV.

He did not say 'I and my Father is one'. They are not the same person. The Father and the Son are in perfect unity - within one Divine nature. Each possesses divine nature. And they are one, within that single divine nature.

What is true of one (with regard to that divine nature) is as true of the other. Perfectly.

But as to the matter of person : one is Father, one is Son.

The Deity of the Father is the only true Deity. There only is one deity - only one divine nature. In the nature of deity, there can only be one deity. For one attribute of deity is fulness. No other fulness can exist, but the one.

But the perfection of unity that unites Father and Son causes there to be a perfectly shared fulness, within one diety.

Anything other than this - is not true. It is not real. It does not exist.

Jesus said also :

πνευμα ο θεος John 4:24 TR.

'Spirit, the God'. 'God is a spirit' (KJV).

That divine nature which is possessed by Father and Son, that unity which perfectly unites Father and Son, is one Divine Spirit.

A perfection of unity, in one Spirit. An everlasting begetting - Father and Son.

This is the true God : and eternal Life.


And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. [ESV]

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν [GNT]

Taken in isolation, the meaning is straight forward "eternal life is knowing You [the Father to whom Jesus is praying], the only true God." Divorced from the Old Testament, this can easily be misconstrued as Jesus denying the He is God. In fact that is exactly the conclusion of modern day Arians (emphasis added):

But in this verse Jesus is calling God the only true God. That word “only” does not include Jesus. We know this because Jesus placed “and” in between God and himself. This would signify that Jesus is identifying his Father as the only true God excluding himself. This verse should show Trinitarian’s the doctrine is incorrect by the very words of Jesus. Arianism Today

However, as the Arian controversy highlights, a question about the triune nature of God at the time of the Crucifixion would be an anachronism. The proper issue was whether there was one God, as the Jewish faith maintained, or many gods as the virtually every other culture believed. Thus, a phrase "only true God" would be understood in opposition to a belief there are many gods or the Father is the only true God in a supposed pantheon of many (false) gods.

The problem for those who deny the Trinity is regardless of whether Jesus understands a triune nature of God in which He is coequal to the Father, it is impossible to place these words into the context of addressing the "only" true God as distinct from many false gods. While a Greek philosopher might reason and speak like that, a Jewish monotheist would never make that statement:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

ἄκουε Ισραηλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

At best "the only true God" should be "the one true God" or simply "the one God." In reality, the actual words bear little resemblance to a Jewish profession of monotheism. This does not mean Jesus is not a monotheist; it means He made a shocking and radical departure from the traditional expression of that belief.

Not only does Jesus deviate from the traditional expression of "one God," the word He chose is μόνος which is ambiguous. This word is translated equally between only (24 times) and alone or by one's self (23 times). On the other hand the word εἷς has the meaning the Arians attempt to impute to μόνος in John 17:

You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one (ἕνα) Father—even God.” (John 8:41)

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one (εἷς).
(Mark 12:29)

It is nonsense to assert Jesus is making a traditional monotheistic expression when He replaces εἷς with μόνος (which may or may not mean only) and then assert the meaning must follow the traditional εἷς which actually has the both the meaning and historical use the Arians attempt to impute to μόνος. In reality, Jesus has made a new revelation of God's nature.

In his letter, John makes a statement similar to the one found in John 17:

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. (1 John 5:20)

For a monotheist, there is no reason to preface "true God," unless there is something else which needs to be conveyed. Rather the two ways Jesus should acknowledge a monotheistic Father who is God are:

"He is the true God..."

"He is the one true God

Consider the Arian analysis of the phrase emphasized above: That word “only” [μόνος] does not include Jesus. That is exactly the point Jesus is making:

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the alone true God...

Jesus is not calling God the "only" true God: He is saying God is alone, by one's self because Jesus is not present with the Father; He is on the earth about to complete the assignment for which He was sent. In other words, the triune nature of God was temporarily disrupted when the Word became flesh. However, the Son is in human form is waiting to be put to death in order to return to the Father. When He returns, the triune nature of God will be restored so it can be said "He is the true God and eternal life."

