If Jesus is God, why did he say that only the Father is God?

[po18guy]

I see the problem. From the Wiki:

“The Unitarian movement, although not called “Unitarian” initially, began almost simultaneously in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania in the mid-16th century.”

Boy! The sprit of the air was sure busy in the 1500s! Denomination after competing denomination appeared almost out of thin air.

How could God allow those who love Him to walk in error and darkness for 1,500 years? Or even a single day? This sounds like the assertion made by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons , Adventists et al.

As I see it, unitarianism is not a restoration or a reformation, but a re-apearance of the Arian heresy of the early Church. That also was (name removed by moderator)sired by a spirit, as such simultaneous/parallel movements are. But, that spirit could not be from God, as it changed the revealed nature of God. Same with Islam, Mormonism, Bible Students (JW) and various others.

You cannot isolate verses, privately interpret them and employ them out of context and arrive at the truth. Facts is facts.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

“And this is eternal life, that they know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.”
John 17:3

In light of the above verse, I find it hard to understand how one could possibly believe that Jesus is God. It seems pretty clear that Jesus is excluding himself as God in this statement. There are only two explanations I can think of that would still leave the possibility of Jesus being God…

It seems to me that the only way to take this verse is at face value, that only the Father is God. If anyone has another explanation, I would love to hear it.

Thanks,
JK

Going back to the beginning, you reveal in your original post that your interpretation of this verse is arrived at as follows:

“It seems to me…” You admit that your own particular view on the matter is what you are going with. While that is what most people do, if you really want to arrive at an answer on the basis of informed, unbiased critical analysis you might want to do what scientists do: throw out any conclusion that is made on the basis of your personal view or conclusions that have been arrived at on your own. If you really want the most accurate answer, be willing to never accept your personal view unless it is validated by independent and disinterested parties.

“The only way to take this verse is at face value.” Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement makes it seem that you are not thinking your own logic through on this matter. If you have, then you have created a paradox.

“Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Most people would say they prescribe to this axiom. We live in a culture that often takes pride in the fact that we don’t judge things and others at face value. History is filled with the tragic results of what happens when we rush to conclusions based on what we have perceived at face value, right?

Yet you are applying this principle to a Bible verse. Remember that what is logical is also constant, applicable to all. If you are reading one verse alone at face value this also means that you can and should do this with all Scripture texts. Do you see the paradox this would create?

Without even going into what the verse is saying, let’s just test your logic used to arrive at your conclusion. Would you say it works? Should we accept all conclusions on the basis of what things look like at face value from the viewpoint of one person?

Remember the Trinity doctrine is older than the Bible canon. The Church that officially declared that the Gospel of John is inspired already believed in the Trinity when it did so. the Church is not a product of what the Bible teaches. It is the Bible that is a product of what the Church already believed.

So whatever you end up thinking about John 17:3 can never be taken out of the context set by the inspired writer in the prologue of the very same gospel at John 1:1: “The Word was with God and the Word was God.” The same gospel ends with the exclamation from St. Thomas about Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) The question is then not why your view doesn’t make sense to you but why you accept a view that doesn’t fit in with this gospel’s context.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Now as to the meaning behind the words of John 17:3.

“This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Have you ever read any other place in the Bible where Jesus referred to himself as “Jesus Christ”?

Except for Yahweh, nobody else in Scripture ever refers to himself by name in third person. In fact the use of the name “Jesus Christ” is an anachronism in his prayer because throughout his lifetime Jesus was known as either Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph. Scholars point out that the apostle Paul was likely the first to employ the term “Jesus Christ” as a proper name, and then it was likely only a convention that grew out of writing the epistles in Koine Greek. It wasn’t an expression of the Hebrew/Aramaic idiom that Jesus was actually speaking in when he was praying the night before Good Friday.

There is general agreement that since John 17:3 uses the term “Jesus Christ,” that it is likely not a direct quote of Jesus himself. It is unlikely that Jesus went around speaking of himself in the third person this way, especially since he wanted people to come to the conclusion that he was the Messiah on their own.–Compare Mark 8:29-30.

Either the author of the gospel was providing inspired commentary in verse 3 and didn’t intend this to be read as part of the prayer or St. John, being a Jew, used a Midrash narrative device and put this explanatory information in our Lord’s mouth so the reader would understand that Christ was the source of this inspired interpolation.

