Home | FAQ | Message Boards | Site Map | Subject Index | Other Resources | We Believe...
Perilous Times | Unitarian Christology | Logically Speaking | Sacred Names | Faith-Doctrine

Resolving the Dilemma

Making sense of the apparent contradiction between John 17:3 and John 20:28

by Phil Maxwell June 2000

[Yahshua said] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (Jn 17:3)

And Thomas answered and said unto him [Yahshua], My Lord and my God. (Jn 20:28) 

Let me begin by establishing a few premises from which I will proceed:

1. The Bible represents the inerrant Word of God, and is, therefore, the only reliable primary source reference for proving out true doctrine.

2. The most natural implications of John 17:3 include that Yahshua’s Father and NOT Him is the only true God.

3. The most natural implications of John 20:28 include that Yahshua Himself is God.

4. Neither of these verses in and of themselves provides sufficient information to form a valid conclusion as to whether Yahshua is God or not.

5. While either Yahshua is God or He is not, both cannot be true:  If one is true, the other is necessarily is false.

While sufficient evidence could conceivably be found to definitively resolve the above dilemma, the only valid source for such evidence is the Bible itself.   Secondary sources such as church teachings may merit some consideration, but do not and cannot be regarded as proof sufficient to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two verses in question.   At this point, the evidence presented does not support a conclusion, and only primary source evidence from the Bible could truly form a valid case to decisively determine the true meaning of these excerpts from the Bible.

The Bible represents the Word of God, so only God through His Word can absolutely define what He truly means by anything He says.  The idea that the Bible should interpret itself is valid, just as only you or I can definitively establish the meaning of our own words when a doubt is raised.  Assuming one speaking does not lie (which is a fair assumption with regard to God), all the opinions, assumptions, and arguments in the world won’t supersede what the originator of words says is meant by any particular words they have spoken.

Beginning with John 17:3, Yahshua specifically said TO His Father that He (His Father) was the only true God.   It is fair to conclude from this that the one speaking, Yahshua, was NOT God, and the one being spoken to, His Father, was not only God, but also the ONLY TRUE GOD.   We can further conclude that if Yahshua’s Father is the ONLY true God, then any references to ‘God’ must either refer to one and the same as Yahshua’s Father, or to someone or something that isn’t truly God.

This verse effectively eliminates all possibility that Yahshua was not a man distinct from God, but some argue that this does not eliminate the possibility that He was also God Himself.   This argument contends that Yahshua was BOTH a man (who was clearly distinct from and subordinate to God) AND that He was God Himself.   Aside from the inherent contradiction of this contention, the argument that Yahshua was BOTH a man and God as generally presented is entirely circular.  It is a given (hopefully) that He was a man who was distinct and subordinate to God, as John 17:3 and scores of other verses make abundantly clear.   Therefore, to argue from a premise that He is ALSO God assumes the very proposition under debate to be true, that Yahshua is God, proving nothing.   To say that the man Yahshua is ‘also’ God is exactly the same thing as saying that He is God, so to argue from this premise towards the contention that Yahshua is God is fallacious circular reasoning; i.e. an invalid argument.   Words are spent, confusion is dispensed, but nothing is resolved by this argument.

Nevertheless, given the pervasiveness of this notion amongst Christians of this generation, it would be unwise to so readily dismiss it.   Moreover, the idea that Yahshua could speak both as a man who was distinct from and subordinate to God and speak  the very words of God is not unreasonable, even though being an oracle of God does not make one God.  Hebrews 1:1-2 identifies Him as the oracle of God to us in similar fashion as the prophets before Him, but this comparison drawn there actually weighs strongly against the conclusion that Yahshua is God.   Yahshua Himself attested to this role He fulfilled by saying that He spoke only as directed by the Father who dwelled in Him, though He was always careful in such comments to distinguish between Himself and His Father.  (Jn. 8:28, 38, 12:49-50, 14:10)   Thus, neither the fact that Yahshua spoke the words of God, nor that also He spoke as a man distinguished Him from other men.  That He was the Son of God and God was His Father who dwelled in Him was unique to Him, but not that He spoke the words of God.