  • Of course Jesus is calling God the only true God, but people who use this to prove Jesus is not God must interpret this to mean, "You alone are the true God," which is distinct from "You are the only true God." Obviously if Christ is deity by nature, then He also is the only true God. The Trinity doesn't posit multiple Gods, or multiple only true Gods. It posits one God, which nature three distinct and eternal persons constitute. Nov 23, 2019 at 20:57

[I've tried not to assume any theology, and base everything on the context of the passages.]

"The only true God"

"Only" refers to the fact of there being only one God. This is the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments (Deuteronomy 4:6; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

"Only true" as an alternative to the above, being more specific, refers to the fact that other "so-called gods" (ibid.) are not true Gods (Psalm 96:5; 1 Corinthians 10:20).

"The only true God" refers, then, is simply synonymous with "God."

Implications for Trinitarian and other Non-Unitarian Theology

Since this phrase only identifies the Father as the true God (of which there is only one: "the only"), and does not say "only the Father is the true God," Trintarian theology is not precluded by this passage: only if Unitarianism is assumed can "only the Father is the true God" and "the Father is the only true God" be conflated.

Others Being Called Gods

When Christ quoted "I said you are gods," He was quoting Psalm 82:6: "I said, You are gods—sons of the Most High, all of you." This is a psalm about corrupt and immoral judges who didn't care for their people, and did not uphold justice. They were called "Gods," as Moses was (Exodus 7:1), because they exercised juridical authority and in some sense played the role of God, although legitimately and by His own delegation. Jesus' point here was that if they can be called Gods, to whom the word of God came, merely, how is it that it is wrong for the Word, "who [is] God," (John 1:1) to be called God, as He truly is? That is, one who is truly God in the divine sense, can surely be called God if mere humans can be called it who only have a divine authority.

This is not just a Trinitarian eisegesis. Observe that Jesus' response only answers their objection if the above is true. Saying, "but others were called 'gods'" is not an answer to the objection that He was claim to be God: "you, being a man, make thyself God" (John 10:33). And on notion that it should be translated, "make thyself a god," all I will say is that it is precluded what caused them to want to stone Him: "for saying, I an the Father are one." Or as John himself declared: "[Jesus] said God was his Father, making himself equal to God" (5:18; notice this is John's own testimony of why they wanted to stone Him, and not what they said). And also that this gospel begins, written by monotheist John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God" (1:1).

Again, when Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God," He was clearly addressing Jesus as such ("he said to him"). Not only is the suggestion that Jesus approved of and blessed this use of the name of the Lord in vain ("OMG!) blasphemous and antihistorical (Jesus being a Jewish Rabbinical teacher), but it doesn't even fit as a theory: no one specifies the two things God is (your Lord and your God) while using the name of the Lord in vain; whereas identifying Christ as the risen God in the flesh certainly warrants such an identification. After all, Thomas' faith was perhaps weak when before this point, Jesus had plainly claimed to be God:

John 16:25-30 (DRB) These things I have spoken to you in proverbs. The hour cometh, when I will no more speak to you in proverbs, but will shew you plainly of the Father. In that day you shall ask in my name; and I say not to you, that I will ask the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and I go to the Father. His disciples say to him: Behold, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now we know that thou knowest all things, and thou needest not that any man should ask thee. By this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Seeing Christ risen, and all His claims confirmed and incontrovertable occasioned this confession by Thomas.


What is the meaning of the phrase 'only true God' in John 17:3?

Jesus in his prayer to his heavenly Father for the sake of the sheep , not only shows the oneness that exist between him and God, but also does not speak of himself as God, but says to his Father.

John 17:3-6 (NASB)

3" This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I glorified You on the earth, [a]having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word."(Compare John 17: 20-24)

Notice, (Verse 6) who was it that gave men out of this world to Jesus?