Another possibility is that these are Jesus’s actual words. In that case he would be the only other person to speak of himself in the third person besides God. YHWH often speaks of himself this way through the prophets of the Old Testament. (For example, Ezekiel 32:15.) This could also be another form of narrative device, especially since John’s gospel is well understood as employing various techniques to advance the idea of the Divinity of Jesus.

Either of these explanations fit well within the context of the Prologue of this gospel and the ending which begins with St.Thomas’ exclamation: Jesus the Word is God in the same way as the Father is. It in no way counters the Shema because John writes that the Gospel’s intention is to advance the idea that Jesus is the “Son of God,” an expression in the ancient world that meant not an offspring of a god but an incarnation of divinity, in human form.–John 20:31.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I could be wrong, but I think that this is a reference to Jesus working on behalf of the Father. According to orthodox trinitarian theology the Father is God and the Son is God, but the Son is not the Father. If one was to see the Son and therefore literally see the Father, it seems that would be modalism.

JK

The Father is clearly visible in the Son, for Scripture testifies about Jesus:

He was in the form of God.–Philippians 2:6.

[The Son] is the refulgence of his [God’s] glory,
the very imprint of his being.–Hebrews 1:3.

He is the image of the invisible God.–Colossians 1:15.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I think he was/is a human and therefore a creation. I think he was referring to the glory God had planned from the beginning. I think that knowing God’s will as he did, Jesus could ask for this.

JK

Such a belief would be a denial of the apostolic confession in Philippians chapter two, which states:

Though he was in the form of God…
he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness;
and found himself human in appearance.–Philippians 2:5-11.

The apostolic testimony is that Jesus was not human to begin with but had to empty himself to share our mortal state. From what form did he empty himself? It is written: “He was in the form of God.”

 

[MariaJeanne]

Very interesting topic. I’m no theologian, but I do remember reading a book by Alister McGrath that considered this question. As we know, early Christians pretty much had the same doubts about the divinity of Jesus as some groups today do. Those early Christians in favour of the divinity of Jesus argued that (and I’m sorry if I butcher this theological argument): if Jesus was only a man how could he have saved us from original sin? A mere man could not have atoned for humanity as a whole - only God himself could do this.

I was pretty impressed by the argument; though, I know it hinges on whether you believe that there is such a thing as original sin. I’m not sure if this has shed any light on the debate, but I thought that I’d add my 2cents.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I still have trouble with John chapter ten because when it is said by some that Jesus makes himself God, Jesus makes reference to others being called gods and asks how he is blaspheming by calling himself the “Son of God” (John 10:35-36). I don’t understand why he would say something like this that would lead one away from the idea that he is God if he actually was God.

It is difficult for someone who does not come from a Semitic background to understand this exchange. It doesn’t translate into English well because the idiomatic Hebrew expression “son of” doesn’t exist in Western society.

Unlike English where “son of” means “male offspring of,” the ancients, including my forefathers, the Jews, used this expression to also mean “one in the same as.”

A “son of peace” simply meant a “peaceful person.” (Luke 10:6) Judas Iscariot was called the “son of perdition” or “son of destruction” by Jesus, meaning that he was destined to be destroyed for his sinful betrayal. (John 17:12) It is this exact usage that is being used in John chapter 10.

Note that Jesus NEVER outright says that he is God in this exchange in chapter 10, at least not the way it reads in English. While he does claim unity with the Father in verse 30, it seems at least from reading it in the English translation that something is missing. All of a sudden verse 31 has the Jews ready to stone him for blasphemy. Why?

First off, the entire conversation is obviously not recorded here word-for-word. At verse 36 Jesus states that he mentioned to these Jews that he is the Son of God, but if you read the narrative of the incident this never happens. (John 10:22-30) Apparently this part of a larger discussion centering on Jesus’ use of the term “Son of God” and its implications in Jewish society. It was not a sudden, brief discussion. It was a matter that obviously got so heated that it boiled over into an incident that almost led to public stoning, during the celebration of Chanukah at the Temple nonetheless. Jesus’ own words make it clear that the discussion centers around his identifying himself by the term “Son of God.”–John 10:36.

Jesus uses Psalm 82:6 where the judges of Israel are called gods in their own right. Then Jesus states how could it be wrong to call himself a mere incarnation of God (“Son of God”) when Yahweh puts Jewish rulers on the same level as Himself, saying he can still battle them and win, declaring:

Gods though you be…yet like any mortal you shall die.–Psalm 82:5-7.

Jesus next defines his usage of “Son of God” to mean that he is claiming to be God incarnate by adding:

The Father is in me and I am in the Father.–John 10:22-39.

