Does John 17:3 Exclude Others, Such as Jesus Christ, as the "True God"? Part 1

I'm a member of a private Facebook group called Trinities. On February 24, 2021 I made a post there titled Does John 17:3 exclude others, such as Jesus Christ, as the "true God"? There are a number of responders, and I'm honored that Robert M. Bowman Jr. is one of them.

Bowman is a prominent and well respected Trinitarian apologist whose work I've quoted numerous times in this blog. I am currently having a dialogue with him. With Bowman's permission, I'm  presenting our exchange in this blog in several parts. He asked me to include a link to his blog.

Here's the post I made with Bowman's first rebuttal. Thank you in advance, dear readers, for any feedback that might be useful to this exchange.

Does John 17:3 exclude others, such as Jesus Christ, as the "true God"? 

“And this is eternal life, that they know you [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). 

 

Consider the following. 

 

1. The language of the text appears to exclude Jesus as true God. 

 

If the Father is the only true God, then no one else is. It’s similar to the statement “Donald Trump is the only true President.” (This is from the standpoint of many Americans who believe that Joe Biden’s presidency is illegitimate, because they believe he stole the election.) Now, if Trump is the only true President, then no else is. 

 

So, since the Father is the only true God, it follows that no one else is—not Jesus, nor anyone else. To be sure, the text does not say "only you [Father], the true God". Rather, it says "you [Father], the only true God". Notice the placement of “only”. This would clearly be saying that only the Father, and no one else, is the true God. 

 

But from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where "only" is placed. We know that the statements “Jesus is the only begotten Son” and “only Jesus is the begotten Son” have the same meaning in so far as “only” is placed in the statements. In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father. 

 

Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of "only" matters? I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in the debate. 

 

Some might comeback with: “You are assuming Unitarianism in order to prove Unitarianism.” No I’m not. I’m merely applying the way the Bible talks, and we even the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. So, an application of this language points to the direction of declaring the Father as exclusively true God, and no else. It seems clear to me that the language does not exclude just Jesus; it excludes others that are not the Father. 

 

Moreover, there are Trinity theories that accommodate this application of language. One is Monarchical Trinitarianism in which the Father alone (or only the Father) is said to be the true God, while somehow attempting to maintain that Jesus too is true God in some sense. 

 

2. Let's go strictly with "you [Father], the only true God,” so that we have the statement “The Father is the only true God”. 

 

According to the text, the only person Jesus places in the category “the only true God” is the Father—no one else. Jesus does not include himself in the category (nor does he include anyone else). He does not say “that they know you [Father] *and me* [Jesus Christ], the only true God”. Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". 

 

3. Being that it is appositive, the grammar interchangeably allows “you [Father]” and “the only true God” as subject and predicate, which logically points to the exclusion of Jesus as the only true God (unless the Bible teaches Modalism). 

 

We may grammatically construct the appositive as (1) "The Father is the only true God" and (2) "The only true God is the Father." These constructions show that the only true God *just is* the Father: Father=the only true God; the only true God=Father. They have the form a=b and b=a. 

 

A number of Trinity theories hold the view that Jesus is (the only true) God (in addition to God the Father). However, if Jesus is God in this sense, it would follow that Jesus is identical to the Father, which the said Trinity theories deny. 

 

4. If Jesus being the only true God is part and parcel of knowledge of eternal life, then he missed a great opportunity to mention that one very important thing. Well, Jesus didn’t mention it. It must not be important and, for that matter, true. 

 

Together these considerations seem to make a cumulative case for thinking that John 17:3 excludes others—such as Jesus—as the “true God” or “the only true God”. 

 

Bowman's First Rebuttal (February 24, 2021)

Please take into advisement that over this entire post should be a disclaimer that I do not agree that working out the semantic and philosophical issues inherent in this particular line of argument is essential to the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. 

 

// 1. The language of the text appears to exclude Jesus as true God. //

 

As I've explained before, and as you seem to anticipate, there is a difference between the following two claims: 

P1. Only the Father is the true God.

