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

Jesus Christ is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun.

τις εστιν ο ψευστης ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι ιησους ουκ εστιν ο χριστος ουτος εστιν ο αντιχριστος ο αρνουμενος τον πατερα και τον υιον

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This (houtos) is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22.



οτι πολλοι πλανοι εξηλθον εις τον κοσμον οι μη ομολογουντες ιησουν χριστον ερχομενον εν σαρκι ουτος εστιν ο πλανος και ο αντιχριστος

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This (houtos) is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2 John 1:7

Now what Sherlock?
 
Now what Sherlock?
Pronouns can be used this way, Watson. It doesn't mean I was being deceptive as you claimed. Thus, you lied.

There isn't any difficulty differentiating between Jesus Christ and the antichirst in 2 John 7, but see here concerning 1 John 5:20:

In fact, you even got mixed up with John's use of the pronouns in 1 John 3:2 and elsewhere.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-king-of-kings-and-lord-of-lords-who-dwells-in-unapproachable-light.5581/page-83#post-526525
 
Last edited:
Charles Harold Dodd, (1884-1973) offered the alternative that this is a conceptual antecedent.

1 John 5:20 (AV)
And we know that the Son of God is come,
and hath given us an understanding,
that we may know him that is true,
and we are in him that is true,
even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.


It is more likely that the word 'this' has a wider and vaguer reference. The writer is gathering together in his mind all that he has been saying about God--how He is light, and love, how He is revealed as the Father through His Son Jesus Christ; how He is faithful and just to forgive our sins; how He remains in us--and this, he adds, is the real God, the one eternal Reality of which the mystics talk, though they do not know Him as He is known through Christ. And this, he also adds (meaning now the knowledge of the Real God of which he has just spoken) is eternal life. For illustration of this we need only recall John xvii. 3: This is life eternal, that they know Thee, the only real God, and Him whom Thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ.

* Charles Harold Dodd,
The Johannine Epistles
[Οι Ιωάννειες Επιστολές],
Hodder and Stoughton, 1966,
pp./σσ. 140, 141.


C. H. Dodd
on 1 John 5:20:
Who is “the true God”? /
Pavlos D. Vasileiadis
https://e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/2013/05/c-h-dodd-on-1-john-520-who-is-true-god.html
 
Last edited:
This Ουτος, he, namely, Christ, the person last mentioned; is the true God and eternal life , benson

(1) the grammatical construction favors it. Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun "this" - οὗτος houtos. This would be regarded as the obvious and certain construction so far as the grammar is concerned, unless there were something in the thing affirmed which led us to seek some more remote and less obvious antecedent. No doubt would have been ever entertained on this point, if it had not been for the reluctance to admit that the Lord Jesus is the true God. If the assertion had been that "this is the true Messiah;" or that "this is the Son of God;" or that "this is he who was born of the Virgin Mary," there would have been no difficulty in the construction. I admit that his argument is not absolutely decisive; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote; but cases of that kind depend on the ground of necessity, and can be applied only when it would be a clear violation of the sense of the author to refer it to the immediate antecedent.

(2) this construction seems to be demanded by the adjunct which John has assigned to the phrase "the true God" - "eternal life." This is an expression which John would be likely to apply to the Lord Jesus, considered as "life," and the "source of life," and not to God as such. "How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! "In him (i. e. Christ) was life, and the life was the light of people - giving life to the world - the bread of life - my words are spirit and life - I am the way, and the truth, and the life. This life (Christ) was manifested, and we have "seen it," and do testify to you, and declare the eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us," 1 John 1:2." - Prof. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 83. There is no instance in the writings of John, in which the appellation life, and "eternal" life is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase "the true God," and "eternal life," should be applied to him.

(3) if it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" - τὸν ἀληθινόν (Θεὸν) ton alēthinon (Theon) it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be, "That we may know the true God, and we are in the true God: this is the true God, and eternal life." Can we believe that an inspired man would affirm gravely, and with so much solemnity, and as if it were a truth of so much magnitude, that the true God is the true God?