Unfortunately many non-trinitarians demand a reading of this text claiming that a face-value reading in English gives the correct understanding at the expense of how the conversation would sound in Hebrew and Aramaic, the original languages in which it occurred. When one demands a reading of Scripture in such a vacuum it can lead to misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying and why some Jews found this appalling.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

You are right that I made a bit of a mistake there in the title. I still think that it is significant that Jesus refers to the Father as the “only true God,” while leaving himself outside of this designation. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul says “yet for us there is one God, the Father…”.

Actually the full context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is referring to there being only one God when comparing sacrificing food eaten in communion with idols and eating food in communion through the Lord Jesus.

The entire first epistle to the Corinthians centers around dealing with disunity in that congregation. Where people were claiming they were followers of this or that apostle or minister, Paul taught they can only belong to Christ.–1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

Paul was not introducing a rival polytheism with the communion Christians shared with God the Father and the Lord Jesus. Some were worried that their communion with God was in jeopardy since they had little choice but to eat meat from the markets (since animals were ritually slaughtered by pagan standards regardless if they were being immediately sold as food or being used in a ritualistic heathen service).–1 Corinthians 8:7.

In contrast to the polytheism of many gods and many lords, Paul said they had only…

…one God, the Father,
through whom all things are and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom all things are and through whom we exist.–verses 4-6.

Paul was stating that Christians had nothing to worry about since any act performed before an idol, such as ritual slaughter of animals for market, was not performed before any real deity because there is only one God.

This confession is a contrast to the disunity of polytheism, not an endorsement of it. From antiquity the Church has seen in these words a statement equating the Father and Son with the one God and Lord, not that Christians have one God and an entirely separate Lord.

 

[Robyn_p]

Good stuff Delson. I didn’t know that “son of…” meant “one and the same” to the Jewish people.

I have a question related to that though. What about the fact that angels are sometimes called “sons of God” in the Bible? And I think David is somewhere called that also. How are we supposed to understand those references?

 

[MacQ]

It is difficult for someone who does not come from a Semitic background to understand this exchange. It doesn’t translate into English well because the idiomatic Hebrew expression “son of” doesn’t exist in Western society.

Unlike English where “son of” means “male offspring of,” the ancients, including my forefathers, the Jews, used this expression to also mean “one in the same as.”

A “son of peace” simply meant a “peaceful person.” (Luke 10:6) Judas Iscariot was called the “son of perdition” or “son of destruction” by Jesus, meaning that he was destined to be destroyed for his sinful betrayal. (John 17:12) It is this exact usage that is being used in John chapter 10.

Note that Jesus NEVER outright says that he is God in this exchange in chapter 10, at least not the way it reads in English. While he does claim unity with the Father in verse 30, it seems at least from reading it in the English translation that something is missing. All of a sudden verse 31 has the Jews ready to stone him for blasphemy. Why?

First off, the entire conversation is obviously not recorded here word-for-word. At verse 36 Jesus states that he mentioned to these Jews that he is the Son of God, but if you read the narrative of the incident this never happens. (John 10:22-30) Apparently this part of a larger discussion centering on Jesus’ use of the term “Son of God” and its implications in Jewish society. It was not a sudden, brief discussion. It was a matter that obviously got so heated that it boiled over into an incident that almost led to public stoning, during the celebration of Chanukah at the Temple nonetheless. Jesus’ own words make it clear that the discussion centers around his identifying himself by the term “Son of God.”–John 10:36.

Jesus uses Psalm 82:6 where the judges of Israel are called gods in their own right. Then Jesus states how could it be wrong to call himself a mere incarnation of God (“Son of God”) when Yahweh puts Jewish rulers on the same level as Himself, saying he can still battle them and win, declaring:

Gods though you be…yet like any mortal you shall die.–Psalm 82:5-7.

Jesus next defines his usage of “Son of God” to mean that he is claiming to be God incarnate by adding:

The Father is in me and I am in the Father.–John 10:22-39.

Unfortunately many non-trinitarians demand a reading of this text claiming that a face-value reading in English gives the correct understanding at the expense of how the conversation would sound in Hebrew and Aramaic, the original languages in which it occurred. When one demands a reading of Scripture in such a vacuum it can lead to misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying and why some Jews found this appalling.

Thanks for that post. Very instructive.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Good stuff Delson. I didn’t know that “son of…” meant “one and the same” to the Jewish people.

