The Only True God
Jesus, in prayer to the Father, identified one individual as the only true God. (Joh. 17:3)  In his address to the Father he said to him, “You, the only true God.”  In other words, the Father was identified as the only true God.  Do we accept this? 

Trinitarians will quickly fire back, noting that the text does not say that only the Father is the true God, and this would be a proper observation, unless we were to follow the translation provided by Louw and Nida.  In their Greek lexicon, we note the following rendering: "that they may know you, the only one who is really God."[1]  In doing this, they take the Greek word for only, μονος, to be a substantive.  So it is rendered not simply as "only," but "only one."  This would mean that the Father alone is the true God, contrary to Trinitarian thought. Nevertheless, even if we disregard this point, we are still forced to note that Jesus distinguishes himself from the class of "only true God."

Consider that Jesus very well could have said the following: “That they may know the only true God, you and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”  Or he might have said, "That they might know us, the only true God. You and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."  In stating this both the Father and Jesus would have been placed within the class of “the only true God,” and yet contrary to this Jesus is distinguished from “the only true God.” 

From this text we establish that the Father is explicitly identified as “the only true God.”  Jesus is distinguished from this one, refuting the notion Jesus and the Father being only two modes of operation for a single individual.  Jesus is also distinguished from this category.  Again, not in that the Father is identified solely as this one, but that we read of “the only true God and Jesus Christ,” which is an explicit distinction.  One would have to assume Trinitarianism and read this text in a totally unnatural sense to state that Jesus was also “the only true God.”

It might be here that those holding Jesus to be the true God would bring up 1 John 5:20, which is a text worthy of discussion.  The text reads as follows:

And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting.

The argument made from this text is twofold: 1) Jesus Christ is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun translated “this,” and so it is argued that the subject for the final sentence must be Jesus.   2) Jesus Christ is identified as “everlasting life” within the epistle, (1Joh. 1:2) and so it is most natural that he is the one being spoken of within the text.  Yet do these arguments hold up?

On the first point we must note that the nearest antecedent is not always the correct one.  In fact, turning to 2 John 7 we find a prime example of this.  Here that same pronoun is used, and as in 1 John 5:20 the nearest antecedent is Jesus Christ.  However, we find that John 7 has the one referred to by the pronoun identified as “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  Even though Jesus is the nearest antecedent, he is obviously not the correct one.

On the point of Christ being identified as everlasting life, we must ask the basis of this and determine whether or not it is also a proper identification for God.  If we consider the entire 5th chapter of his first epistle we see the basis.  Note verse 11: “And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. “  In this text we see two key points.  God has given us everlasting life, showing him to be the source.  The place that this life now resides is in his Son. 

This text reminds us John 5:26, where Jesus expressed a similar thought when discussing the resurrection.  “For even as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in Himself.”  The basis for identifying Christ as everlasting life is that this life is in him, but the same is true of God.  As this is the case, both can properly be identified as “everlasting life.”

Now with this in mind some might object in noting that the Father is never explicitly identified as “everlasting life,” but in response to that we can just as easily note that Jesus is never spoken of as “true God.”  How then should we understand this text?

We must first observe that the Father is repeatedly identified as “the true one” within the text, placing emphasis on him as “true” and thus pointing to him as “the true God.”  Further though, when the text speaks of Jesus Christ, it does not do so with Christ as the primary focus.  The focus is upon “him,” “the true one” and so it does not simply speak of Jesus Christ, but it speaks of him as “[God's] son.”  The most natural reading of the text is for "the true one" to be "the true God," not Jesus Christ.

Having said this, we now note Loader’s observations: “The Greek of [1 John] 5:20 has only the true (one) and reads literally: we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding 'so that we know the true (one) and we are in the true (one)', in his Son Jesus Christ. 'This (one) is the true God and eternal life.' It is clear from this that 'the true (one)' is God [the Father] throughout. Christ is his Son. In the final sentence this (one) most naturally refers still to God, not to Christ, as some have suggested.”[2]

Robertson also confesses that the Father is the most natural antecedent to the pronoun.  He notes: “It is a bit tautological to refer it to God, but that is probably correct, God in Christ, at any rate. God is eternal life (John 5:26) and he gives it to us through Christ.”[3]  This is the view taken by Vincent as well.[4]

The One God
On more than one occasion we read about the one God of the Bible.  As with the true God, this one is established as Jehovah.  Yet again, does Scripture define this one God as three persons or one? 