P2. The Father is the only true God. 

 

John 17:3 expresses P2, not P1, and orthodox Christians accept P2. Now, some orthodox Christians do accept P1, but my point stands that these are not necessarily the same proposition. P1 means that the Father is the only member of the class "true God"; P2 means that the class "true God" is a class that excludes all false gods and that the Father is properly described as belonging to that class. To put it another way, "the only true God" is simply a more expansive designation for "God," so that there really is no difference between saying "the Father is God" and "the Father is the only true God." 

 

Now, I would agree that P2 would exclude Jesus as true God *if* the true God is one and only one person, the Father. However, that condition is basically Unitarianism. In short, yes, your argument *does* presuppose Unitarianism. 

 

You say: 

// But from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where "only" is placed. We know that the statements “Jesus is the only begotten Son” and “only Jesus is the begotten Son” have the same meaning in so far as “only” is placed in the statements. In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father. // 

 

That is precisely the disputed claim. 

 

Your example isn't a very helpful one, because "only begotten" actually translated one word, not two, and it means something like "unique/only child" (context matters as far as the precise sense). "Jesus is the monogenes Son" is a true proposition, and yes, it entails that only Jesus is the Son specifically described as monogenes. "Only Jesus is the Son of God" is arguably not a true proposition, because (for example) Israel is God's son in a different sense. 

 

You asked:

// Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of "only" matters? I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in the debate. // 

 

Perhaps there isn't, but that wouldn't matter, because (again) the logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently in the unique case of God, if God is triune. In other words, the placement probably wouldn't matter when making predications of individual finite beings, but it might matter when making predications about one of the divine persons united as/in one divine being. 

 

Perhaps more relevant is the fact that there are biblical texts that use the word "only" in which, if you applied the same reasoning as you are using here, we would have to conclude that the text is self-contradictory. I'll give you two examples. 

 

After the Flood, according to Genesis, “Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:23). The Septuagint translation uses the word monos, as in John 17:3. From a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis, it may appear that “those who were with him in the ark” are distinguished from the “only” one who “was left” (the verb is in the singular form, indicating literally that only one person was left). But such an inference is clearly contrary to the intent of the statement as a whole in context. The statement singles out Noah as the one who “alone” was left alive after the Flood, yet its intended meaning is clearly not to exclude “those that were with him in the ark” as also having survived. 

 

The same idiomatic way of speaking occurs in the passage about the woman caught in adultery, which says that Jesus “was left alone [monos], and [kai] the woman who was in the midst” (John 8:9, my translation). (I agree with the consensus of biblical scholars that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original Gospel of John, but it does show how Greek writers of the period used such language, which is all that matters here.) 

 

The point is that one must consider what is actually being said in context and not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way. 

 

The same caution also applies to John 17:3 (although it is not using precisely the same idiom as the above two texts). The verse affirms that eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Jesus Christ. Now this is a startling statement if Christ is just a creature, no matter how great. Eternal life is all about knowing God—that is, about having a relationship with him in which we know him personally, in which we enjoy life with him forever. John 17:3 expands this observation to say that eternal life consists in knowing both the Father and Jesus Christ. In this context, Christ’s reference to his Father as “the only true God” does not exclude himself from that status. Rather, Christ is honoring the Father as God while trusting the Father to exalt him at the proper time. Thus, Jesus immediately goes on to affirm that he had devoted his time on earth to glorifying the Father (v. 4) and to ask the Father in turn to glorify him (v. 5). 

 

You wrote: 

// Some might comeback with: “You are assuming Unitarianism in order to prove Unitarianism.” No I’m not. I’m merely applying the way the Bible talks, and we even the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. // 

 

I think I've shown that yes, you are assuming Unitarianism, because you are assuming that the language of predication used of God works in the same way as when used about finite beings "in our day-to-day conversation with others."

 

Also, I've given some evidence that "the way the Bible talks" sometimes runs counter to what "modern readers intuitively and naturally" expect.