Based on grammar and context, Jesus is the True God in 1 John 5:20

K

kyrios22

Active member
The True God and Eternal Life is not the Father in 1 John 5:20. It's Jesus according to grammar and context.

Wallace writes, “Of the approximately seventy instances in which οὗτος has a personal referent, as many as forty-four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son. What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.”

1 John 5
18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

The context is explicit that Jesus, as the Son of God, protects God's people and the evil one does not touch God's people as a consequence. This Son protects God's people from the evil one, from idols (idolatry). The author contrasted between ''We are in Him who is True in His Son'' and ''the whole world lies in the power of the evil one''.
  • the whole world = in the power of the evil one (5:19)
  • the church = in him who is true in his Son (5:20)
  • If Jesus himself were not the Truth, logically, it means that He cannot be the same location ascribed to Him who is True (We are in Him [who is true] in His Son). For what fellowship has truth with the false? (for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14).
  • Jesus is depicted as an integral part of being in Him who is true which logically means that Jesus himself must be truth. For, again, what fellowship has truth with the false? (for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14).
  • The text talks about the true God versus false gods, specifically one of the false gods which the text mentioned, the evil one and the text explicitly identified Jesus as the one who protects the people from the evil one, so that they can keep themselves from idols (the worship of false gods), which logically means that Jesus is the True God in enmity with the evil one, the explicitly identified false god in the text.
  • In the context, Jesus is the one who protects from the evil one (5:18) while the evil one has the whole world in his (the evil one's) power (5:19) Logically, the text is portraying Jesus as the true God protecting people from the evil one and his (the evil one's) power, so that the people can keep themselves from the worship of false gods, specifically the false god, the evil one (the devil himself) (5:21).

    Both the context and the grammar provide cogent evidence that Jesus Christ is called True God in 1 John 5:20.
Notes

In this case, Jesus is Eternal Life both in the beginning of 1 John (1:3) and the closing of 1 John (5:20) which is the application of the literary device known as "inclusio".

John also applies inclusio in his gospel:

Prologue of John:

The Word was God (John 1:1)
In him was life (John 1:4)
Believe in his name (John 1:12)

Epilogue of John:

That you may believe
Jesus Christ, the Son of God
that by believing you may have
life in his name (John 20:31)​
 
Last edited:
The comments by Albert Barnes that "the true God" applies to the Lord Jesus in 1 John 5:20 are insightful:
if John did not mean to affirm this, he has made use of an expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the very sin against which he endeavors to guard in the next verse - the sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to another the honor due to him. The language which he uses is just such as, according to its natural interpretation, would lead people to worship one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus be divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation of this passage demands that it should be understood as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. If so, it is a direct assertion of his divinity, for there could be no higher proof of it than to affirm that he is the true God.

1 John 5 - Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 John 5, Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary by Albert Barnes, a dedicated student of the Bible, continues to be very popular even today.
www.studylight.org www.studylight.org

Albert Barnes is correct.
1 John 5:20-21
(20) And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
(21) Little children, guard yourselves from idols. (NASB)
Throughout both the Old and New Testaments repeated warnings are given concerning idolatry. Time and time again this sin was so pervasive and destructive. This is true even today. The true God is extremely far and high above all creation. John would not write in such a way as to even hint at associating any created being, no matter how highly exalted, to the Creator and then immediately warn against idolatry if he did not believe the Lord Jesus is the true God.
 
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3 ESV)

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1John 5:20 ESV)
Click to expand...

Trinitarians interpret John 17:3 to not say the Father is the only true God in light of passages that they interpret to say that Jesus Christ is also the true God (e.g., Titus 2:13, 2Pet 1:1, 1John 5:20). What is remarkable to me is the blindness. Because in order for the Trinitarians to be true, the New Testament has to be false.

