The John 17:3 Fallacy, Exegetical Suicide

The Exclusionary Category Error

The Central ThesisThe modifier 'only' functions restrictively against the category of false idols, not reflexively against the Divine Son who exists within the Godhead.

The Unitarian objection relies on a nursery-level reading of the adjective monos ("only"), assuming it creates a numerical limit that expels the Son from the category of Deity. This ignores standard Greek syntax where exclusionary adjectives differentiate the subject from competing external categories (polytheistic idols), not from intrinsic relational partners.

• The application of this rigid exclusionary logic collapses the New Testament. In Jude 4, Jesus is called "our only (monos) Master and Lord." Under the critic's own hermeneutic, this verse would strip the Father of all Lordship and Sovereignty, rendering Him a non-Master.
• The distinction in John 17:3 is clearly between the Father (the source of the Godhead) and the world of false gods, not between the Father and the Son. Jesus defines the Father as the "only true God" in opposition to the lies of the Greco-Roman pantheon.
• This creates a theological absurdity by forcing a distinction of essence where the text only supplies a distinction of person. The Son is distinguished from the Father relationally, but never ontologically separated from the nature of the "True God."

The Argument from Pre-Existent Glory

The Central ThesisThe immediate context of verse 5 destroys the Unitarian premise by attributing to Christ a glory that Yahweh explicitly claimed He would never share with a creature.

The critic conveniently stops reading at verse 3. Two verses later (John 17:5), Jesus commands the Father to "glorify me... with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." This claim obliterates the "created agent" model through the assertion of shared, pre-temporal divine prerogative.

• Jesus claims para soi (face-to-face) pre-existence and possession of divine glory pro tou ton kosmon einai (before the cosmos was). No creature can exist "before the cosmos" without being uncreated.
• In Isaiah 42:8, Yahweh declares, "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other." If Jesus were a created being or merely a human agent, his request in John 17:5 would be an act of supreme blasphemy—attempting to seize the unique prerogative of Yahweh.
• The only resolution that maintains biblical consistency is the homoousios reality: Jesus can request this glory because it is natively His. He is not "another" to whom glory is transferred, but the Second Person of the Trinity returning to his eternal state.

The Interpretive Key of 1 John 5:20

The Central ThesisThe Johannine corpus interprets itself, explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as the "True God" to close the theological loop opened in the Gospel.

To cite John 17:3 as a denial of Christ's deity requires isolating the verse from the author's own conclusion. John later reuses the exact phraseology ("true God") and applies it directly to the Son, demonstrating that "True God" is a shared nature, not a Father-exclusive title.

• John 17:3 defines the Father as "true God" to exclude idols; 1 John 5:20 closes the argument by identifying Jesus Christ as "the true God and eternal life."
• The Greek grammar in 1 John 5:20 (houtos estin) refers to the nearest antecedent, which is Jesus Christ. To argue otherwise requires gymnastic distortion of the text to skip over the Son and point back to the Father.
• The conceptual parallel is undeniable: In John 17:3, knowing the Father and Son is "eternal life"; in 1 John 5:20, Jesus is the "true God and eternal life." The Son is the embodiment of the very life that defines the Father's deity.