When Jesus said that his Father “the only true God” gave him disciples out of this world, Jesus did not mean that he as God gave himself something. Jesus spoke of all his disciples, not as a gift made by himself to himself, but as a gift made to him by the “only true God,” his heavenly Father.

John 1:1

John 1:1 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Many translate John 1:1 as follows:

John 1:1 (NASB, NRSV)

1" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Others translate it as follows:

Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as "...the Word [Logos] was divine". (Source:Wikipedia)

James Moffatt New testament of John 1:1

1 "THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.

The following is from the book "The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated", by Count Leo Tolstoy, as follows:

If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.*

In view of Revelation 19:13, what must John 1:1 mean, at most, regarding the Word?

John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings.

In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (NASB, NRSV)) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

John 1:18

John 1:18 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants] θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

John call the "the only begotten god"who is in the intimate presence of the Father, because he is given power and authority from the almighty God , the Father: Read below Mat.28:18, 1 Cor. 8:6, Heb 1:2

John 1:18 Amplified Bible (AMP)

18 "No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father]."

Matthew 28:18 (NASB)

**> " And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been

given to Me in heaven and on earth."**

1 Corinthians 8:6 Amplified Bible (AMP)

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things [that have been created], and we [believers exist and have life and have been redeemed] through Him."

Paul says that God spoke to their forefathers by means of the prophets and now he has spoken to them by means of his Son . Hence Jesus cannot be God.( Heb.1:1-2)

Hebrews 1:1-22 (NRSV)

God Has Spoken by His Son

1 "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds."

John 10:33-34 NASB

For clearer understanding why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus and Jesus reply I have quoted from verses 31-39 , you will notice that the Jews falsley accused Jesus of making himself "God". If Jesus did claim to be God, it would have been a blasphemy and the Jews were right to stone him. However Jesus claimed that he was the Son of God and to prove this, he replied from the Psalm 82:6 “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?{human judges representing God, not divine beings }

John 10:31-39 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

31 "The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?"

35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [a]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

John 20:28 (NASB)

28 "Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Some view the expression of astonishment as directed to Jesus, whilst others says that although spoken to Jesus it was actually directed to God. Therefore the intention of the expression “my Lord and my God” should be best understood in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.

Thomas heard Jesus prayer to his Father calling him the "only true God", (17:3) so there is no reason for Thomas to believe that Jesus was the Almighty God.

Thomas also heard "Peter's confession to Christ", “You are the Messiah,the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-17 (NRSV)

15 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

Thomas was also present when Jesus "Foretold his death and resurrection"

21" From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

If we are to interpret the expression as being directed to Jesus, as being the Almighty God,then we have to say that Peter is Satan, we certainly know that this is not so, therefore John 20:28 should be understood in tha same manner, and in harmony with the scriptures.


First of all, Jesus addressing the Father as "You, the only true God" does not semantically mean "that no one else is true God except the Father." That could be inferred only if Jesus had said "You, Who alone are the only true God". It is most evident that the statement "the Father is the only true God" does not imply the statement "the Father alone is the only true God".

Addressing the question, the meaning of Jesus calling the Father "the only true God" is just to confirm that there is only one omnipotent eternal God, Creator, Sustainer and Lord of everything that exists outside Him, which is a truth accessible by the natural light of human reason (Rom 1:19-21) and explicitely revealed in the OT:

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God [el] formed, neither shall there be after Me. (Is 43:10)

"Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me. (Is 44:6)

Do not tremble and do not be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God [eloah] besides Me? There is no Rock; I know not any.'" (Is 44:8)

"I am YHWH, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; (Is 45:5)

"Declare and set forth your case; indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, YHWH? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God [el] and a savior; there is none except Me. (Is 45:21)

Now, it is well-known that the name Elohim, literally "the gods", has two meanings in the OT: a) the only omnipotent, eternal Creator God, YHWH, in which case the plural has a majestatic sense and the name is the subject of a singular verb, and b) the gods, either existing super-human entities created by and subordinated to YHWH (in pre-exilic texts only, of which I make the case below) or the imaginary gods of the gentiles, in which case is the subject of a plural verb.