What Trinitarians are in fact proving is that John contradicts himself. John clearly states under the guise of Jesus speaking that the Father is the only true God. Any statement to the contrary anywhere else in the New Testament, especially in another writing attributed to John, would be a clear contradiction. And if it is John himself that contradicts, then it is a slam dunk that the New Testament is not the inspired written word of God. Certainly not in the sense of being without error as claimed by most conservative Christians. The controversy over Biblical inerrancy would no longer matter under the reality of such a clear contradiction. Because this contradiction concerns the principal objects of the Bible -- God and the Son of God. A contradiction of this magnitude automatically nullifies the possibility of a supernatural source for the New Testament.

That leaves only four choices available. Judaism, Islam, Atheism, and Catholicism.

Why Catholicism if the New Testament has been proven erroneous? Because in Catholicism it’s all about interpretation and what the Bible says has little to do with it. Under Catholicism one subjugates private interpretation, such as the posts by kyrios22, Fred, the commentaries of Daniel Wallace and Albert Barnes, and yes, even my post, under the interpretation of “The Church”.

“The Church” that has its source in Jesus Christ according to the claim. “The Church” that is the true historic Christian Church through the Apostle Peter according to the claim. “The Church” that teaches the true Historic Christian Faith according to the claim.

Under the subjection of “The Church”, whatever “The Church” deems to be truth is truth. And one doesn’t have concern oneself with what the Bible says because rather than the Bible being the source of faith, “The Church” is the source of faith.

Whatever “The Church” says the Bible says, that’s what the Bible says. By being subject to the “The Church” one can vicariously believe that Jesus is God and redeemer because that’s what the “The Church” believes. One doesn’t need to prove the Bible says anything, erroneous or otherwise, because one doesn’t need the Bible at all. “The Church” teaches the truth and interprets what the Bible says. Hear what “The Church” says to the people. For what “The Church” says is what the Spirit says to “The Church” (Revelations 2-3). Doesn’t even matter that the Greek word translated Church in Revelations 2-3 that refer to the Spirit is plural.

You’ve already taken the first step toward Subjugation. By your submission to Daniel Wallace and Albert Barnes. You already see. Now all you need is to observe. To observe that Daniel Wallace and Albert Barnes are private interpreters. Then you need to accept what you observe. Then take the observations of what is obvious to their logical conclusion. If you’re too Protestant to be anything more than a religious Atheist, then good luck with that. If however, you can accept the obvious, then welcome to “The One True Church”.

Oh yeah. There is one more choice. A fifth choice.

1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (ESV)
Click to expand...

This is a matter of two different Greek words - autos meaning he, his, him, etc. and houtos meaning this or these.

1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his (autos) Son Jesus Christ. He (houtos) is the true God and eternal life. (ESV)
Click to expand...

“He (as if autos) is the true God” (ESV, NABRE, NCV, NIV, NLT, NRSV); “This (houtos) is the true God” (GNT, KJV, NASB, NET, NKJB, RSV, WEB).

The referent is the true God (who is the Father). Referring to what is said before in the context of 5:18-20. In this instance the noted grammarian Daniel Wallace and many translations (and commentators such as Barnes) are mistaken. Whether or not a Trinitarian bias is the source of the mistake is pretty obvious to anyone who can do more than just see.

Titus 2:13 and 1Peter 1:1 (not to mention John 20:28) are similarly taken out of context and interpreted to conform to the Trinitarian presupposition. They even apply a rule made up by a very avid Trinitarian as an interpretive tool to apply to such verses -- The Granville Sharp Rule. A Rule commonly accepted in Christianity, Trinitarian Christianity.

It’s not the only time grammarians have made up their own interpretive rules to change what the real Bible clearly says. Take the matter of the Genitive Case in such verses as Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16:

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom 3:22 - ESV and other modern translations)

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: (Rom 3:22 KJV)

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in [eis – lit. into] Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal 2:16 - ESV and other modern translations)

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in [eis – lit. into] Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16 KJV)
Click to expand...

