The Only True God

The purpose of this article to examine the expression, the only true God, which appears in the scriptures. There is a similar and related expression which appears a second time in the scriptures.

The gospel according to John opens with a message that is often cited and quoted about the Word who became flesh. My own reason for citing this reference, here, is for what John reveals about the mission of the Begotten Son several verses into the first chapter, namely, that the Begotten Son came to explain God. We understand that thoughts, and then explanations, are communicated with words and through words. This is what Jesus states often in his own message. He declared that the words that He spoke were not his own words. They were the words which the Father had given him to speak, to explain God. Additionally, there are the true works that Jesus performed. The works which Jesus did were just as He saw the Father doing the same works. The words and the works is what Jesus cited for Philip and the disciples as proof that the Father dwelt in him.

names and titles

Invariably, John’s words in John 1:18 are ascribed or assumed to be in reference to the Father as the one to whom John alludes to and as the one whom the Begotten Son explained. This is easy to assume. It is to be expected when the focus is on any single verse in isolation here and there concerning the Father. It is easy to make similar assumptions from a verse here and a verse there about the Begotten Son of God. I will leave aside my thoughts and understanding on those particular points for now. If you wish to read my articles here are two of them. [1][2] Whether or not those assumptions were correct is as unnecessary as much as they do not lead to an explanation or understanding concerning God.

***** It is unfortunate to hear the charges and counter charges from one person to another that they are close-minded or they are making a liar out of Jesus because of their respective understanding of the scriptures. Often there is a cautious avoidance of certain passage in the hope that the other person won't make any reference to those passages. Why? What is there to fear? What is there to hide?

I could sense the awkwardness. I was studying with a man and his wife. He raced from page to page in his Bible before he finally gave up and put it down. I offered my assistance. He declined my assistance before eventually giving me a word clue or phrase. I found the passage for him. He read, or rather, flung it at me as I had expected he intended to do. I was unfazed. I took the opportunity to continue our discussion from that verse which he probably had assumed I would not want him to cite because, he thought, it refuted my teaching. *****

The reason such assumptions are unnecessary is because if the meaning or interpretation which one seeks to convey were true, one should expect that the seeker would be able to see it _ even if they did not agree, or reject or understand what they see in the scripture. (Recently I cringed as I watched the video. One man was going on with his teaching which was a denial of the deity of Jesus. He glibly plugged in his assumption on a certain passage, "It's the Father. It has to be." as he stared blankly into the camera.) There is no need to assume that the seeker will see something simply because we want him or her to see it. There is no reason to assume that they are close-minded or dishonest. There is no need to insert anything more.

Assumptions themselves are not a problem. Assumptions are not necessarily wrong. The reason why assumptions concerning God are problematic is because of a common practice of some individuals who lead, teach and preach as well as scholars and theologians. They insert names (YaHWeH, YaHVaH, Yashua, Jesus) and titles (lord, messiah, Son, Father) where these do not appear in the text but which help drive a message rather than walk the seeker through his or her own examination of the message. It’s kind of like the man in video who said, “It’s the Father. It has to be” and not much more than the sheer weight of an assumption. Again, the insertion of names and titles may or may not be wrong or incorrect, but the point is that this does little or nothing for the understanding and the edification of the saints in their reading of the scriptures. Insertions of this type are no more an effective way to teach than to bear down with either our positive assertions, “Jesus is God,” or “Jesus is not God.”

the only true god

I much prefer for people to rejoice in their discovery and understanding rather than to argue and pound them for the sake of making a point. I love to hear and engage in the discussions on deity even with the strongly opposing views between, for example, so-called Unitarians and so-called Trinitarians. This is the struggle of the saints in Christ and all who struggle, like Jacob whose name was changed to Israel as one who struggles with God, in their desire to know the God whom they love, the only true God.

I know, and I suspect many of you know and are familiar with some of the various responses and understanding on the above expression spoken by Jesus in John 17:3.

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

negative and positive assertions

There are some seemingly logical (not a word with which I am given to peppering my speech) and correct responses to this passage. Most notably it is seized for two different reasons, one a positive assertion, 1) there is only one true God, and the other a negative assertion, 2) Jesus is not God. These two separate and different reasons are created when expressions the only true God AND Jesus Christ are severed and detached one from another. The assumption for this severing of these phrases, I believe, is in response to other passages of scripture which may seem (I emphasize, seem) to be in contradiction or in error. I am baffled when I hear men and women who are regarded as possessing a firm attitude of adherence to the scriptures as the word of God actually nonchalantly and casually say, “well, Paul was mistaken.” This is understandable and whether or not the individual takes one view or another I like to think it is not with malice or evil intent.