Thus, verses like Is 44:6 and 45:5 which say literally "besides Me no Elohim/elohim" can be understood in either of two senses, depending on the sense of Elohim/elohim: with "Elohim" in sense a, as "besides me no omnipotent, eternal Creator God", and with "elohim" in sense b, as "besides me no gods", so that someone intent on affirming that post-exilic Jews did NOT reserve the term "god" for YWHW can reject these verses as proof to the contrary by saying that they use Elohim in sense a only, and therefore do not preclude the existence of lesser, subordinated, created gods which should not be worshipped.

Therefore I emphasized above the instances where "God" translated a singular Hebrew name, either "el" (Is 43:10) or "eloah" (Is 44:8), which I gave between []. From these instances, it is clear that for post-exilic Jews all names referring to a divinity, both the majestatic plural "Elohim", which in Greek would be "ho Theos", and the singular "El" and "Eloah", which in Greek would be "Theos", were reserved to YHWH. The other existing superhuman real entities, the angels, were created by YHWH and wholly subordinated to Him, so that they could not be called "gods". And the "gods" of the idolatrous peoples were not real: "For all the gods [elohe] of the peoples are idols, but YHWH made the heavens" (Ps 96:5).

I wrote the 3 previous paragraphs to preemptively dispel the notion that in Jn 1:1 the final unarthrous "Theos" is actually "theos" and refers to a created superhuman entity, as non-trinitarians (or more precisely, as people denying the numerical identity of ousia between the Father and the Son) posit. But Jesus calling the Father "the only true God" in Jn 17:3 achieves exactly the same: because if the Father is "the only true God", then there are only two possible ways to understand the final clause "the Word was God" (or "the Word was god") in Jn 1:1:

A. The homoousian way: the Word is all that God the Father is (except Father), i.e. the Word is also the only true God;

B. The heteroousian way: the Word is a fake god.

So, while the meaning of Jesus calling the Father "the only true God" is quite straightforward and not new to the NT, the reason why John recorded it is to preemptively dispel any heteroousian reading of the passages where Jesus is called theos. Because if there is only one true God, the Father (also in 1 Cor 8:6), and the Son is not all that the Father is (except Father), then the Son is a fake God.

Since I have used the noun ousia by itself and composed with homo/hetero, I note that it is the noun directly deriving from the verb "to be" in Greek, first person singular "eimi" and present participle "on", meaning what a subject is, and that Jesus used that verb to state his divinity in John's Gospel in two ways: 4 times with Himself as subject without further qualifications, as "I Am", "Ego Eimi", clearly in the sense of the Name of God in the first person revealed in Ex 3:14, in Jn 8:24,28,58 and Jn 13:19, and once with Himself and the Father as subject, "I and the Father are one" in Jn 10:30. Refraining from using a noun which derives directly and naturally from a key verb used in the Gospel is unnatural and unwarranted.

To place the above in the context of other NT passages containing "Theos", we must first note that the NT uses two terms, "ho Theos" and unarthrous "Theos".

The term "ho Theos" or its genitive "tou Theou", dative "to Theo", or accusative "ton Theon", refer to God the Father, except in the 5 passages where it refers to the Son, none of which calls Jesus simply "ho Theos" without qualification: Mt 1:23, Jn 20:28, Ti 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1, 1 Jn 5:20. But even in these cases "ho Theos" refers always to a divine Person, not to the divine ousia.

On the other hand, unarthrous "Theos" can refer to either

  • the one and only divine ousia, what each divine Person Is, in which case it is the attribute of a copulative sentence whose subject is the Son (Jn 1:1, Rom 9:5) or the subject of a passive predicative sentence, or

  • a divine Person, usually God the Father when it appears without qualification or the Son in "monogenēs Theos" (Jn 1:18).

So, Jn 1:1 says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was all that God the Father was (except Father)."