Yet, there is a difference between speaking the words of God and speaking AS God, just as there is between acknowledging someone as a spokesman for God and considering them to be God themselves.   How this relates is that if we find Yahshua speaking AS God Himself, rather than as the oracle of God, or even being similarly addressed, then there might be some basis to consider the notion that He was God, even if He is also presented merely as a man.   Unlike the aforementioned circular argument, the operative word here is ‘IF’, not ‘SINCE’ (Yahshua spoke as God, etc.).

Before continuing, it is important to note that the overwhelming picture of Christ portrayed in Scripture is that He was a man who was distinct from and subordinate to God.  Moreover, there is no precedent supporting the concept that a single being, a man, could also be another being of distinct type, God.  Not only is that true, but this concept places a tremendous strain on the boundaries of reason.   Because we are rational creatures, we would not accept a proposition that an animal was both fully a dog and fully a cat, or any such thing.  Yet, this argument not only contends that Yahshua is both fully God and fully man, but in effect suggests that He is both God and that He is not, and that is an untenable position.  John 17:3 is only one of many verses that indicate a complete, undivided being who is distinctly not God.   The dual nature doctrine is generally stated to the effect that Yahshua was both 100% or fully man, and 100% or fully God, but another way of putting this would be that He is both 100% NOT God and that He is 100% God. 

Thus, even if we allow for the possibility that it is true, anyway, the level of proof necessary to definitively establish this would be great.  On the other hand, were reasonable and Biblically supported alternate explanations presented for the few verses that might imply this, then we could dispense with the apparently untenable hypotheses.   In the event of an apparent contradiction such as the case in point between John 17:3 and 20:28, it would be quite unreasonable to accept an unprecedented and illogical explanation over a sensible and Biblically supported one. 

It is a fact that the Scriptures never record Yahshua Himself saying, “I am God,” or anything to that effect.  He did say and affirm that He was the Son of God and the Messiah, and was accused of making Himself equal with or God Himself for so claiming, but that is all.  There is no direct Scriptural support for the contention that ‘Son of God’ means God Himself, as those who sought to kill Him charged, although the very concept of being begotten by God naturally leads to the conclusion that He was not, else we irrationally conclude that He was His own Father.

Some also cite John 8:58 (“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”) as a supposed claim to deity by Yahshua.   This argument is generally rooted on a misunderstanding of Yahweh’s directives to Moses in Exodus 3:14, and the false conclusion that “I am” is a valid name for God Almighty.  If we read the context of that passage, it becomes apparent that Yahweh never intended to declare that His name was “I am”.  Moses asked a specific question in verse 13 regarding what he should say to the children of Israel when they asked who sent him, then God answered by saying, “I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”   Then, in verse 15, God told Moses something that the children of Israel didn’t know (Ex. 6:3), His true name, saying, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.”  

What we can conclude from this passage is that the nature of the Almighty God is accurately stated as “I AM THAT I AM,” that Moses was instructed to tell the children of Israel who did not know His name, that “I AM” had sent him, and that the name of the one true God forever, throughout all generations is Yahweh.   The conclusion that “I AM” is the or even a name of God is simply not true.  Additionally, the passage in John doesn’t even regard Yahshua speaking of His nature or identity, but of His relative place in the scheme of creation to Abraham.   Whether this indicates the presumed pre-existence and incarnation doctrines is irrelevant to the point at hand.  Regardless of other implications, all Yahshua said here pertained to a comparison between Him and Abraham, not a claim to be God.

Another argument attempts to correlate John 1:1 and 14 to the conclusion that God became flesh in the person of Yahshua, but this interpretation requires two difficult assumptions: 1. The latter portion of verse 1 (“the Word was God”) must be taken in an absolutely literal sense, and 2.  The phrase “the Word was made flesh” in verse 14 must be taken to mean that God Himself actually became a man in the flesh.  One only need to read a little further to see that “no man has seen God at any time,” (verse 18) completely negates the conclusion that the invisible God became flesh.