I have a question related to that though. What about the fact that angels are sometimes called “sons of God” in the Bible? And I think David is somewhere called that also. How are we supposed to understand those references?

As with all idiomatic expressions, even those we use in English, there is a literal meaning and of course the idiomatic one that grows out from it.

To illustrate, in English we have an idiomatic saying: “He came out of the closet.”

Currently this expression means to admit publicly something about oneself that was kept private. You will hear similar idioms based on this expression such as: “I’m a closet reality television junkie.” Or: “She is a closet science nerd.”

The idiom originated in the late 1970s in reference to people who were no longer afraid of publicly admitting that they were homosexual. It came from an even older idiom: “He (or she) is in the closet.” This older idiom meant that a person lived a hidden homosexual lifestyle.

Again today the expression is now used to admit to anything once held back as secret about oneself that you are now going public with. The expression that was once only a reference to homosexual activity has itself “come out of the closet,” so to speak.

Of course, this is not just an idiom. It has a literal meaning too. One can physically walk in and physically come out of a closet.

It is the same within expressions in Hebrew like “son of.” It can be used to mean a literal offspring or someone begotten or adopted by another. Angels, being creations of God, are thus “sons of God,” and Isaac is the literal “son of Abraham.”

But as you mentioned, Israel’s kings were often referred to as “sons of God.” The reason? The nation of Israel under the dynasty of King David was itself a physical expression of God’s reign. Here we have an early example of the phrase being adapted for idiomatic use. Such a king reflected the very rule of God when they remained faithful to Torah and the voice of God’s prophets and priests. Disobeying the king under these circumstances was tantamount to disobeying an expression of God himself as displayed in the rule of the king.

Another trait of Jewish culture is never to say things directly as to avoid rude speech or even being held accountable for making a statement you may later regret. So a lot (and I mean A LOT) of expressions developed that could be taken in more ways than one.

Two famous examples are expressions used by Jesus, namely “son of man” and “you say so.”

“Son of man” can mean a plethora of things, including something similar to “me, myself.” Another way of translating Matthew 16:13 where Jesus asks his disciples who the Son of Man is can be: “Who do people say that I myself am?”

“You say so” is another way of saying “yes” but without being held accountable for your affirmation. It was used in legal cases. Remember when the high priest put Jesus under oath and demanded he say whether or not he was the Messiah? Jesus answered: “You have said so.”–Matthew 26:63-64a.

And why did the high priest charge Jesus with blasphemy when Jesus said he will see the Son of Man seated next to God on high? Because the expression also sounded like this:

From now on you will see me, myself seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.–Matthew 26:64b-65.

So the expression you speak about means more than just one thing.

The Trinity is not a facet of God that can be grasped with human reason. Being as transcendent as God himself it requires faith. It is therefore not an accident that many of the texts in Scripture in reference to the Trinity can be translated in several ways and still be technically acceptable. However through faith Christians see in these texts that there is a deeper meaning under the often literal rendition of many of these phrases and words. The way they end up translating these is thus an expression of seeing the text through eyes of faith.

Like the many word plays of Hebrew culture, it is often up to the hearer to decide the true meaning behind the words being used. Those who see only the surface reap what’s on the surface. Those who dig deeper will reap anything that’s hidden beneath.

 

[Robyn_p]

As with all idiomatic expressions, even those we use in English, there is a literal meaning and of course the idiomatic one that grows out from it.

To illustrate, in English we have an idiomatic saying: “He came out of the closet.”

Currently this expression means to admit publicly something about oneself that was kept private. You will hear similar idioms based on this expression such as: “I’m a closet reality television junkie.” Or: “She is a closet science nerd.”

The idiom originated in the late 1970s in reference to people who were no longer afraid of publicly admitting that they were homosexual. It came from an even older idiom: “He (or she) is in the closet.” This older idiom meant that a person lived a hidden homosexual lifestyle.

Again today the expression is now used to admit to anything once held back as secret about oneself that you are now going public with. The expression that was once only a reference to homosexual activity has itself “come out of the closet,” so to speak.

Of course, this is not just an idiom. It has a literal meaning too. One can physically walk in and physically come out of a closet.

It is the same within expressions in Hebrew like “son of.” It can be used to mean a literal offspring or someone begotten or adopted by another. Angels, being creations of God, are thus “sons of God,” and Isaac is the literal “son of Abraham.”