(4) this interpretation accords with what we are sure John would affirm respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Can there be any doubt that he who said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" that he who said, "all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made;" that he who recorded the declaration of the Saviour, "I and my Father are one," and the declaration of Thomas, "my Lord and my God," would apply to him the appellation "the true God!"

(5) 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.Barnes

This is the true God—"This Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God" (identifying Him thus with the Father in His attribute, "the only true God," Joh 17:3, primarily attributed to the Father).JFB

the true God, as John 17:3, so as thereby to be drawn into union with him, and to be in him: or, which in effect is the same thing, (so entire is the oneness between the Father and the Son), we are in his Son Jesus Christ, who also
is the true God, as John 1:1, Poole

This is the true God and eternal life; that is, the Son of God, who is the immediate antecedent to the relative "this"; he is the true God, with his Father and the Spirit, in distinction from all false, fictitious, or nominal deities; and such as are only by office, or in an improper and figurative sense: Christ is truly and really God, as appears from all the perfections of deity, the fulness of the Godhead being in him; from the divine works of creation and providence being ascribed to him; and from the divine worship that is given him; as well as from the names and titles he goes by, and particularly that of Jehovah, which is incommunicable to a creature; and he is called "eternal life", because it is in him; and he is the giver of it to his people; and that itself will chiefly consist in the enjoyment and vision of him, and in conformity to him.Gill

1 John 5:20. Ἥκει) is come. Thus, ἡκω, Mark 8:3, note.—δέδωκεν, has given) that is, God: for in the preceding clause also the subject is by implication God, in this sense: God sent his own Son: and to this is referred αὐτοῦ, of Him, which presently follows.—διάνοιαν, understanding) not only knowledge, but the faculty of knowing.—τὸν ἀληθινὸν, the True One) Understand, His Son Jesus Christ: as presently afterwards. Whence it is perceived with what great majesty the Son thus entitles Himself: Revelation 3:7.—οὗτος) This, the True One, the Son of God Jesus Christ: to whom the title of Life eternal is befitting.—ζωὴ αἰώνιος, Life eternal) The beginning and the end of the Epistle are in close agreement.Bengel



The final sentence of verse 20 runs: He is the true God and eternal life. To whom does he refer? Grammatically speaking, it would normally refer to the nearest preceding subject, namely his Son Jesus Christ. If so, this would be the most unequivocal statement of the deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, which the champions of orthodoxy were quick to exploit against the heresy of Arius. Luther and Calvin adopted this view.[1] Stott
 
continued:

This is the true God—“This Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God”[1] Brown



The following factors enter into a decision: (1) The nearest antecedent is “Jesus Christ”; but sometimes when that is true, the pronoun can still refer to God, as in 1 John 2:3. (The houtos of 2 John 7, although it follows “Jesus Christ,” refers to the secessionists.) Some would treat “in His Son, Jesus Christ,” of the preceding line as a gloss, so that the nearest antecedent becomes “the One who is true” of 20c, but the well-attested Johannine pattern of sequential phrases referring to Father and Son militates against this. (2) The first predicate identifying houtos is “the true [alēthinos] God,” which is clearly a title of the Father in John 17:3. Moreover, alēthinos has just been used of the Father in 5:20c, and within two verses it would be surprising to find the author switching the title to Jesus without some explicit indication. On the other hand, after a description of the Father as “the One who is true,” it is somewhat tautological to say, “This [true One] is the true God,” whereas the author would be saying something further if he said that this Jesus Christ is the true God. (3) There is an uneasiness (sometimes unexpressed) among scholars about NT texts that call Jesus “God”—an unwarranted uneasiness, especially for the Johannine writings where that description is solidly attested (John 1:1, 18; 20:28). See my article “Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?” cited above in the Introduction, footnote 162. (4) The second predicate identifying houtos is “eternal life,” which, since it lacks the definite article, is closely joined to the first predicate—the true God who is (for us) eternal life. (Moffatt and NEB, “This is the real [true] God, this is life eternal,” are not helpful here.) This predicate fits Jesus better than it fits God. The Father possesses life in Himself (John 5:26; 6:57), even as there is life in Jesus (John 1:4; 6:57; 1 John 5:11); but “life” is not predicated of the Father as it is of Jesus (John 11:25; 14:6). If the reference here is to Jesus, then there is an inclusion with the I John Prologue (1:2): “This eternal life which was in the Father’s presence … was revealed to us.” Ignatius, who has many affinities to I John, describes Jesus as “God in man, true life in death” (Eph. 7:2), using all the predicates of 1 John 5:20e. In summary, I think the arguments clearly favor houtos as a reference to Jesus Christ.[2] Raymond Brown