The Word of God is the means by which God accomplishes and expresses His will, but is not in and of itself a distinct, living, intelligent being.  According to Hebrews 11:3, “the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear,” which coincides with the account of the material creation recorded in Genesis 1.  The concept of creation involves the bringing into existence of tangible, material, and living things from and by the invisible God through nothing more than His Word.  That all things were created by God, and that all things were created by God’s Word are both true statements, but that does not mean that God and His Word are absolutely synonymous.  Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to consider John’s account of Yahshua’s origins to have simply incorporated the common literary tool of personification.   Thus, when we read, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth,” we see something that is seen (the man Yahshua, the only begotten of the Father), having been brought into existence directly by the invisible Word of God. 

Whether this represents all that might be implied in the first chapter of John is not the point, for all we need to do is show a reasonable explanation in order to dispense with the untenable conclusion that the man Yahshua who was clearly distinct from and subordinate to God was not also God Himself.   This argument falls way short of constituting a definitive argument to the conclusion that Yahshua the Son of God who said that His Father was the only true God was also God Himself.

Another common argument that alleges that Yahshua Himself claimed to be God is with reference to the term “Alpha and Omega” in the book of Revelation.  This term can be found four times in the KJV, but the only one (1:11) that clearly indicates Yahshua is not in the NAS, NIV, or other more recent translations.  The reason for this, which is easily verifiable, is that the considerable manuscript evidence uncovered since the KJV was done indicates that it was an addition to the original manuscripts.  So, again, the argument falls short of being conclusive.

This leaves us with a notable absence of any clear statement by Yahshua that He was God, especially since we have plenty of direct references of Him attesting to and affirming who and what He was.  So now, I’ll take a look at some arguments that claim He was affirmed as being God by others.  Notable amongst these is one based upon Hebrews 1:8-9, which reiterates a prophetical utterance from Psalms 45:6-7, saying,

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

While this clearly indicates God calling His Son “God,” it does not mean that Yahshua is His own Father who He said was the only true God.  Typically, people of our generation assume that the terms ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ necessarily indicate the one true God, but this simply isn’t true.  While these words may generally mean God Almighty, they do not exclusively mean Him, not even in the Scriptures.  Many examples could be brought forth to prove this, but it is so easily verifiable, I’ll not digress into that here. Rather, I’ll simply say that this passage clearly identifies the one being called “God” as being the one anointed by His God above his fellows, which leads us directly to Yahshua’s own references to the Father (His and others) as the one true God (His and others).  Similar reasoning applies to the common argument regarding the term "mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6, which also does not specifically identify the one true Almighty God.

Finally, there is the matter of Thomas saying, “my Lord and my God” to Yahshua in John 20:28.   Given the apparent dichotomy between this and others, especially John 17:3, we must ask, is there a reasonable explanation that precludes concluding that Thomas came to believe that Yahshua was Himself the one true God of the universe?  Perhaps more to the point, is there a MORE reasonable explanation for this than the idea that when Yahshua said that His Father was the only true God He spoke as one who was not God to God, whom He also was?  Of course, no explanation at all would be more reasonable than an unprecedented, unfounded, and irrational one, but we can do better than that.  Ideally, we can both come to a reasonable resolve for the dilemma set forth by the most natural readings of John 17:3 and 20:28, and understand what the implications of both are.  Surely the same God who instructs us to “prove all things” would not have us settle for anything less.

This passage represents John’s account of Yahshua’s disciples’ first encounter with Him after He was raised from the dead.   There is only one point stated that they didn’t believe at this juncture, that being that He was truly alive.  When they first encountered the empty tomb, they assumed that Yahshua’s body had been stolen, still not knowing “the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead,” as it says in verse 9.  Then all but Thomas came to believe that He was alive after they personally encountered Him, but Thomas himself held out for more evidence than their testimonies or even his own eyes.  Finally, when Yahshua satisfied even Thomas’ criteria for proof, then he, too, believed.  What did he believe?  Any proposed answer to this that goes beyond the fact that Yahshua had risen from the dead is mere conjecture that is not supported by the text.

