“All things have been committed to me by my Father ...” (Matthew 11:27)

“All things have been committed to me by my Father, No one knows the son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the son and those to whom the son chooses to reveal Him.” (Matthew 11:27)

What does Jesus mean by 'all things'?

The phrase, "all things" has been translated from the Greek word πᾶς (pas). This can mean "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything" according to the lexicon.

It can also mean "some of all types" when used collectively.

The choice of "all things" together with "committed to me by my Father" suggests that Jesus has control over everything. This is not correct. In fact, the word πᾶς (pas) requires a subject - the element being described. For example, the same word was used in verses including "all the generations," "all Jerusalem," "all the chief priests" and so on - where πᾶς (pas) is all, followed by the element being described.

In the same way, there is another element described as "all" here: knowledge. This is clearly indicated in the phrase, "no one knows ..."

The word "knows," used twice - from the Greek word ἐπιγινώσκω (epiginōskō), meaning "to know accurately, know well" - is followed by "reveal" - from the Greek word ἀποκαλύπτω (apokalyptō), which means to "disclose," "to make known," "make manifest."

This means that Jesus is speaking of knowledge. He is stating that all knowledge has been given to him by the Supreme Being. The word "committed" here is taken from the Greek word παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi), which means to "to given into the hands (of another)," "to commit, to commend" and "to deliver verbally" according to the lexicon.

Thus, we can understand that Jesus is saying that all knowledge has been given - granted - delivered - to "the son." And what is to be considered "all" knowledge?

Knowing the Supreme Being. This is clearly stated by Jesus:
"no one knows the Father except the son"
So is Jesus saying that he is the only one who knows the Father - no one but Jesus?

Is Jesus the only one who 'knows the Father'?

Such a translation and interpretation would mean that Jesus is saying that Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David and so many others who conversed directly with the Supreme Being and followed His instructions did not know the Supreme Being. That is preposterous. Knowing the Supreme Being was the foundation of the works and wisdom of these great Prophets and devoted followers of the Supreme Being.

For example, prior to Samuel's training, it says:
"Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD: The Word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him." (1 Samuel 3:7)
This indicates clearly that Samuel did come to know the Supreme Being - once "the word of the Lord" had been revealed. This is confirmed at the end of 1 Samuel 3:
The LORD continued to appear at Shiloh, and there He revealed Himself to Samuel through His Word. (1 Samuel 3:21)
The Supreme Being made Himself known to others like Abraham and Moses. Consider what the Supreme Being said to Abraham:
“Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.” (Gen 15:1)
Many other instances illustrate that Abraham knew the Supreme Being. Consider what the Supreme Being said to Moses:
“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6)
He also said to Moses:
“I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14)
Exchanges between the Supreme Being and His loving servants continue throughout the Scriptures. Are we saying that none of these devoted servants of God knew God - even though they preached to others the glories of the Supreme Being? Such a thesis makes no sense.

What does 'no one knows the Father except the son' mean?

The key to the meaning of Jesus' statement lies within the translation of the Greek word υἱός (huios) to "son." 

And the key to understanding the use of "son" (that is, if this is the correct translation) here is the fact that Jesus is using this word in the third person.

Jesus did not say "no one knows the Father except me." He specifically spoke of someone else knowing the Father. Otherwise, Jesus would have used the word "me" - from the Greek μοι (moi) - in the first sentence with exclusivity.

Yet Jesus makes no suggestion in the Greek that he personally holds an exclusive knowledge of God.

Then in the next sentence, he switches to the third person with υἱός (huios) (incorrectly translated to "son"). Why? Why didn't he continue with "me" or "I" here to confirm that only he has ever known the Supreme Being? 

Because Jesus is not referring exclusively to himself. He is referring to a role. Those who are in that position incorrectly translated as "son."

How many people speak of themselves in the third person? They don't. People don't say about themselves, "the person standing here is named Fred" - they say "my name is Fred."

So Jesus is referring to the word υἱός (huios) in the third person. Who is the υἱός (huios)?

Is Jesus the only 'Son of God'?

Translating υἱός (huios) to "son" in an exclusive way (meaning only son) would essentially be saying that Jesus is the only offspring of the Supreme Being. This would mean that the Supreme Being is basically impotent.

While any healthy male can have literally dozens of children in his lifetime - God can only have one son? That is a preposterous thesis regarding the Supreme Being and the Creator of all.

The reality is that the word "son" is being translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios) which means, according to the lexicon, "in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)." 

"In a restricted sense," means this is a limited definition. It does not cover an expanded meaning and uses of the word. That definition would only apply in the context of a physical offspring in this world.

