Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you.... This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” -- John 17:1,3

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptural quotations are from the World English Bible translation.

There are those who claim that John 17:1,3 does not really say what we claim, that is, that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus excludes himself from being that only true God. Indeed, some have even stated that we have twisted the scriptures in order to have it say what we want it to say: that only the Father is the only true God. Did Jesus really state that only the Father is the true God, thus excluding himself from being that only true God, but rather the one sent by that only true God?

ELOHIM AND EL

In our examination of this question, we remind the reader that the basic Hebrew word from which the English word “God” is translated is EL. Other Hebrew words are built upon this basic word, and are also often translated as “God”, such as ELOHIM and ELOAH. While technically ELOHIM is the plural of ELOAH, it appears that word was actually first used as the plural of EL, and then ELOAH was a form that developed from the use of ELOHIM. The basic meaning of these words is “strength, power, might”, etc. (See Proverbs 3:17 and Micah 2:1, where the KJV translates EL as "in the power of "; see also Strong's Hebrew Dictionary for #410) ELOHIM as used of the Most High Yahweh, however, is used as what has been called the plural intensive, that is, it is used as a singular in an intensive, superior or superlative form.*
==========
*See our document: Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

The Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM are not always used of Yahweh, the only true God. Remembering their basic meaning of “might, power or strength”, they are legitimately used of any to whom Yahweh has given special power or might. That the word EL is thus used may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save." (Isaiah 45:20) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Yahweh] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Yahweh] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Yahweh]." -- Psalm 50:1.

Notice the above texts carefully and critically; all will agree that the context in every case shows the meaning of the Hebrew word El to be powerful one. How clearly it is stated that Yahweh is the Supreme "El" and rules over all other ones called "el" - powerful ones. In the absolute sense, there is not other EL – Might -- besides him (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5,21), since he is the source of all power, all mightiness, and there is no power or might in the universe that does originate from him. Even the demons have their power or might from Yahweh, although they do misuse their power. It is this that makes the “nature” of what is EL, that is, strength, might, power. Thus idols, having no power of their own, are by nature not gods. -- Galatians 4:8

How about the Hebrew word ELOHIM; is its usage only legitimately used of the Most High, Yahweh? No. Exodus 4:16 relates that Moses would as ELOHIM [a mighty one] to Aaron. (Exodus 4:16) We find that the scriptures say that Yahweh himself made Moses ELOHIM [greater might] to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) Man is a little lower than the angels who are called ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5 -- compare Hebrews 2:9). In Psalm 82:6,7 the “sons of God” are called ELOHIM – mighty ones. (See John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is also called ELOHIM. (1 Samuel 28:13) Other scriptures that are possibly referring to angels or human rulers as ELOHIM: Psalm 86:6-8; 95:3; 50:1; Psalm 82:6,7.

It should be noted that Yahweh is the name applied to the Supreme Being - our Father, and him whom Jesus called Father and God. -- John 17:1,3: 20:17; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22.

What does all of the above have to do with John 17:1,3? Just this: The Father is the only true God [Might, Power] from which all might and power is derived. Jesus, being sent by this only true God, is not the only true God who sent him. Jesus -- like Moses in Exodus 7:1, the angels in Psalm 8:5, and the sons of God (Psalm 82:6,7) -- receives his power and authority from the only true Supreme Being. Psalm 82:6,7 is the scripture Jesus in his defense in John 10:34,35, and he there uses the Greek word THEOI – gods -- as a translation of the Hebrew ELOHIM. By this reference, Jesus shows that the narrow definition that the Jews were giving the expression “Son of God” does not mean equal to God, any more than the Hebraic usage of ELOHIM when applied to the “sons of God to whom the Word came” means that these “sons of God” were equal to God. But as used in the strict, absolute sense of Supreme Power, the Supreme Being, Jesus states very straightforwardly in John 17:1-3 that his God, his Father, is the only true God, and then excludes himself as being sent by that only true God.

Our trinitarian neighbors, as well as some others, have redefined the “nature” of what deity is, by claiming that it means that such must have all the attributes of the Almighty, including never having been created, as well as being the Supreme Being. They do this by a series of misapplications of scripture, and with some imaginative redefining of the basic meanings of words as given in scripture.

We have been presented with the following quote from David A. Reed:

• If Jesus’ reference to the Father as “the only true God” were meant to exclude the Son from deity, then the same principle of interpretation would have to apply to Jude 4, where Jesus Christ is called “our only Owner and Lord” (nwt, italics added). This would have to exclude the Father from Lordship and Ownership. Yet, Witnesses speak of the Father as “the Lord Jehovah,” even though Jude 4 calls Jesus our “only” Lord. And the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” at 2 Corinthians 3:17. Obviously, then, neither use of the word only is exclusive with reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ being called our “only” Lord does not rule out the Lordship of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Father’s being called the “only” true God does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from deity. -- Reed, David A., Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) 1998, c1986.

See also our documents on Titus 2:13 and John 20:28

• You appear to be arguing that because the Father sent Jesus, Jesus can't be God. If that is the case, then wouldn't the same argument also mean that the Holy Spirit isn't God? John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. [KJV] That verse might be a bit "trinitarian" for you, what with the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus all in one verse. What do you think it means?