However any time a teaching is rooted on a single verse here and there without a similar understanding of other single verses here and there that seem to contradict our select, favorite verses and our understanding, then that may at the very least suggest for us that we need to re-examine our understanding and teaching. This passage is one example, because as much as some brothers and sisters run with positive and negative soundbite assertions about deity they completely neglect the dual reference in the passage to eternal life.

eternal life

We know Jesus, the Good Shepherd, gave his life for his sheep. This sacrifice went far beyond Ezekiel’s prophecy in chapter 34 concerning the faithless and unfaithful shepherds and the shepherd, the lord GOD (Yahweh, יְ הוִ ה) Himself (For thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I Myself will . . .) who prophesied that He would search for, seek for and care for His sheep.

Then, there was yet another radical progression from the prophecy of Ezekiel by the Good Shepherd for his sheep. Jesus, who declared himself as the Good Shepherd, not only gave His life for them and then took up his life again, but then He gave them eternal life (John 10:28). Ponder the implications about one, the Good Shepherd, who is able to give eternal life.

Reflect on the earlier words of the apostle John in 17:3 and his use of the word "know" with his own use of that term in I John 5:11-13.

11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 

Then, ponder these words written by the same apostle John with attention to his use of the word, "understanding" just a few verses later.

20 We know also 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 by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (I John 5) *

There are two considerable, substantive and different expressions in John's words and which have to do with eternal life. There is the expression of understanding the true God and him who is true and the expression eternal life with respect to those who believe in Him, that is, the Son of God as John attests. Those two expressions, the one who has given or gives eternal life and the one who is eternal life are one and the same. They are as inseparable as repentance from forgiveness of sins. Eternal life, according to John, is not an appendage of God. God, the only true God is eternal life.

Any effort to sever apart and detach the expressions "the true God" and "eternal life" from one another as is done with the expressions in John 17:3 of the only true God AND Jesus Christ, is _ to seriously understate it, suspect. Let the reader judge for himself and herself whether the apostle John has similarly severed and detached "His Son Jesus Christ" from 1) the one who is true, 2) the true God.

I anticipate the resistance and refutation from some about the expression He is the true God in I John. I expect that it would be in the familiar negative that it does not say that He is ALSO a/the true God or that He is the ONLY true God as it does say about the Father in John 17:3. Quite true. This same retort would resist and refute these words of Jesus, No one comes to the Father, except through me because it doesn't specify that Jesus is the ONLY one through whom one comes to the Father, right?

* I thought this was peculiar. First most articles which purport to uphold the deity of Jesus never cite I John 5:20. (As I edit and update this article I am unable to find the single article which I came across which cited, both John 17:3 and I John 5:20.) A search for the phrase "The Only True God" brings up various documents. What struck me as odd is that in a search for the John 17:3 passage it also cites the I John 5:20. The reason it struck me as odd was because the article purported to debunk the deity of Jesus beginning with the favorite passage of John 17:3. However there is one link on I John 5:20, but it does not direct the searcher to 17:3. When verse 20 does appear in another reference it is incomplete. The incomplete verse would not necessarily be a problem except that that it comes up with 17:3 under the same search concerning "the only true God." See for yourself. Look at both verses, John 17:3 and I John 5:20. I do think it will be difficult for you to determine what part of I John 5:20 was left out of the incomplete reference. Do you see what this crafty, selective navigating between these two verses is intentionally steering seekers away? This is not the first instance of this type of omission. Never assume that scholars and theologians are necessarily true in their handling of the word of God.

conclusion

Here is the understanding which eludes the conviction and confidence of the saints in Christ and their knowledge of the LORD who is one. It stems from the deeply rooted problem of Unitarians and Trinitarians alike. The both continue to ascribe a numeric, quantitative value to the term one as in the LORD is our God, the LORD is one. Hence, what is missed is an understanding of the unity, harmony and oneness who is ALSO defined as the only true God.

Any attempt to sever and detach the only true God AND Jesus Christ is as dubious and questionable as to sever and detach the LORD who is God and the LORD who is one in the Shema. These references in the Shema are not about two different manifestations or entities. Undoubtedly, some do attempt to server and detach these, but that's an effort that simply can not and will not reveal the harmony and oneness of the written revelation of the will of God. The words of the apostle John are such that if we ourselves are true we will not be able to sever the true God from eternal life, that is, Jesus, our Lord and Savior, the Son of God.