Jude 4, John 17:1-3, and “only” arguments

On Facebook recently I received a worthy question:

So John 17:3 is one of Unitarian dominant texts. I’ve heard many of Dale Tuggy’s podcasts expounding on this specific phrase to emphasize that the Father is the only true God, that “only” means that there can’t be any other true Gods. However, how would you answer Trinitarians who bring up Jude 4 as a counter argument? Jude 4 also says that Jesus is our “only Master and Lord” (the exact “only” construct), but this surely doesn’t mean that the Father cannot be our Lord also.

By the way this was brought up during the recent bad 3 vs 3 Unitarians vs Trinitarians debate and it was never answered satisfactorily by the Unitarians so that was disappointing.

Cuong Dang Facebook post, links added by Dale

Before continuing I recommend that you read the text from John and the text from Jude. I recall that in my debate with Dr. Michael Brown, late in it he gestured at such an argument, but he did not clearly formulate it. I think I’ve heard James White argue this way too, and others.

The basic idea is that something is clearly wrong with the Jude argument, and so something must also be wrong with the John argument. I guess he’s thinking something like this regarding Jude:

1. If Jude 4 says that Jesus is our “only Master and Lord,” then the Father can’t truly be called either “Master” or “Lord.” (assume for reductio)
2. Jude 4 says that Jesus is our “only Master and Lord.”
3. The Father can’t truly be called either “Master” or “Lord.” (from 1, 2 by modus ponens)
4. But the Father can truly be called “Lord”. (Luke 1:32)
5. 1-4 contain a contradiction. (3, 4)
6. At least one of 1, 2, 4 is false. (1-5, reductio ad absurdum)
7. But we should not deny 2 or 4. (Jude 1:4, Luke 1:32)
8. Therefore, we should deny 1. (6,7)

This, I agree, is a valid and sound argument. It shows us a good reason to deny the first premise.

The lesson, then, is that likewise we should reject the unitarian’s argument from John 17:1-3. I guess the argument is supposed to be something like this:

1. If John 17:1-3 says that the Father is “the only true God” then no one else can truly be called either “God” or “true God.” (assume for reductio)
2. John 17:1-3 says that the Father is “the only true God”
3. No one other than the Father can truly be called either “God” or “true God.” (from 1, 2 by modus ponens)
4. But Jesus can truly be called “God.” (Hebrews 1:8)
5. 1-4 contain a contradiction. (3, 4)
6. At least one of 1, 2, 4 is false. (1-5, reductio ad absurdum)
7. But we should not deny 2 or 4. (John 17:1-3; Hebrews 1:8)
8. Therefore, we should deny 1. (6,7)

This, I agree, is a valid and sound argument. It shows us a good reason to deny the first premise.

Does this refute the unitarian who appeals to John 17:1-3 as implying or assuming unitarian theology? No, not in the slightest! No unitarian should agree with either first premise above. That anyone might suppose that we do probably derives from confusions about words and quotation marks.

It’s easier to see in a non-theological example; hang tight, and we’ll be back to theology and christology in a minute. Suppose your friend Bob has a girlfriend, a quasi-wife named Shirley, who he introduces as his “partner.” Also, Bob co-owns a Dry-Cleaning business with a man named Joe. At a meeting of local business owners, Bob introduces people to his “partner” Joe, meaning his business partner of course. If someone asks if there are other co-owners of the Dry-Cleaning business, Joe says, “No, Joe is my only partner.” A few days later, he’s talking to some friend of his who is into polyamory. Bob tells her, “Shirley is my only partner.” Should we infer either that Shirley and Joe are one and the same person, or that Bob is lying in one of the two previous “only” statements? No, of course not! Clearly, Bob has asserted that he has just one life-partner, and that he has just one business-partner. The term “partner” can mean either of those two things, and both of his “only partner” claims were true. He never said he only had one “partner” (note the quotation-marks) – that is, only one who is called “partner.” That is false, and neither of his original “only” statements implied it. We all understand that having one partner (of either kind) doesn’t imply having only one “partner” (i.e. only one person called that).

Back to Jude 1:4: Jesus is indeed our unique Master and Lord, but that doesn’t imply that no one else could be called by those titles. Obviously, God too is called both “Lord” (kurios) and “Master” (despotes) in some places in the New Testament. Jesus being our unique Master and Lord doesn’t require that those terms can’t be used of others.

Now John 17:1-3 clearly assumes that the one God and the Father are one and the same, and that no one else has the status: true God. Does this mean that no one else can be called “god” or “God”? No, of course not. As I’ve put it elsewhere, monotheism (there being just one god) doesn’t imply mono-theos-ism (that only one can truly be called “god”), and the Bible everywhere assumes the truth of the first and the falsity of the second.

Just as with our real-life example, the terms here, “Master,” “Lord,” and “God,” can be and are used in different senses in the New Testament. Jesus himself points this out about “god” in John 10:34-35. About “Master,” see the examples in the link above; basically, a “Master” is someone above us – but is anyone else above him? If the answer is no, we’re using “Master” in a sense that can only apply to God Almighty, i.e. the Father. About “Lord,” notice that Luke sometimes removes the ambiguity for us, e.g. Luke 1:32, Luke 2:11. All the New Testament authors are aware of this ambiguity and so they steer carefully around it, usually (but not always) making clear who is meant, God, or Jesus. And commonly, “Lord” is used for someone other than God, as in the new Christian confession of one God (i.e. the Father) and one Lord (i.e. Jesus) (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5-6; John 20:28). But of course they all think that in the highest sense of “Lord” only Yahweh (i.e. the Father) is “Lord” (Mark 12:29). Just as with “Master,” an absolute top-level “Lord” can only be God. But Jesus is “Lord” as one who is under God (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28; Revelation 3:12; John 20:17).

In sum, nothing about Jude 4 in any way undermines or refutes the claims I’ve made about John 17:1-3 here, here, and here. About the ambiguity of the terms “God,” “Master,” and “Lord,” I urge you to consult your nearest New Testament Greek lexicon. I’ve not assumed anything controversial about these words in this post.

Sidenote: In the second premise 4 above, I might have added “true God,” citing 1 John 5:20. But in my view Jesus is not being called “true God” there, contrary to some English versions. I take it that the force of “true” here is “real,” communicating that “God” here is being used in the highest or most demanding sense. I don’t think a New Testament author would apply “true God” to Jesus. But of course, the sort of unitarian who believes in pre-existence and in the 325 Nicene Creed, e.g. Eusebius the historian, would accept Jesus as “true God from true God” (i.e. from the Father, the unique God). At any rate, I didn’t add “true God” above so that both arguments would be both valid and sound.