John 14:26 simply states that God will send the holy spirit as the comforter. This agrees with what Peter states in Acts 2:33: “Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this, which you now see and hear.” God gave the holy spirit to Jesus for a special purpose, that is to pour it forth upon his disciples. At present we haven't written much on the holy spirit, but one might read the following documents:
http://www.agsconsulting.com/volumes/htdb0129.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/htdb0130.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/htdb0132.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/htdb0131.htm
(Please note the the author of the above documents did not realize or understand that most proponents of the trinity do not teach three gods in one god, or three persons in one person. This does not negate the rest of his arguments, however. However, we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions of the above author.)

• I've heard people say that in Greek, "and" means the same as "equal to". I wouldn't expect you to agree with this in the context of John 17:3, however, because you firmly believe that Jesus isn't God.

The Greek word that is translated “and” in John 17:3 is KAI. It means: and, also, even, indeed, but “and, also, even, indeed, but”. Some have argued that its usage as “even” means “equal to”, and that John 17:3 should be translated something like: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, even [Greek, kai] Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This kind of translation would in effect have Jesus as the only true God sending himself, which is nonsense. The Greek text however identifies kai directly with the one sent, with addition of identifying the one sent as Jesus. To see this, we present Jay Green's Interlinear: “And is everlasting life, that they may know You the only true God, and [Greek kai whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

Some try to apply Granville Sharp's first for the usage of kai to this verse in order to make it appear that the only true God is the one sent by the only true God, which, of course, is also nonsense. Sharp's first rule is that when there is a article-noun-kai-noun construction, then one person is being referred to. Sharp's purpose is doing a study in order to formulate this rule was for the very purpose of trying to prove the trinity by such a rule. However, to do so he had to come up with a list of exceptions to the rule: a) neither noun is impersonal; b) neither noun is plural; c) neither noun is a proper noun. The argument is that there is a definite article before “only true God” but none before the pronoun hon (whom), thus supposedly according to Sharp's rules one person is being spoken of. Sharp never discussed pronouns in association with his rule, nor did he ever try to apply his rule to John 17:1,3. If such a rule would be applied applied to John 17:1,3, then this would mean that Jesus is one person with the Father whom he describes as the only true God, the supposed official trinity dogma denies. However, the context itself plainly is showing that the one sent is not the one who did the sending. There is no reason to believe that Jesus in his prayer was trying to say that he was the only true God who sent him.

• It is correct to say that the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, or the Holy Spirit is the only true God. But it would be incorrect to say that the Father alone is the only true God, the Son alone is the only true God, or that the Holy Spirit alone is the only true God. Therefore, to say that the Father is the only true God no more disproves the Deity of Christ than saying that Jesus is the only true God disproves the Deity of the Father

To someone who does not believe in the trinitarian doctrine, the above simply appears to be double-talk jargon. It assumes the trinity to be true, and thus filters John 17:3 to agree with the doctrine. It would be correct to Father alone is the only true God, for that is in fact what Jesus was saying, for he disassociates himself from the only true God by stating that he was sent by the only true God.

Nevertheless, as we have stated many times, our effort is not to disprove the deity of Jesus, but rather to show that the deity of Jesus does not mean that Jesus is Yahweh or that Jesus is equal to the Almighty Yahweh.

• John 17:3 is better understood including Christ's Divine Nature with the Father's in the term "God" and the phrase "and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," as a reference to His human nature--since that was the only nature that was "sent." (The Divine nature being omnipresent -- John 3:13.)

This assumes the trinitarian doctrine of two “natures” -- two different planes of being -- at the same time, and then seeks to thwart what Jesus plainly says by reading this doctrine into the verse. There is no reason to add the story that Jesus existed in two planes of being at once.
See our documents:
John 3:13 and Jesus' Supposed Omnipresence
Divine Nature in 2 Peter 1:4

• "And" is not a contrasting word. Since other verses clearly show that the Son has all the incommunicable attributes of the nature of God.

As already stated, our argument is not based on the word “and”, which is used in John 17:3 as the common word “and”, denoting a copulative in that the word “know” includes knowing both the one true God and his Son. The contrast comes from the fact that the Son is sent by the first personage being spoken of, that is, “the only true God.”

While many have attempted to show that Jesus has some alleged incommunicable attributes of Almighty God, in reality all we have seen is many scriptures presented where such a thought is “read into” the scriptures. As shown earlier, the “nature” of godship is mightiness. Only Yahweh, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has this nature in the Supreme sense in that only he is the source of all might. There is no source of power or might that is not derived from him.
See the resource page:
Does Jesus Have The Supposed Incommunicable Attributes of God?

While some claim that we are twisting John 17:3, it is actually the trinitarians that have to twist John 17:3, to make it appear that Jesus is Yahweh who sent him, for Jesus, by stating that he was sent by the only true God, plainly disassociates himself from being the only true God who sent him.

Last update of this document: 9/1/2003

Related Links to Bible Students' Sites

Please note that we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the authors below.

An index of documents with references to John 17:3 in writings of Charles Taze Russell

Who Is God? -- A pdf book. (Acrobat reader needed.)

The Living and True God -- Dawn Bible Students

Origin of the Trinity -- by Cher-El L. Hagensick

Various writings under "Trinity"

Related Links to Sites Not Associated with the Bible Students Movement

A Biblical View of the Only True God -- A "Jehovah's Witnesses" site.