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians contains this discussion's principle text.  There are several key points presented in this text that demand discussion, and in order to understand them it is necessary to consider the passage’s context. Therefore, we will consider the three verses within the passage.

1 Corinthians 8:4 Then concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God except one.

Paul is expressing the nothingness of idols.  Though many have identified various physical forms as “gods,” they are not really gods at all.  There is no knowledge, wisdom or power behind them.  They are simply nothing! Nevertheless, there is one that is truly God.  Paul does not yet answer tell us whom this is, but as we keep reading we will come to find out.

1 Corinthians 8:5 For even if some are called gods, either in the heavens or on the earth; (even as there are many gods, and many lords);

Some are called gods, or perhaps we better read this as “so-called gods.”  These are the idols.  They are so-called because again, they are really nothing.  They are simple metal, wood or dirt.  That they are in the heavens has caused confusion to many.  It has lead some to think that these are real beings that are called gods, yet Paul denied this in verse 4 when he identified them as nothing.  They are celestial objects such as the sun, the moon and stars.  People of the nations looked to these as gods, while others for them to be the residing places of gods.

While there are those that are simply "so-called gods," there are also "many gods and many lords."  Not those that are simply spoke of as gods, but ones that were truly such, such as the angels. (Psa. 8:5)  J-F-B's comments prove proper: “'For even supposing there are (exist) gods so called (2 Thessalonians 2. 4), whether in heaven (as the sun, moon, and stars) or in earth (as deified kings, beasts, etc.), as there be (a recognized fact, Deuteronomy 10.17; Psalm 135.5; 136.2) gods many and lords many.' Angels and men in authority are termed gods in Scripture, as exercising a divinely delegated power under God (compare Exodus 22.9, with v.28; Psalm 82.1, 6; John 10.34,35).”[5]

1Corinthians 8:6 but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

Paul had stated that there was “no other God except one.”  He identifies that one for us.  He does not define the “one God” as a Trinity, which he most easily could have done.  Rather, as with the only true God, it is only the Father that is categorized as such.  He is the source of all creation, the originator of it.  As such, it is said that it is “of” him.  This is translated from the preposition εκ, which literally denotes it coming out of him.

Yet then, if the Father is the one God, how is he not also the one Lord?  As Jesus is the one Lord, the Father must not be.  To say otherwise would simply be contrary to the identifications provided within the text.  This is what Trinitarians will do though.  They will state that the Father is the one God, but so are the Son and Holy Spirit.  In the same way, the Son is the one Lord, but so is the Father and Holy Spirit.  Yet, the text does not say this!  A Trinitarian must read their theology into the text, whereas we will simply accept it for what it says.

How then do we accept it?  As our one Lord, he is our master, our ruler and our owner in the most direct way.  We are still God’s, for all that is Christ’s is God’s (Joh. 17:10), yet at some level God has given us to Christ to fill a role in his place, for Jesus explains in prayer, “They were yours, and you gave them to me.” (Joh. 17:6).

Prior to Christ's coming, God had served directly as the Lord of Israel, without an intermediary.  Christ took the role of intermediary, and in doing so these ones became his.  The Expositor’s Greek Testament explains: “The ‘one Lord Jesus Christ’ is Mediator, as in I Tim. ii, 5.”[6]  He rules directly over the congregation, and though all things originate with God as the text defines, they come through Christ.  In that “they were” God’s when he exercised direct control over them, but they became Christ in that he now does this, and in doing so any command that comes from God goes through Christ to the congregation.  Jesus mediates, and in doing this he is the one that takes direct command of us.  As this is the case, he is properly identified as our only owner and master. (Jud. 1:3)

So while Trinitarians might attempt to overturn this simple passage on the grounds of God also being spoken of as “Lord,” such an argument lacks a foundation.  The title of "lord" is itself applicable to many, as is the title “God.”  Even the apostle John addresses one of the 24 elders as “my Lord.” (Rev. 7:14)  So rather than attempt to distort what the text quite simply and truthfully says, we accept it.

