Therefore Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not of myself, but of the One having sent me. If anyone desires to do His (God's) will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or I speak from myself.
What does this passage teach us about the relationship between Jesus and God? Traditionally Christians have taught that Jesus is God, but at face value this does not seem to be the teaching of this passage.
““Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! 1 I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. 2 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. “Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The Lord loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way. Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning 3 I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” 4 And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.” Isaiah 48:12-16
1 Who is the first and the last in this passage? God
Who calls himself the first and the last?
““And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.” Revelation 2:8
2 Who does this passage claim to be the creator? God
Who does the NT say is creator?
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” Colossians 1:16
3 Who has not spoken in secret in this passage? God
Who in the New Testament spoke openly and not in secret?
“Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.” John 18:20
4 Who has the Lord God and His Spirit sent according to this passage? The Narrator. Who is the Narrator? God
God sends God. God’s Spirit sends God.
“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” John 17:3
Now to your passage
“So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” John 7:16
Who sent who in Isaiah?
God sent God.
What does Jesus say? That He was sent by God. Is he denying that he is God? Not at all
“If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” John 7:17
Jesus did not represent himself, he represented GOD. He was sent.
“So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, “You know me, and you know where I come from. But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.”” John 7:28-29
Let’s contrast that again
God speaking:
“And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.” Isaiah 48:16
John 7:17’s Jesus can be God, in fact can only be God. There is no alternative.
And when the Lord says that Holy Spirit “will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears” (John 16:13), does He mean that Holy Spirit is not the co-source of those words along with the Father, as He, Jesus Christ Himself is?
In fact, it is a foul play to present a truncated quotation, not giving the full context, for the sentence goes on (v. 18): "Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him." Now, does not He say here that He searches not for His glory, but for the glory of the Father, the glory that eternally pertains to the Father? But what is this glory? Is not it the same glory which He also shared with the Father even before the universe was created (John 17:5)? Yes, it is. Thus, it is clear that when He says that He searches for the glory of the Father, it is implied that He searches the manifestation of that same glory among humans, that He shares with the Father from all eternity, thus His own glory also. If so, then the words of the Father through which He manifests the Father's glory to men, are not they His own words also, for what is manifested through them, the glory, is also His? Yes, they are His words, for through them He manifests His and the Father's jointly possessed glory.
In fact, when He denies that He does not speak out of Himself, He claims His divinity exactly by this very phrase then, for He implies that not only does not He speak out of Himself, but that He cannot speak out of Himself alone, but that speaking the words manifesting the Father's glory, He does this speaking jointly with the Father, as paradoxical as that may sound. Actually, that is not that paradoxical if we consider that even a prophet when speaks the word of God does not speak alone but jointly with God, however no prophet can say a blasphemy that "I cannot speak but jointly with God", whereas that is exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ says: "On my own I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear [i.e. from the Father] and My judgement is just, for I seek not to please Myself, but Him who sent Me" (John 5:30). Prophets, and angels, can do on their own also, they can even fall and act in a self-willed way that is against God's will, whereas the Lord Jesus cannot, revealing His ontological difference from both prophets and angels, and this ontological difference is that between only God and creatures, while the Lord Jesus Christ is necessarily in the first part of this antithetical pair.
Exactly this is the meaning of the 7:28 when He claims that He did not come on His own, but the Father sent Him, does it mean that He ever could come on His own, or that He is unable to act outside of authority of the Father, which authority He fully shares? Of course this is the case, for otherwise He would be not the Son of the Father, but a slave of the Father, who He definitely is not (John 8:35). Thus, ergo, the Son enjoys fully the authority of the Father for even the Latter cannot exert this authority but through the Son. And that shared authority is also in Their shared knowledge of Each Other, for immediately the Lord claims that unlike humans, He knows the Father (John 7:28), and knows Him (the Father) as is known Himself (the Son) by Him (the Father) (John 10:15). This mutual full knowledge means by itself full divinity of both the Father and the Son.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17, KJV)
John 7:17, like many other passages in the Bible, teaches that God and Jesus were distinct entities from each other.