Where from monotheism, "all that God the Father was" is understood in a sense of numerical identity, not of merely qualitative identity. "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30), not "I and the Father are equal". "Homoousios", i.e. "of the same ousia" (numerical identity), not "isoousios", i.e. "of identical ousiai" (merely qualitative identity).

In terms of the four possible theological positions: consubstantial Trinity (nicene orthodoxy), tritheism, Arianism and modalism:

  • Modalism is directly discarded by holding the Gospel text as true.

  • Tritheism is discarded by the OT and also by Jn 17:3 (and 1 Cor 8:6): there are not two or more true Gods.

Thus, you can either hold the consubstantial Trinity, whereby the Son is also the only true God, the Father's design "that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (Jn 5:23) implies worshipping the only true God, and the statement "I and the Father are one" is meant in an ontic sense,

or hold Arianism, whereby the Son is a fake god, the Father's design "that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (Jn 5:23) implies divinely mandated idolatry, and the statement "I and the Father are one" is meant in a merely moral sense.


In Mark 13:19, Jesus refers to "the creation which GOD created". He doesn't say, "the creation which I created", or the creation which WE created". If he'd meant "I", or "we", would he not have said as much? Was Jesus not speaking plainly and clearly to his disciples here? Clearly, Jesus is speaking here of God the Father, the same being he calls "the only true God". To say that there's a vast difference between saying " the only true God" versus " the one God" is sheer speculation.


What does it mean that the Father alone is “the true God” in John 17:3?

Does it refer to an ontological nature or functional authority?

Jesus did not deny that he is “God” in John 20:28 and thus, even the writer of the gospel of the 4th began it with that affirmation (“the Word was God”) which formed an inclusio to his gospel. The Father is the only true God according to Jesus Christ in John 17:3 yet there are other true gods too in the rest of the 4th gospel since a god that is not a false god is logically a true god (John 1:1, 1:18, 10:35, 20:28).

Since there are many other true gods mentioned in the gospel of John, the writer’s use of “monos” (only) should be examined in relation to determine what precisely is the nature of the Father’s being “alethinos theos” (true god).

John 10:35 comes to mind very handy because it was a quote of Jesus from Psalm 82. In Psalm 82, an explicit polytheistic language is used to refer to the relationship of God either with Israel or the angels depending on which tradition one accepts. If the earliest, it would be the angels as evident in the dead sea scrolls and Greek copies of the old testament prior to the advent of Christ as well as the Targum prior to the MT. The reading of the MT (Israel) is from ca. A.D. 900–1000. The name “god” and “son” in Psalm 82:6 are synonymous, in the sense that both refers to those whom God shares his authority for the purpose of doing his will. On the other hand, the “most high god” is deemed to be the only god that is to be worshiped and he is worshiped even by all the other gods. In the gospel of John, we also see an instance of this in Jesus, who though “God” himself, is declaring the Father as the “only true God”. The Father alone is “genuinely” God is in the sense that he alone is the “father” of everyone (Ephesians 3:14–15) so that everyone’s his “offspring” (Acts 17:23–28). In other words, the Father alone is the true God in the sense that no one is above him but that he is above everyone, including Jesus.

Jesus is also true God but only in the sense of being “monogenes theos” (“only God” ESV, “God the only Son” NRSV, “uniquely existing God” ISV, the only one, himself God” NET) (John 1:18).

By basing on grammar alone, and when read literally, the Father is shown to be the only true God in John 17:3 but by basing on context, we learn that the “Father” alone is the only true God , not by nature, but by role, in that the sense that he is above all and the source of all.

Upon close scrutinisation, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted to mean that the Father alone is the “only one divine person” (Unitarianism). Rather, exegetical analyses have shown that the accurate meaning of John 17:3 is that the Father “alone was the only divine person who had the function or role of being having supreme authority”, in the sense of being a ‘father’, which means that ‘everyone’ (excluding himself) is ‘subordinate to him’.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.