Having considered these points, let it now be noted that this verse does not stand alone in speaking on this matter.  Several other passages reinforce this view and so it proves worthwhile to consider these references.  As Scripture tells us, “at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.” (Mat. 18:16) 

Likely written in Rome sometime around 63 AD, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians reinforces the words of 1 Corinthians 8:6, serving as our second witness.  Speaking to the members of this congregation he spoke of “one God and Father of all, the one above all, through all and in all.” (Eph. 4:6)  That this is the Father is explicit within the text, and that he is distinguished from Jesus can be seen one verse prior to it, where the text mentions our “one Lord,” who per the context can only be Jesus. (Eph. 4:5; 3:11, 14)            

As our third witness, 1 Timothy 2:5 speaks of the one God, here distinguished from Christ.  We read: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.”  The one God in this text cannot be Jesus, for he is the one that mediates between mankind and God.  As with Ephesians, this reference can only be to the Father.

Our final witness comes from the letter to the Romans.  This text is not explicit, but an examination of the context proves to be conclusive.  In Romans 3:30 we read of the “one God who will justify circumcision by faith.”  Looking back to verses 23 and 24 we see that it is this God who “sent forth” Jesus Christ.  Again, this text is can only be a reference to the Father, and so it is the Father that is identified as the “one God,” not anyone else.

The God of the Old Testament
We have so far demonstrated that the Father is the one true God, who is the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Still a Trinitarian will maintain that we have not eliminated the possibility of Christ fitting in as a distinct person of the Triune God.  While it is true that we have not presented any text that says Christ cannot be a person of that God, the simple fact is that Scripture teaches that the Father is this one true God, not anyone else.   

At least one passage does remove any possibility of Jesus being the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah.  Looking to Hebrews 1:1 we read of the God “who spoke to the Fathers in the prophets.”  This is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, who spoke through Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, etc.  This is the one true God, the Almighty, who “alone is the most high.” (Psa. 83:18)

How does this eliminate Jesus from being Jehovah?  If we keep reading we learn that this God who spoke to the Fathers in the prophets, who is Jehovah, has more recently spoken to us “in a son,” who is Jesus.  No clearer distinction can be drawn that this. The God of the Old Testament performed an activity then through the prophets, which he now does through Jesus.  This text then completely eliminates the possibility of Jesus being the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures.  If Jesus were Jehovah, that would mean that Jesus spoke in Jesus, which would make no sense whatsoever.[7]

Some will object on the grounds of numerous texts being applied to Jesus that were originally applied to God.  Numerous attributes that are applied to God are also applied to him, but these prove to be matters of interpretation.  It is an interpretation that these text demonstrate Jesus to be Jehovah, for there are numerous text that are applied to ones other than God within the Hebrew Scriptures that are quoted and applied to Christ, all without equating them ontologically.[8] 

When this text, by explicit statement, distinguishes Jesus from Jehovah, do we accept it or do we try to maneuver the clear meaning of the text to formulate a view that would allow us to maintain a theology that would be contradicted by the natural meaning of the text?  If we are honest with the text we will find that a number of passages within the Hebrew Scriptures come much more naturally.  We read that Jehovah is the God of the Messiah (Mic. 5:4) and that Jehovah is the Father of Israel (1Ch. 29:10; Isa. 63:16; 64:8).  Just as he is their Father, so he is the Father of Jesus Christ. (Joh. 20:17).  We do not need to attempt to qualify these unqualified statements or given them a meaning outside of the distinction they draw.  We simply accept them at face value, just as we would if the person being spoken of were anyone other than Jesus in relation to God.

To add further to the weight of evidence, we note that the Apostles and early disciples considered "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" to be the Father alone, not the Son.  The Son was not termed only the Son of the Father, but he was the son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Act. 3:13; 25-26; 22:14)  In weight of the simple and yet powerful evidence we must conclude that the one God, the Almighty is Jehovah, the Father.  As the Expositor’s Greek Testament explains, “The ‘one God’ of O[ld] T[estament] monotheism is ‘to us one God the Father’.”[9]