I’ll get to the interchange between Yahshua and Thomas momentarily, but first want to show how the conclusion of the chapter a few verses later is consistent with this point.  John wrote in verses 30-31:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Here John indicates that the sign Yahshua gave Thomas, referring to the actual feeling of the wounds in his hands and side, was one of many that Yahshua offered for the same purpose.  That purpose?  So that the readers might believe that Yahshua is the Messiah, the Son of God.  There is clearly an association implied between the fact of Yahshua’s resurrection and the fact that He was the Messiah, the Son of God, but that’s as far as we can conclude based upon what is actually written. 

So, to get to the point, in between Yahshua giving Thomas the sign he required to believe that Yahshua was truly risen from the dead, and John’s summation, we have the exchange between Yahshua and Thomas in verses 28-29:

Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Given the nature and importance of the matter before us, we must be careful not to read anything into the passage that isn’t there.  All we can know for sure is that Thomas came to believe was that the man standing before Him was, in fact, Yahshua, raised from the dead.   Moreover, Yahshua didn’t directly commend what Thomas had said.  Rather, He commended what Thomas had come to believe.  Of course, that doesn’t erase the apparent implications of what Thomas said, but it does establish the context of the record.   Thomas BELIEVED that Yahshua had risen from the dead, SAID “my Lord and my God,” and was commended for what he BELIEVED.   It is not my intention to completely divorce what Thomas said from the implication that it reflected what he believed, but this distinction exists, just the same.

In order to make sense out of the apparent contradiction between Yahshua’s claim that His Father was the only true God and the implications of Thomas’ proclamation here, it is necessary to identify and support some alternate meaning out of the text of one or the other.  Could it be that Thomas’ neither meant, nor that Yahshua took him to mean that Yahshua Himself was God?  Yes, it could be, and even without introducing further evidence, this is a more sensible explanation than the proposition that Yahshua Himself was speaking as a man distinct from God TO God, whom He also was.

Let me begin with the fact that God is invisible.  John himself even wrote in both his Gospel narrative and his first epistle that “No man hath seen God at any time.” (Jn. 1:18, 1 Jn. 4:12)   Though directly addressing God has been commonly instructed and practiced throughout the ages, it remains true that doing so has never been accompanied by actually seeing Him.  God is a Spirit,  and He is invisible to the natural eye.  (Jn. 4:24, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17, Heb. 11:27)  Yet, at the point that Thomas came to believe that the man standing before Him was the risen Lord and Savior, his commendable faith was entirely based on SEEING and TOUCHING Yahshua.  According to Yahshua, Thomas believed BECAUSE he had SEEN Him.  Obviously, Thomas didn’t SEE God, so his address to God could not mean that he was addressing the man before Him AS God.  If God is invisible and Thomas addressed God, both of which are true, then He addressed God without actually seeing Him.

Not only is God invisible, but also, according to Scripture, He was “in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” (2 Cor. 5:19)  Thus, if one was to directly address the invisible God, the place to do it was to the man Yahshua, who was quite visibly in Thomas’ presence at that time.   

Let’s look at this from another angle.  God was in Christ, they were one, and Christ spoke only those things He heard from His Father.   As Hebrews 1:1-2 says, God was speaking to them through Christ; Whatever God had to say to them, He said through His Son.  So, if Yahshua, like the prophets before Him, was the mouthpiece of God to man, why could He not also have been the ears of God, so to speak.

Perhaps this is representative of the distinction between Yahshua and the prophets, none of whom claimed to be the Son of God or be one with the Father?  Christ only spoke those things He heard from His Father, who He said was the only true God, and all His disciples heard from God was what Yahshua spoke.  Could it not also be true that His Father only hears those things spoken to Him through His Son?  What else could be meant by the fact that the man Yahshua is the ONLY Mediator between God and man, that He alone is our advocate with the Father?  (1 Tim. 2:5, 1 Jn. 2:1)   Doesn’t the very term “advocate” indicate one who represents us and speaks on our behalf?  Let me put it this way:  If I am to address God and the only way I have to speak to Him is through the sole designated Mediator, Yahshua, who is my advocate or spokesman before God, then any address I make to God must be directed to Yahshua.   While Yahshua is but one of many through whom God has spoken to man, He is the only one through whom man can speak to God.  It is like the difference between a radio broadcast and a telephone conversation - Yahshua is a complete Mediator between God and man, providing the means for two-way communications.   Yet, even in this, there is still a distinction between the Mediator and the one to whom He advocates on my behalf.