But as you mentioned, Israel’s kings were often referred to as “sons of God.” The reason? The nation of Israel under the dynasty of King David was itself a physical expression of God’s reign. Here we have an early example of the phrase being adapted for idiomatic use. Such a king reflected the very rule of God when they remained faithful to Torah and the voice of God’s prophets and priests. Disobeying the king under these circumstances was tantamount to disobeying an expression of God himself as displayed in the rule of the king.

Another trait of Jewish culture is never to say things directly as to avoid rude speech or even being held accountable for making a statement you may later regret. So a lot (and I mean A LOT) of expressions developed that could be taken in more ways than one.

Two famous examples are expressions used by Jesus, namely “son of man” and “you say so.”

“Son of man” can mean a plethora of things, including something similar to “me, myself.” Another way of translating Matthew 16:13 where Jesus asks his disciples who the Son of Man is can be: “Who do people say that I myself am?”

“You say so” is another way of saying “yes” but without being held accountable for your affirmation. It was used in legal cases. Remember when the high priest put Jesus under oath and demanded he say whether or not he was the Messiah? Jesus answered: “You have said so.”–Matthew 26:63-64a.

And why did the high priest charge Jesus with blasphemy when Jesus said he will see the Son of Man seated next to God on high? Because the expression also sounded like this:

From now on you will see me, myself seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.–Matthew 26:64b-65.

So the expression you speak about means more than just one thing.

The Trinity is not a facet of God that can be grasped with human reason. Being as transcendent as God himself it requires faith. It is therefore not an accident that many of the texts in Scripture in reference to the Trinity can be translated in several ways and still be technically acceptable. However through faith Christians see in these texts that there is a deeper meaning under the often literal rendition of many of these phrases and words. The way they end up translating these is thus an expression of seeing the text through eyes of faith.

Like the many word plays of Hebrew culture, it is often up to the hearer to decide the true meaning behind the words being used. Those who see only the surface reap what’s on the surface. Those who dig deeper will reap anything that’s hidden beneath.

Thanks Delson! That made a lot of sense.

 

[MacQ]

Thanks Delson! That made a lot of sense.

I concur in thanking you Delson.
Very enlightening.
I have never understood “Son of Man”

THANKS!

 

[JWH123]

This is a typical dilemma when one attempts to use a human way of thinking to try and make sense out of what isn’t human, but rather divine.

Can a person truly also be somebody else? Logically, they can’t. So the idea of “Jesus” also being “God” is something that scrambles our brains out of hand.

Is Jesus, who lived between A.D. 1 and A.D. 33 the same individual who created the heavens, the earth, and all life forms billions of years ago? Not possible, at least in human terms. For one cannot be born an infant after billions of years of being the omnipotent ruler of all things.

Here is how I understand it, cognizant that it may fly over the heads of some people. Take it with an open mind!

“God the Father” created everything, and is the supreme Almighty power. He has never not existed, and never will be non-existent.
Because God the Father is all-powerful and ever living, He is capable of absolutely anything and everything. It is certainly not beyond His power to come down to earth in the form of a human being, if that is what He desires. So He did, and was born into this world as Jesus Christ, “the Son.”
The “Holy Spirit” is the essence of God, which guides the faithful. The Holy Spirit existed before Jesus, while Jesus lived, and after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

The Trinity concept doesn’t completely fit with the human way of thinking. That’s why it’s called a mystery.

 

[Tom_Baum]

“And this is eternal life, that they know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.”
John 17:3

In light of the above verse, I find it hard to understand how one could possibly believe that Jesus is God. It seems pretty clear that Jesus is excluding himself as God in this statement. There are only two explanations I can think of that would still leave the possibility of Jesus being God.

First, it would still it would still be possible that Jesus is God if John misquoted him. This seems rather unlikely though because John was one of the twelve disciples and was very close to Jesus. It is hard for me to believe that he would have made a mistake of that magnitude.

The only other explanation I can think of that would still leave the possibility that Jesus is God, is if Jesus was being intentionally deceptive. This also seems unlikely because I can think of no reason why Jesus would want to mislead his disciples in such a way. Another problem with this line of thinking is that God cannot lie.

It seems to me that the only way to take this verse is at face value, that only the Father is God. If anyone has another explanation, I would love to hear it.

Thanks,
JK

John 17:3

“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

John 17: 1-5

“When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do. Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.”

Could be that verse 5, “Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.”, just might say something to you since Jesus is saying that He was with the “Father” , it seems, even before creation.

Verse 5 added to verses 1 thru 4 changes the whole complexion of verse 3 all by itself.