According to the way many trinitarians and some oneness believers interpret this verse, Jesus in the flesh has the same sentiency as his Father, knowing absolutely everything to know about absolutely everything; if so, the logical conclusion would be that there would be no need for Jesus in the flesh to receive or learn anything at all in the flesh, since he already knew it all. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18; 1S Samuel 2:6; Psalm 36:9; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,21-23,25-30,43; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1) This, of course, is not what the disciples were saying, as we will see from the context.

Indeed, the disciples recognized Jesus as being, not God Almighty, but rather from God, as stated in the same verse. If the disciples meant to say that Jesus had the nature of God Almighty in knowing all things, why would they in the same sentence say that they knew he was from God because of the knowledge he had? The reasonable conclusion would be that they knew that he had received his knowledge from God who sent him, even as the scriptures and Jesus himself stated many times. -- Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.

Of course, many modernists would like to break the scripture apart and make it appear that only his human nature is meant as being "from" God, and that the disciples actually were saying that they knew he was God Almighty in stating that Jesus knew all things, which of course, just doesn't in reality fit the context at all. But this is but one the cases where many trinitarian revisionists wish to read the scripture out of context, and add to it the extra-Biblical philosophy that Jesus had two natures (supposedly being both fully God Almighty and fully man) while on earth, to make it appear to be in harmony with their doctrines.

The Greek word panta (a variation of the Greek word, pas - Strong's #3956), translated "all" in John 16:30, is always used relative to the context of which it is being used. (Many translators add qualifying nouns to the word, as the word "things" is added by most translators here.*) Thus the apostles are not saying that Jesus was God Almighty, having all knowledge of absolutely everything there is, but rather that Jesus knew all the things he had spoken of, for he had received this knowledge from and came forth from his Father, Yahweh. In other words, he knew what he was talking about, knowing from what source he had received it.

------------
*Some examples of qualifying nouns being added to the Greek word pas in the translation of the KJV: Matthew 1:23; 10:1; 12:31; Luke 11:42; Acts 10:12 - "manner of"; Matthew 24:6 - "these things"; Mark 1:37; 13:13; Luke 21:17; John 1:7; 2:24; 5:23; 11:48; 12:32; 13:35; Acts 1:24; 2:45; 4:21; 19:19; 21:28 - "men"; Mark 4:11 - "things"; Mark 12:44 - "they"; Luke 1:66; 9:23 - "them"; Luke 13:27 - "ye"; John 15:2(2nd) - "branch"; Acts 9:32 - "quarters"
See also:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3956
http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0000085

We find a similar usage in 2 Corinthians 6:10:

Taken out of context, and applying the same kind reasoning many apply to John 16:30, one could make an argument that Paul is telling the Corinthians that they are possessing absolutely everything that exists in the whole universe, and thus they must be God Almighty.

Another similar passage is found in Jude 5.

Of course, Jude is not saying that believers have once for all come to know absolutely everything there is to know about everything in the universe, but panta is used relative to what is being spoken of, as in John 16:30.

In reality, Jesus is not omniscient. If he is, then we would wonder how he could be a separate sentient person from the Father. In other words, if both the Father and the Son are ominiscient, then they must share the same exact sentiency, and in reality be the same sentient being, not separate sentient "persons", as the trinity dogma calls for.

We know that Jesus is not omniscient, because there are things that he does not know, or he has to receive knowledge concerning from the only true God. -- Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; Revelation 1:1,2.

In conclusion, then, we find that there is nothing in John 16:30 that says that Jesus is Yahweh, or that Jesus has all the sentiency of Yahweh; instead we find that the disciples tell us that the knowledge that Jesus had been giving them is to them proof that he came from God (not that he was God.)

Updated: October 2003

This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.

Related Links

The Great Debate by Robert Wagoner (PDF file)
For information on this book, CLICK HERE

Witnessing to those who "Witness to the Witnesses" Part 3 - This is a JW site: the author presents some good information concerning John 16:30 and related scriptures.

Related Books
The following books are recommended for reference; our recommendation does not mean that we endorse everything presented in the books.

An analysis of the most common arguments used to both prove and disprove the notion that Jesus is God. Beginning with the book of Matthew and continuing through Revelation, it tallies and discusses every scripture that implies Jesus is God and every scripture that implies he is not. Not to be left out of the discussion is a comparison of the arguments from the Hebrew scriptures.

This work discusses the common arguments used by both sides and provides the response given by the opposing view. It concludes by asking the reader to review the arguments from both sides and determine for himself what he believes. If you want to know what evidence there is that Jesus is God (or what evidence there is that he is not), this is the book that presents a fair and balanced discussion of the matter.

Before you discuss this subject with a Trinitarian or a non-Trinitarian, make sure you know why he believes what he believes. A comparison of the arguments is in order.

Two Babylons or the Papal Worship by Alexander Hislop
This book is written by a trinitarian, but it does offer some good historical background of the trinity.

The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation
Hardcover
Paperback edition
by Rolf Furuli
In the natural sciences, a basic principle is to break everything down to the smallest possible units and then study each unit. In linguistics and in the study of the biblical languages, a similar principle was followed with the word as the basic unit, but from the middle of this century the view has developed that the smallest units which were meaningful for translation had to be the sentence or even the paragraph. The author believes that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and that it still is meaningful to work with the word as the fundamental unit of translation. The book therefore suggests that for a particular target group - those who, by the help of their mother tongue, want to come as close as possible to the original languages - a literal translation will be better than an idiomatic one. In the course of discussion it is shown that the principles on which such a translation is based accords fully with modern linguistic principles."

Books by Paul S. L. Johnson: GOD, CREATION, CHRIST-SPIRIT-COVENANTS
Paul S. L. Johnson's books may be obtained from The Bible Standard