John also made a point of recording at least two instances of things the disciples didn’t and wouldn't understand or believe until after Yahshua's resurrection.  On one occasion, when Yahshua foretold His death and resurrection, John wrote:

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. (Jn. 2:19)

This was obviously proven to be the case in John 20, where even after they encountered the empty tomb, John wrote, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.”  (Jn. 20:9)   The particular point that Yahshua made in the original reference was that He was the temple that would be raised after being destroyed.  At the time, they didn’t understand what He meant, but the reference to Him as the temple goes directly to the fact that God was IN Him, as the Scriptures say, and that was what they came to believe after Yahshua was risen from the dead.

The other encounter John recorded about their lack of understanding and faith is in chapter 14.  Beginning with verse 10, Yahshua said:

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Then, a little further down, Yahshua foretold that they would come to believe what they didn’t quite grasp at that time after His death and resurrection:

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.  At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.  And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. (Jn. 14:19-20, 28-29)

No, John didn’t leave us without any insight into the further implications to Thomas’ words in 20:28.  Yahshua was in the Father, and the Father was in Him.  The words and works of Yahshua were not of Him, but of the Father who dwelled IN Him and was GREATER than Him.  Any honest reading of these passages reveals that He was carefully describing His oneness with the Father while maintaining a careful distinction between Him and the Father.  They wouldn’t and couldn’t understand this until after He was killed and raised from the dead.  Then, Yahshua said, they would not only know that He was in the Father, but they would be in Him, and He would be in them in similar fashion.  While recognizing that these concepts are difficult, the point to made here is not:  Clearly, none of this indicates a loss of distinction between the individuals involved, whether it be the Father, Yahshua, or the disciples.

In the final analysis, Yahshua’s God and Father remains the only true God, just as Yahshua said.  He is the God and Father of the apostles who personally witnessed His life, death, and resurrection, and the God and Father of the prophets before Him who spoke of Him.  Moreover, His God and Father is the God and Father of all the children of God who have been born of the Spirit since.  There is one true God, only one, and there is only one Mediator between God and men, the man Yahshua the Messiah.

Along with the other apostles, Thomas saw that man, the Lord Yahshua, alive and well after having been brutally killed and buried.  Having therefore seen with his own eyes, he “believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (Jn. 2:19)  The “word” that Yahshua had said included that His Father was the only true God, that He was greater than Him, and that they were one.  As Yahshua was in His Father and His Father in Him, so did it come to pass that Yahshua was in them, and they in Him.  According to Col. 1:27, it is this very thing, Christ in you, which is the hope of glory common to all the true children of God. 

You can believe that Yahshua meant exactly what He said, that His Father was the only true God, or you can believe that Thomas meant that the man standing before Him who said that His Father was the only true God was God Himself.  I suppose you could even believe that Yahshua was both God and not God, if you find that reasonable.  However, before assuming, contrary to the Scriptures, that God AS Christ was reconciling the world unto Himself, I would give careful consideration to the whole counsel of Scripture.  The facts are that in order to address the invisible God, one must address the only Mediator and Advocate we have, Yahshua, IN whom God was reconciling the world.  With this in mind, the true meaning of Thomas’ utterance makes perfectly good sense without contradicting or rendering into nonsense what Yahshua said about His relationship with the Father, who is the only true God.

 I thank God THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 7:25)

Home | FAQ | Message Boards | Site Map | Subject Index | Other Resources | We Believe...
Perilous Times | Unitarian Christology | Logically Speaking | Sacred Names | Faith-Doctrine