Otherwise, if you tried to expand this use to apply broadly to God's creation, then you would have to say that we are all "sons" (i.e., children) of God.

But this is not the context of Jesus' statement.

Thayer's lexicon further defines υἱός (huios) as, "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." 

This latter meaning would be applicable to Jesus' use of this word in the context of his statement.

In this context, the word υἱός (huios) would be describing someone who was a "devoted follower" or "servant" of God.

This expands the meaning of Jesus' statement and clarifies it. Only someone who is a devoted follower of God truly knows God. That makes complete sense, and it also fits the reasoning why Jesus was using this term in the third person:

It is describing himself as well as others who are devoted followers of God.

This translation of υἱός (huios) also fits perfectly with the other uses of υἱός (huios) as spoken by Jesus:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children [υἱός (huios)] of God." (Matt. 5:9)

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children [υἱός (huios)] of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:44-45)

"And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people [υἱός (huios)] drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." (Matt. 12:27)

"They are God's children [υἱός (huios)], since they are children [υἱός (huios)] of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child [υἱός (huios)] of hell as you are." (Matt. 23:15)
We can see in these statements that the word υἱός (huios) has an expanded meaning, relating to those who are devoted followers or servants of something, if not followers of God.

And within the context of Jesus' statement - especially in the third person, it is clear that Jesus is referring to others who are devoted followers of the Supreme Being.

Yes, he can include himself in this equation. But the reason he says this in the third person is that Jesus is including others who had dedicated their lives to God, including the Prophets.

Thus we could better translate this statement to (as is found in the Lost Gospels of Jesus):
“All these things have been given to me by my LORD, as no one knows the Servant except the Creator. Nor does anyone know the Creator except the Servant – and anyone to whom the Servant pleases to reveal Him to.

Is this a special relationship?

In other words, the loving servant of God has developed a confidential relationship with the Supreme Being. This relationship is known only by the Supreme Being and only to loving servants of the Supreme Being. 

A loving servant of God understands the Supreme Being by virtue of having love for God and by being the Supreme Being's servant. This makes being the humble and loving servant of the Supreme Being the most exalted position, as Jesus has indicated.

The concept that Jesus was the exclusive son of God was created as a political measure by the Roman Empire and solidified during the Councils of Nicaea. These were politically assembled to organize early Christianity following it becoming legalized in the Roman Empire.

These councils issued several edicts. But one of the most important was the Nicene Creed. This was developed to cement an overriding interpretation of who Jesus was.

The Nicene Creed was also subject to the approval of the Roman Emperor. This means it was a politically derived doctrine.

It should be noted that one of the major goals of the Nicene Creed was to organize the doctrine of Christianity. But this was orchestrated under the rule of the Romans, who had long cherished the idea of the Roman Emperors being the "sons" of particular gods (pantheon). 

This concept spilled over into the Christian doctrine, even though Jesus did not teach this notion that God had a single "son." This was a derivation meant to appeal to Roman orthodoxy.

Following the First Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed, the Emperor of Rome (Constantine) ordered the Bishop of Caesarea (Eusebius) to assemble 50 units of what we know today as the Roman Bible. So Eusebius selected the various manuscript texts and assembled what many now believe to be the Vaticanus. These were translated into Latin to form the first Latin Bible and fathered the various Bibles that came over 1,000 years later.

The problem is that the texts selected for the Bible were cherry-picked. Dozens of other texts were excluded. They were eventually destroyed (burnt) by the Romans, with some being found centuries later buried in the desert. 

This left the four Gospels, three of which were practically duplicates (Matthew, Mark and Luke), likely all derivations of parts of the Gospel of Thomas with some inconsistently added narrative.

And if the Gospel of Thomas and some other older manuscripts in the desert hadn't been discarded (later found buried), we might still think that the four Gospels were the only writings about Jesus. That's how good the Romans were at manipulating the Bible.

The pre-Bible texts were also manipulated. Verses were added and removed from even the four Gospels to provide an interpretation more consistent with the Nicene Creed.

Luckily, because the earlier Greek Sinaiticus Bible is still accessible, we can look at the Greek text and find the more appropriate translation to "devoted follower" or “loving servant” instead of "son" throughout to describe Jesus. 

This brings many of Jesus' teachings into clarity and context.

Becoming a devoted follower or loving servant of God can only be accomplished with a change of heart. There is no church or religious organization to join. It means putting ourselves at the feet of the Supreme Being and dedicating our lives to Him.

This is the point of Jesus' statement above.