To understand the Bible's teaching on any point, it is always important to consider all other verses on the same subject, to discover the sum and the balance of their truths, and to use the Bible to explain itself. In the table below, a number of these texts are provided that illustrate the same truth as is found in John 7:17, contrasted with the parallel truths that God and Jesus are "one," and that God (the Father) is "one."
| God and Jesus Are Separate | God and Jesus Are One | God/Father Is One |
|---|---|---|
| And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. (John 8:16, KJV) | I and my Father are one. (John 10:30, KJV) | One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:6, KJV) |
| If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. (John 15:24, KJV) | And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: (John 17:22, KJV) | That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:6, KJV) |
| Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32, KJV) | And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (John 17:11, KJV) | But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:6, KJV) |
| That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21, KJV) | That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21, KJV) | Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. (John 8:41, KJV) |
| These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: (John 17:1, KJV) | Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. (John 8:19, KJV) | And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3, KJV) |
| For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV) | If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (John 14:7, KJV) | And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9, KJV) |
Naturally, the apparent "oneness" of the Father and Jesus can be said to be a unity between them, for it is likened to the oneness Jesus desires his disciples to have with his Father. Clearly, the disciples will never be God, nor could ever be God, so their oneness does not apply to oneness of being. Neither were Jesus and the Father the same being. They are two, united in purpose, but divided in that God is spirit while Man is flesh.
God (the Father) was in Christ, as Jesus taught plainly, but Christ was not the Father. Had Christ been the Father (God), why would he have addressed the Father in his prayer? The Father need not pray to Himself, nor does God pray to God.
In Conclusion:
Jesus and the Father are separate entities, yet one in spirit and in purpose.
Update: Answers to Questions
Q: You say ”Jesus and the Father are separate entities, yet one in spirit and in purpose” please explain “one in spirit”.
A: This is an important and valid question. I had actually left it intentionally simple so as not to complicate the answer, but intending the expression to have a dual meaning. To clarify, let us consider the Bible's own usage of the expression "in spirit."
| Reference | Passage with "in spirit" |
|---|---|
| Prov 29:23 | A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit. |
| Eccl 7:8 | Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. |
| Isa 29:24 | They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. |
| Mat 5:3 | Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. |
| Mat 22:43 | He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, |
| Luk 1:80 | And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel. |
| Luk 2:40 | And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. |
| Luk 10:21 | In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. |
| Joh 4:23 | But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. |
| Joh 4:24 | God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. |
| Joh 13:21 | When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. |
| Rom 12:11 | Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; |
| 1Cor 5:3 | For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, |
In these texts, the term "spirit" is used to mean one's character, ideals, or seat of emotions--alluding to one's perspective, mood, or attitude. A similar word in these cases might be "soul," but translators (at least of the KJV) were careful to differentiate between "soul" (Greek ψυχή/psyche) and "spirit" (Greek πνεῦμα/pneuma), both of which can also be translated as "breath." The Bible itself indicates how similar these words are in Hebrews 4:12 where God's word is likened to a two-edged sword that is capable of dividing between them.
When speaking of Jesus and the Father being "one in spirit" in this sense, I refer to them as being in agreement, in unity, in these characteristics. They have the same perspective, character, and attitude. When using this sense of meaning, I refer to Jesus (the man) and the Father (God) as separate entities who work together in unity.
But there is another sense of "spirit" which could legitimately apply. Jesus said "God is (a) spirit" (John 4:24). God is not made of flesh and blood as we are. He is a spiritual being: immortal, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. The Father, who IS spirit, was in Christ. Thus, Christ had his own human spirit, just as any of us has a spirit, and Christ also had the Spirit of God, the Father, dwelling in him. God is not said to have two spirits, but one (see Eph. 2:18; 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Deut. 6:4). Therefore, the spirit of God dwelling in Jesus was God's actual presence and Being.
Q: Just so I understand, are you saying that God is three personalities in one, that is that there is God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit?
A: No. The Bible does not teach that God is three personalities. The Bible is clear that God is one single entity (see 1 Cor. 8:6; John 17:1-3; 1 Tim. 2:5; Deut. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Eph. 4:6; Jam. 2:19). The Bible indicates, however, that God, who is omnipresent, was present in Christ (see 2Cor. 5:19). Christ, whose humanity veiled the presence of God (see Hebrews 10:20), was God's representative to mankind. Simultaneously, as flesh-and-blood man, he is man's representative and mediator to God (see 1 Timothy 2:5).
Note that saying "God the Spirit" is actually spiritualism, as I outlined in another answer HERE.
An important thing to keep in mind here: "God" is most likely not being used ontologically in the NT, as we use it today. There is strong evidence in the NT to suggest that the Apostles were using it as a substitute-term for "YHWH". An example of this is Hebrews 2:13, which quotes from Isaiah 8:18:
Note: In this verse, if you go back to the beginning of the speech, YHWH is the one who is speaking. It is YHWH who is waiting to receive children from another YHWH. Hebrews is saying that this YHWH who is waiting to receive children is Yeshua. "God" — or the "Father" — is the other YHWH who gives the children, therefore.