The difference in the translation of the Genitive phrase is due to another Christian presupposition. The idea that personal faith is the source of being made righteous. As if that’s even possible given the fallen state of mankind. As if that is the expression of the grace of God. Calvinists and Catholics take that additional step in that they claim that a special grace of a special faith is given that results in the personal faith that makes one righteous. Talk about anti-Christ.

The modern grammarians divide the Genitive phrase into two different types - Subjective (of) and objective (in). Then they say the Genitive can be translated either way. Giving the translator the option to choose. And modern translators have chosen to translate according to a presupposition. Yet they don’t translate similar instances of this phrase as objective (e.g. the righteousness of God - Rom 3:22, or the grace of God - Gal 2:21). What the modern grammarians neglect to mention is that when a person is involved the Genitive case always refers to possession (i.e., of). And this is how it is translated until the presupposition of salvific personal faith changes a true translation into an interpretive translation.

The Christian doctrine that one is made righteous by personal faith is an extra-Biblical doctrine. One is made righteous by the faith of Jesus Christ. A faith expressed by works (James 2; James 2:1 being another instance of a Genitive phrase, consider James 2 in that context). Personal faith puts one into the position to be made righteous - in Christ (cf., 1Cor 1:28-31).

The primary sin of humanity is self-centeredness. Christians, being Trinitarians, already lacking faith due to following a false God and another Christ, easily falls into creating their own Bible that is more anthropocentric. The one true Bible is Theocentric in the Old Testament and Christocentric in the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
(and commentaries such as Barnes) are mistaken.
Click to expand...
You didn't address what I quoted from Barnes.

"The true God" includes the Lord Jesus in 1 John 5:20. Since John did not clearly distinguish between the Father and the Son in his use of pronouns and titles throughout his epistles (Paul, Peter, and Luke are also ambiguous as well), but was purposely ambiguous.

Does John refer to the Father or to the Son in the following passages? Even Unitarians, as well as Greek lexicons and others disagree with at least most of them. What applies to one so often includes the other in the use of singular pronouns and singular titles. This is powerful proof the Lord Jesus is God.

1 John 2:3 (Him; His)
1 John 2:4 (Him; His)
1 John 2:5 (His word)
1 John 2:6 (Him; He)
1 John 2:8 (Him)
1 John 2:12 (His)
1 John 2:13 (Him)
1 John 2:14 (Him)
1 John 2:20 (Holy One)
1 John 2:25 (He)
1 John 2:27 (Him; His; Him)
1 John 2:28 (Him; He; Him; His)
1 John 2:29 (He; Him)
1 John 3:2 (He; Him X2; He)
1 John 3:3 (Him; He)
1 John 3:5 (He; Him)
1 John 3:6 (Him X3)
1 John 3:7 (He)
1 John 3:19 (Him)
1 John 3:24 (His; Him; He X3)
1 John 4:4 (He)
1 John 4:13 (Him; He X2; His)
1 John 4:17 (He)
1 John 4:19 (He)
1 John 4:21 (Him)
1 John 5:14 (Him; His; He)
1 John 5:15 (He; Him)
1 John 5:20 (Him X2; He; true God)
3 John 1:7 (Name)
 
Last edited:
Fred

Ah, the old Trinitarian ploy of the overwhelming Red Herring gambit.

Insofar as Barnes’, what’s to comment on? He’s absolutely right until his Trinitarian bias takes over -- “if he did not believe the Lord Jesus is the true God.” The point is that by claiming that Jesus is God -- That is idolatry. Because John is not saying Jesus is God in agreement with the Jews. He’s saying that about what he said before -- this is the true God and eternal life. John is not contradicting what he said in John 17:3. He is in fact agreeing with it. Verse 21 is in addition to, not a continuation of what is said in verse 20. Not as an afterthought, but as an iteration of the first commandment. Apart from which verses 18-20, indeed all that he said before in this letter, is meaningless.
 
kyrios22 said:
The True God and Eternal Life is not the Father in 1 John 5:20. It's Jesus according to grammar and context.

Wallace writes, “Of the approximately seventy instances in which οὗτος has a personal referent, as many as forty-four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son. What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.”

1 John 5
18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

The context is explicit that Jesus, as the Son of God, protects God's people and the evil one does not touch God's people as a consequence. This Son protects God's people from the evil one, from idols (idolatry). The author contrasted between ''We are in Him who is True in His Son'' and ''the whole world lies in the power of the evil one''.
  • the whole world = in the power of the evil one (5:19)
  • the church = in him who is true in his Son (5:20)
  • If Jesus himself were not the Truth, logically, it means that He cannot be the same location ascribed to Him who is True (We are in Him [who is true] in His Son). For what fellowship has truth with the false? (for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14).
  • Jesus is depicted as an integral part of being in Him who is true which logically means that Jesus himself must be truth. For, again, what fellowship has truth with the false? (for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14).
  • The text talks about the true God versus false gods, specifically one of the false gods which the text mentioned, the evil one and the text explicitly identified Jesus as the one who protects the people from the evil one, so that they can keep themselves from idols (the worship of false gods), which logically means that Jesus is the True God in enmity with the evil one, the explicitly identified false god in the text.
  • In the context, Jesus is the one who protects from the evil one (5:18) while the evil one has the whole world in his (the evil one's) power (5:19) Logically, the text is portraying Jesus as the true God protecting people from the evil one and his (the evil one's) power, so that the people can keep themselves from the worship of false gods, specifically the false god, the evil one (the devil himself) (5:21).

    Both the context and the grammar provide cogent evidence that Jesus Christ is called True God in 1 John 5:20.
Notes

In this case, Jesus is Eternal Life both in the beginning of 1 John (1:3) and the closing of 1 John (5:20) which is the application of the literary device known as "inclusio".

John also applies inclusio in his gospel:

Prologue of John:

The Word was God (John 1:1)
In him was life (John 1:4)
Believe in his name (John 1:12)

Epilogue of John:

That you may believe
Jesus Christ, the Son of God
that by believing you may have
life in his name (John 20:31)​
Click to expand...
Amen 8 reasons below why the Son is the True God and Eternal Life in 1 John 5:20 and not the Father.


1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He(Jesus) is the true God and eternal life.

On behalf of seeing χριστος as the antecedent are the following arguments: (1) Although it is true that αληθινος θεος is not elsewhere referred to Christ, αληθεια is, and is so in Johannine literature (John 14:6).

29 Winer-Moulton, 195.
Further, αληθινος θεος is not a "constant.. epithet" as Winer supposes, being found only in John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20! (2) Christ is also said to be ζωη in John's writings John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2), an epithet nowhere else used of the Father. (3) The demonstrative pronoun, ουτος, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner.30 Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as forty- four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.For what it is worth, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω is the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. 32 The issue cannot be decided on grammar alone. But suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that αληθινος θεος is descriptive of Jesus Christ.

1st- Jesus is called God in the writings of John(1:1,20:28,1 John 5:20)

2nd- Jesus is called Eternal Life over and over again in Johns writings

3rd- John opens up his epistle with the Eternal life(Jesus) that was with the Father in the beginning and was manifest to the disciples(1 John 1:1-5)

4th- John ends his epistle with Jesus who is eternal life and only is eternal life found in Him who is the true God.

5th- never is eternal life used of the Father alone. When the Father is included the Son is always mentioned together with the Father making them equal. Equality with the Father was not something Jesus needed to grasp at as He already possessed complete Deity as God.(Phil 2, Col 2:9)

6th- John would not leave his readers with any ambiguity warning them to guard themselves from idols(5:21) So this would be clear his reference was to those who reject Jesus as the true God. They are the idoloters and antichrists John writes of in his epistles.

7th- Jesus is also the True God and the True one in 1 John. Jesus is the true light which brings light to all men (John 1:9) Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)Jesus is the true vine (John 15:1). Jesus is the true witness of God (John 18:37) He who is true (Revelation 3:7) Jesus is the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14)Jesus is Lord God Almighty, Just and true are your ways(Revelation 15:3) Jesus is faithful and true(Revelation 19:11).