There is at least one other verse that shows "God" being used like this, but I can't remember where to find it.
Anyway, this ultimately follows from the fact that in hebrew, the only word that meant the same thing as we mean when we say "God" is the word "YHWH", which is ontological, and that's because we use "God" as the name of YHWH and not "YHWH" as the name of YHWH. So "God" has become ontological for us because it is given the meanings that YHWH gave only to "YHWH". But there is another reason besides this one that explains why reading "God" as an ontological term in the NT is incorrect.
"God" is a title ("ha-elohim") in ancient hebrew, not a statement of nature/being. This is similar to ha-satan ("the Satan", which in English we write as "Satan") and ha-maschiach ("the Messiah", which we do accurately write in English for some reason). There are many Satans, but only one who is the Satan. Many messiahs, but only one who is the Messiah. Many antichrists, but only one who is the Antichrist. Many lords (adon), but only one who is the Lord (ha-adon). In short, whatever "elohim" meant, ha-Elohim (God) means that YHWH is the definitive that — just like the Satan is the definivitive Satan, Yeshua is the definitive Messiah, Yeshua is the definitive Lord (note: hopefully you see the problem here being Unitarian and calling Yeshua "ha-adon").
Granted, there are ontological terms that work this way as well. There are many spirits (ruach) but only one who is the Spirit (ha-ruach), better known as the Holy Spirit (ruach ha kodesh). But we can know that elohim isn't ontological because it's applied on top of ontological terms. There are spirits who are called elohim, obviously, and there are also human beings who are called elohim (Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9). It doesn't stand alone as an ontological term.
Further, as mentioned above, "Lord" is also a YHWH term when applied to Yeshua. But more importantly, there is strong evidence to suggest that "Lord" also doubles as a YHWH substitute term when applied to Yeshua. This comes from Romans 10 and its quote from Joel, for example:
This then explains why "Lord" in Phillipians 2:11 is being treated the same as "Monogenes" in 1 John 1:14, both of which are pre-Pauline oral traditions (they are hymns / creeds in particular): they both demand the qualification of "God" as "Father" later into the hymns / creeds but not in the beginning, and this happens due to some need for clarification that is immediately created via the use of "Lord" and "Monogenes", such that we can see a Trinitarian necessity for the language.
(Note: This means that the confession that saves is that Yeshua is LORD — not Lord: that is, the confession that saves is that Yeshua is YHWH. Idk if this is acceptable to say, but it is important theologically: this is why unitarians and gnostics etc don't have the fruit of the Spirit. Since the confession that saves is that Yeshua is YHWH, those who deny that Yeshua is the incarnate-YHWH are servants of the Antichrist and can never be born-again (1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 1:7). Or, they could be newborn sons of YHWH who are simply suckered in atm, but those people are a vast minority. They are teaching the Antichrist and preparing the world for his arrival and are in no way born-again, unless they're part of that very small minority of suckered in newborns. This is always a very very serious issue.)
So when Unitarians read "God" as being ontological, they are very poorly mistaken, and trapped in anachronistic readings of the language.
What the verse means, then, in light of all of this, is that God and Yeshua are distinct. Ontology is not the concern of the language.
Tl;dr your face value view of the text is an anachronism. The face value view of the text is how the original readers would have read it, not how we read it in modern times. "God" is ontological for us but wasn't ontological for them. So, ontology is not the concern of the distinction in the verse. Compare this to Genesis 22:12 and Genesis 22:15-16, where the angel of YHWH first speaks as himself (identifying himself as the God from v2, which also happens with Jacob — Genesis 28:13 compared to Genesis 31:11-13 compared to Genesis 35:1) and then speaks a prophecy from YHWH. This is the exact same thing that's happening in 7:17. Yeshua is the angel of YHWH, incarnate, and the angel of YHWH is YHWH, but also distinct from him (the Trinity).
(As a side note, this is why YHWH appears to speak in 3rd person in the OT sometimes. There are 3 YHWH, or 3 who are YHWH — or 3 who are God. However you want to phrase it.)
Therefore Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not of myself, but of the One having sent me. If anyone desires to do His (God’s) will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or I speak from myself.
Despite ontological debates these topics generally ignite, the teaching here is quite simple. You may plug it into your favorite theological ontology as you wish. This scripture clearly implies that Jesus and God are distinguishable such that it is possible that Jesus could say something that comes from his will alone and not from God.