8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.

So the most logical conclusion is that it refers to Jesus as the true God. Not only is this Wallace's conclusion from Johns usage of outos but He is the closest antecedent (most times in the NT this principal holds true). Eternal Life is never used of the Father alone in John’s writings and only a couple of times does John include the Father with the Son regarding eternal life. John opens up his epistles describing the "eternal life" who was with the Father in the beginning and then ends his epistle with eternal life identifying Jesus as the true God and eternal life. John then says this in the last verse:

1 John 5:21-Guard yourselves from idols

Now why would he leave any ambiguity in verse 20 as to the identity of the true God and eternal life then turn around commanding them to protect themselves from idolatry? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless John is identifying Jesus as the true God and refuting the Gnostics of his day who denied the Incarnation.
 
Ted said:
Fred

Ah, the old Trinitarian ploy of the overwhelming Red Herring gambit.
Click to expand...

No, it was failure on your part to address what he asserted.
In addition to what he wrote, you neglected what I wrote as well --> John would not write in such a way as to even hint at associating any created being, no matter how highly exalted, to the Creator and then immediately warn against idolatry if he did not believe the Lord Jesus is the true God.

You also failed to point out to whom the passages in my previous post refer to. This is the old Unitarian ploy of hiding, ducking, and dodging.
 
civic said:
Amen 8 reasons below why the Son is the True God and Eternal Life in 1 John 5:20 and not the Father.


1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He(Jesus) is the true God and eternal life.

On behalf of seeing χριστος as the antecedent are the following arguments: (1) Although it is true that αληθινος θεος is not elsewhere referred to Christ, αληθεια is, and is so in Johannine literature (John 14:6).

29 Winer-Moulton, 195.
Further, αληθινος θεος is not a "constant.. epithet" as Winer supposes, being found only in John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20! (2) Christ is also said to be ζωη in John's writings John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2), an epithet nowhere else used of the Father. (3) The demonstrative pronoun, ουτος, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner.30 Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as forty- four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.For what it is worth, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω is the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. 32 The issue cannot be decided on grammar alone. But suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that αληθινος θεος is descriptive of Jesus Christ.

1st- Jesus is called God in the writings of John(1:1,20:28,1 John 5:20)

2nd- Jesus is called Eternal Life over and over again in Johns writings

3rd- John opens up his epistle with the Eternal life(Jesus) that was with the Father in the beginning and was manifest to the disciples(1 John 1:1-5)

4th- John ends his epistle with Jesus who is eternal life and only is eternal life found in Him who is the true God.

5th- never is eternal life used of the Father alone. When the Father is included the Son is always mentioned together with the Father making them equal. Equality with the Father was not something Jesus needed to grasp at as He already possessed complete Deity as God.(Phil 2, Col 2:9)

6th- John would not leave his readers with any ambiguity warning them to guard themselves from idols(5:21) So this would be clear his reference was to those who reject Jesus as the true God. They are the idoloters and antichrists John writes of in his epistles.

7th- Jesus is also the True God and the True one in 1 John. Jesus is the true light which brings light to all men (John 1:9) Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)Jesus is the true vine (John 15:1). Jesus is the true witness of God (John 18:37) He who is true (Revelation 3:7) Jesus is the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14)Jesus is Lord God Almighty, Just and true are your ways(Revelation 15:3) Jesus is faithful and true(Revelation 19:11).

8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.

So the most logical conclusion is that it refers to Jesus as the true God. Not only is this Wallace's conclusion from Johns usage of outos but He is the closest antecedent (most times in the NT this principal holds true). Eternal Life is never used of the Father alone in John’s writings and only a couple of times does John include the Father with the Son regarding eternal life. John opens up his epistles describing the "eternal life" who was with the Father in the beginning and then ends his epistle with eternal life identifying Jesus as the true God and eternal life. John then says this in the last verse:

1 John 5:21-Guard yourselves from idols

Now why would he leave any ambiguity in verse 20 as to the identity of the true God and eternal life then turn around commanding them to protect themselves from idolatry? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless John is identifying Jesus as the true God and refuting the Gnostics of his day who denied the Incarnation.
Click to expand...
I agree to all of it, brother. Amen!

To be in union with the Truth in union with [__his Son Jesus Christ__.] He is the true God.

The context necessitates that ουτος refers to Jesus because it gives the text its complete meaning, it gives the reason why Jesus is the direct link, not an agent, to him who is true. If John intends Jesus as an agent, he'd choose to use δι ("through") instead. John is making sure that he chooses words that show the inseparability of the Father and the Son. See also 1 John 2:23: Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. (The Unitarians denies the Son so they also deny the Father. This is demonstrated below in their treatment of 1 John 5:20 wherein the ommission of Jesus in the text is their only way to affirm the Father as the antedecent of ουτος)

I want to emphasise that, based on the text itself, we ought to notice what John meant by his usage of αληθινος because truth being mentioned three times in the text surely does signify something important for the author which he wants to tell us. The 3x repetition of αληθινος signals the reader that John is highlighting something about truth). It explains why union with Jesus is in the same standing as union with him who is true and that is because they are co-equal as the author emphatically asserts. The text , then, is not showing a tautology (the Father is not called αληθνινος 3x in the text, for purposeless repetition) but rather, the 2 occurences of αληθινος has a purpose and that is to show that the Father and the Son are equal (We are in the Father who is true in the Son because the Son is also true, or as the Nicene Creed says "True God from true God"). I would (just for a moment) omit the word θεος to illustrate what John means:

To be in union with the Truth in union with [__his Son Jesus Christ__.] He is (also) Truth.

Unitarians would love to just omit Jesus in the text because clearly for them Jesus is just an obstacle. Without Jesus in the text, the Father is explicitly the antecedent of αυτος as in the example below:

To be in union with the Truth. This is the True God.

Only the absence of Jesus in the text can αυτος refer to the Father. The reason is that in the presence of Jesus in 1 Jo 5:20, both grammar and context require that αυτος should refer to Jesus.
 
Last edited:
The 3x repetition of αληθινος signals the reader that John is highlighting something about truth). It explains why union with Jesus is in the same standing as union with him who is true and that is because they are co-equal as the author emphatically asserts. The text , then, is not showing a tautology (the Father is not called αληθνινος 3x in the text, for purposeless repetition) but rather, the 2 occurences of αληθινος has a purpose and that is to show that the Father and the Son are equal (We are in the Father who is true in the Son because the Son is also true. So, Nicene Creed says "True God from true God"). I would (just for a moment) omit the word θεος to illustrate what John means:

To be in union with the Truth in union with [__his Son Jesus Christ__.] He is (also) Truth.
 
civic

Now why would he leave any ambiguity in verse 20 as to the identity of the true God and eternal life then turn around commanding them to protect themselves from idolatry? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless John is identifying Jesus as the true God and refuting the Gnostics of his day who denied the Incarnation.
Click to expand...

Now why can’t you see that your interpretation of 1John 5:20 is in direct contradiction with the clear word spoken by Jesus Christ himself in John 17:3? Why can’t you see that a contradiction of this magnitude due to the object being God and His Son, if true, nullifies the Divine authority of the New Testament? What institution are you a member of that it has such a strong hold over you?
 
Fred

Ted said: Ah, the old Trinitarian ploy of the overwhelming Red Herring gambit.

No, it was failure on your part to address what he asserted.
In addition to what he wrote, you neglected what I wrote as well --> John would not write in such a way as to even hint at associating any created being, no matter how highly exalted, to the Creator and then immediately warn against idolatry if he did not believe the Lord Jesus is the true God. You also failed to point out to whom the passages in my previous post refer to. This is the old Unitarian ploy of hiding, ducking, and dodging.
Click to expand...