The idea of distinguishable wills between Jesus and God is reflected in the following word’s form Jesus:
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Also, we may notice that Jesus doesn’t teach from himself but teaches what ultimately originates from the God who sent him. The relationship implied between Jesus and God here is that God is the origin of a matter and Jesus is his conduit through whom the matter comes.
The idea of distinguishing God as the origin and Jesus as the conduit is consistent with and communicated even more exhaustively in the following verse:
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
I say communicated more exhaustively here since, instead of only stating that messianic teaching originates from God and comes through Jesus Christ, it is related that all things ultimately originate from God and come through Jesus Christ.
John 7:17 teaches that in Jesus' relationship with God, Jesus has a will distinguishable from God yet he is the faithful conduit of teaching that ultimately originates from God.
What does John 7:17 teach us about Jesus' relationship with God?
John 7:16-17 NASB
16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not My own, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is of God, or I am speaking from Myself.
What does this passage teach us about the relationship between Jesus and God? Traditionally Christians have taught that Jesus is God, but at face value, this does not seem to be the teaching of this passage.
Jesus explains that what he is teaching is not his, but of God that sent him. This teaches us that Jesus's teachings are in harmony with God's Law and that he is not seeking glory for himself, but gives glory to God his Father.
Traditionally Christians have taught that Jesus is God
Traditional Christianity never taught that Jesus is God-the-Father, which is what the word God usually refers to in Scripture; Sabellians were not Trinitarians.
"My teaching is not of myself, but of the One having sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or I speak from myself." (John 17:7)
If one applies Christ's teachings in their life, then one can witness for oneself whether, or to what extent, said teachings help sanctify the soul, and thus ascertain whether they do indeed come from God Himself, the ultimate source of all holiness, or are just mere human inventions (like the Pharisaic obsessions with circumcision and clean meats, which never brought any actual or genuine improvement to the moral character of their fervent adherents).
What does John 7:17 teach us about Jesus' relationship with God?
Therefore Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not of myself, but of the One having sent me. If anyone desires to do His (God's) will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or I speak from myself.
What does this passage teach us about the relationship between Jesus and God? Traditionally Christians have taught that Jesus is God, but at face value this does not seem to be the teaching of this passage.
The Relationship between God and Jesus in the Gospel of John 17 is seen as a servant to God. Jesus never initiates anything because all his actions are of God showing Him and telling him what he wants him to do.
In this capacity he is seen as the servant to the circumcision.
For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, Rom 15:8
The Scriptures listed below are all from John 17 from the YLT translation. The same chapter that the first question was referred to.
Thou didst give to him authority over all flesh, that — all that Thou hast given to him — he may give to them life age-during; John 17:1-2
that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ the work I did finish that Thou hast given me
glorify Thou Father, with Thyself
Thou hast given to me out of the world; Thine they were, and to me Thou hast given them
Now they have known that all things, as many as Thou hast given to me, are from Thee
truly, that from Thee I came forth
Thou didst send me.
that they may be one as we
I have given to them Thy word
In the Book of Hebrews a revelation of a new relationship is stated between God and His Son Jesus.
This happened after he had provided purification for sins.
After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Heb 1:3
He was now sitting down at the right hand of majesty on high since his work has been completed. God brings new honor and glory to His son that he has created everything through.
God now calls his son God.
And unto the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign; Thou didst love righteousness, and didst hate lawlessness; because of this did He anoint thee — God, thy God — with oil of gladness above thy partners;’
God has given His son a new title for the next two ages that are coming as he will be ruling from his throne that the Father has given him.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Colossians 1:15
God is invisible. The son is his image.
The word for image is 1504 eikṓn (from 1503 /eíkō, "be like") – properly, "mirror-like representation,"
Image (1504 /eikṓn) then exactly reflects its source
Christ is the very image of God.
John 3:34 For he whom God[ho theos] has sent. With "ho".The Father sent the Son 1 John 4:14
John 4:24 God[ho theos]is spirit. With "ho". We worship the Father, e.g. Our Father in heaven.
John 5:25 the Son of God [tou theou]. With "tou" because he is the Son of the Father.
John 6:27 God [ho theos]the Father. With "ho" the Father.
John 7:17 from God[tou theou] or I. With "tou"; he will know whether the teaching is from the Father or whether I [the Son] am speaking on my own.
John 1:1 "pros ton theon"/the Father. As opposed to "theos en ho logos" i.e. theos without the article "God".
Regarding John 1:1 "ton theon having the article, means the Father" quoted from "Cambridge Greek Testament For Schools and Colleges".