Since that one sentence out of what I wrote seems to be all that concerns you, I will address that. Christians on forums, in their attempts at being great defenders of their Trinitarian faith, have a tendency to try to overwhelm as if their many verses and words will influence reality and make their God proud. It’s all in their mind.

1John 5:20 is straight forward in its context that includes 1John 5:18-21. Many words are not needed. Jesus makes a clear statement in John 17:3. John is not about to contradict that clear statement by saying “Oh yeah, Jesus forgot to tell you, he too is the only true God”. And he does not. As with John 17:1-5, the context of 1John 5:18-21 centers on the Father, the only true God. No red herrings need apply.

Jesus Christ is not just a created being. He is not only the son of man, but he is also the only begotten Son of God. Who became a created being for our benefit. A created being clearly associated with the Creator. I realize that Son of God is defined as God the Son in the Trinitarian dictionary. A definition and a dictionary that’s only of use to a Trinitarian. Another useless red herring.

And for your information (as if you care, which your words make me doubt) I am not a Unitarian. They believe that Jesus Christ is just a man. Like the Trinitarians emphasize Jesus as Son of God out of proportion in relation to reality resulting in Trinitarianism, so also Unitarians emphasize Jesus as the son of man out of proportion in relation to reality resulting in a human only Christ (in the JW’s an angelic Christ). The Biblical view does not emphasize with a one sided view in such a way. The Bible apart from the accoutrements of interpretation presents a balanced view. As God intended. There are no red herrings in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
their many verses and words will influence reality and make their God proud. It’s all in their mind.
Click to expand...

Another cop-out.

All you have to do is write "Father" or Jesus" next to each pronoun or title from the verses listed in post 4. That shouldn't be difficult at all in being able to distinguish your creator and your creature-jesus.

Ted said:
I realize that Son of God is defined as God the Son in the Trinitarian dictionary.
Click to expand...

This is also taught in the BDAG (3rd Edition), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT), etc.
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
civic



Now why can’t you see that your interpretation of 1John 5:20 is in direct contradiction with the clear word spoken by Jesus Christ himself in John 17:3? Why can’t you see that a contradiction of this magnitude due to the object being God and His Son, if true, nullifies the Divine authority of the New Testament? What institution are you a member of that it has such a strong hold over you?
Click to expand...
Anyone can say many words when they interpret Scripture but if their many words do not actually explain Scripture in its context then their many words makes no sense and an eisegesis, which means they are merely babbling and this is , based on what i have seen, the majority of what Unitarians are exactly doing in this forum. So, i repeat, interpret the text in context.

1 John 5:20 does not contradict John 17:3.

John 17:3 teaches:

only true God

All false gods.

Jesus did not believe that he's a false god because in context, (i) in the same verse, Jesus claimed to also be equal with the Father as the direct source of eternal life with the Father. Such is an equality relationship, and (ii) in verse 5, Jesus claimed to have possessed glory "together with the Father before the world was", a claim of being older than creation (see also John 8:58), which is Jesus' own understanding of himself in relation to the Father, who is the only true God, a denial of all false gods. Jesus later accepted worship as true God in John 20:28.

1 Jo5:20 teaches:

We are in the Father who is true in the Son because the Son is also true (ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ....οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς) and therefore, ουτος must refer to the Son due to this equality ascribed to him and his Father.

And the ascription of θεος to him is based on the context where the Son himself protects the church from the false god (ie the evil one) and his power, keeping them from idols (ie the worship of false gods) (vv 18-19, 5:21)
 
Notice how it befits that the Son is also αληθινος in the text. It is logically consistent with how the author portrayed the Son in the 2nd prepositional phrase in relation to the 1st.

ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ....οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς

The author used 2 prepositional phrases: (i) in him who is true, (ii) in the son of him, jesus christ , to convey to his readers where or in whom they are having fellowship with. It is neither in the Father through the Son nor in the Father and the Son. The text is explicit that it is in the Father in the Son i.e. in union with the Father in the union with the Son. This means that fellowship with the Father is regarded as equal to/the same as fellowship with the Son. The concept here in the inseparability of the Father and the Son, which is already present in the epistle in its earlier chapters ( 1 John 1:22-23).
 
Ted said:
civic



Now why can’t you see that your interpretation of 1John 5:20 is in direct contradiction with the clear word spoken by Jesus Christ himself in John 17:3? Why can’t you see that a contradiction of this magnitude due to the object being God and His Son, if true, nullifies the Divine authority of the New Testament? What institution are you a member of that it has such a strong hold over you?
Click to expand...
And why would you remove John 17:3 from John 17:5 where the Son says He was together with the Father sharing the exact same Glory with Him before creation ?

Oops
 
civic

Not being a Unitarian, John 17:5 makes perfect sense in its context. According to the Bible, Jesus is a generated (only begotten - has a beginning) being and there are many verses that show that he existed prior to his becoming a man.

Regarding Matt 16, "the Son of the Living God" only means "God the Son of the Living God" to Trinitarians.

Regarding Daniel Wallace on 1 John 5:20, he is mistaken. For the Father is the referent in the context of this verse (1John 5:18-21).

It’s not the only time Trinitarian grammarians have made up their own interpretive rules to change what the real Bible clearly says (cf., the Granville Sharp rule - with good reason, commonly accepted as an objective grammar truth tool by Trinitarians). Take the matter of the Genitive Case phrase in such verses as Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16:

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom 3:22 - ESV and other modern translations)

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: (Rom 3:22 KJV)
Click to expand...

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in [eis – lit. into] Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal 2:16 - ESV and other modern translations)

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in [eis – lit. into] Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16 KJV)
Click to expand...

The difference in the translation of the Genitive phrase is due to another Christian presupposition. The idea that personal faith is the source of being made righteous. Or as they often put it, the idea that salvation is by personal faith in Jesus Christ. As if that is even possible given the fallen state of mankind. As if that is the expression of the grace of God. Calvinists and Catholics take that additional step in that they claim that a special grace of a special faith is given that results in the personal faith that saves. So that God chooses who is saved and who goes to hell. Relieving everyone except God of personal responsibility. I can understand why smart people might be caught up in the Catholic Church, it being Historic and all. But the following of John Calvin the unrepentant murder? And I mean brilliant men like John MacArthur and Matt Slick. That one I can only think relates to 1Cor 3:18-23.

The modern grammarians divide the Genitive phrase into two different types - Subjective (of) and objective (in). Then they say the Genitive can be translated either way. Giving the translator the option to choose. And modern translators have chosen to translate according to a presupposition (in). Yet they don’t translate similar instances of this phrase as objective (e.g. the righteousness of God - Rom 3:22, or the grace of God - Gal 2:21). What the modern grammarians neglect to mention is that when a person is involved the Genitive case always refers to possession (i.e., of). And this is how it is translated until the presupposition of salvific personal faith changes a true translation into an interpretive translation.

The Christian doctrine that one is made righteous by personal faith is an extra-Biblical doctrine. Just like the Trinity. One is made righteous by the faith of Jesus Christ. A faith expressed by works (James 2; James 2:1 being another instance of a Genitive phrase, consider James 2 in that context). Personal faith puts one into the position to be made righteous - in Christ (cf., 1Cor 1:28-31; 2Cor 5:17; Col 1:12-13).

The primary sin of humanity is self-centeredness. Christians, being Trinitarians, already lacking faith due to following a false God, easily falls into creating their own Bible that is more anthropocentric. The one true Bible is Theocentric in the Old Testament and Christocentric in the New Testament.
 
kyrios22 said:
The True God and Eternal Life is not the Father in 1 John 5:20. It's Jesus according to grammar and context.
Click to expand...

Baloney. You only need to know how to read.

And we know that the son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true and we are in Him who is true, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top