οὗτος (“this one”), in its position after the phrase “in his Son Jesus Christ,” cannot refer to God, but only to Jesus Christ, although the preceding ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ (“in the true one”) can refer only to God. But if the sentence is original, it is designed to provide a rationale for the claim that we are in God, in the “true one,” because (insofar as) we are in his Son, by designating the Son himself as ἀληθινὸς θεός (“true God”). The attribution would be superfluous as a characteristic of the Father. Furthermore, it would be strange to say not only, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινός (“this is the true one”), but ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός (“the true God”). In addition, καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος (“and eternal life”) as a characteristic of Jesus Christ agrees with v 11*: αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ (scil. αἰώνιος) ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν (“this life [eternal] is in his Son”), and with 11:25*; 14:6*.39[3] Bultmann



In the conclusion of his writing, the author turns again to the central focus of faith. It is no accident that there is a parallel here to John 20:28*. As the fourth evangelist sees the culminating point of the Gospel in the disciple Thomas’s confession of the true godhead and lordship of Jesus Christ, so the author of 1 John makes clear that it is his real intention to demonstrate the reality of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and its meaning for the Christian community. This means not only—as must certainly be acknowledged here as well, keeping in mind the conflict with the opponents—that the divine revelation is bound up with the earthly reality of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (2:22*; 4:2*: ἐν σαρκί), but also that faith in the incarnate Son of God, sent by the Father (3:8*; 4:9*; 5:9–10*), includes the confession of the earthly and heavenly existence of the Christ and the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as preexistent (cf. 1:2–3*) and as the mediator of divine life (5:11–12*). Therefore in conclusion, and going beyond all the other christological statements in his writing, the author can triumphantly say: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

This confession does not anticipate the rational conceptuality of the later confessional formula, such as is expressed in the Athanasian Creed (“perfectus deus, perfectus homo”), even though the seeds of such a development seem to exist here. Our text does not envision a christological speculation about the relationship between the divine and human person or nature, nor is the Son identical with the Father.61 Instead, what is crucial is that Jesus Christ, as the true God, is eternal life. He does not “preserve” life as if it were a possession;63 rather, in the encounter with him in faith, life is revealed in its unrestricted fullness and elusiveness.[4] strecker



[1] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 538). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[2] Brown, R. E. (2008). The Epistles of John: translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary (Vol. 30, pp. 625–626). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
[3] Bultmann, R. K. (1973). The Johannine epistles a commentary on the Johannine epistles (p. 90). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
[4] Strecker, G., & Attridge, H. W. (1996). The Johannine letters: a commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (pp. 211–212). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
 
In support of Dodd and the conceptual antecedent, the word is “this”, not he.
Dodd cannot hold a candle to Wallace with Greek- Wallace wrote the grammar used by dodd.,


Daniel Wallace on 1 John 5:20- Jesus is the True God
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
 
If you have a fifth grade reading ability this is not difficult.

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.
 
If you have a fifth grade reading ability this is not difficult.

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.

Does John refer to the Father or to the Son in the following passages?
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 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)
3 John 1:7 (Name)
 
Does John refer to the Father or to the Son in the following passages?

Did you mean your confusion concerning "the following passages" is your license to do as you like at 1 John 5:20?

This is fifth grade level reading:

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.

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 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)
3 John 1:7 (Name)
 
Did you mean your confusion concerning "the following passages" is your license to do as you like at 1 John 5:20?

This is fifth grade level reading:

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 dodged the passages I listed.

They scared you.
 
And the truth. You ran and hid.

Actually it is you running from the facts of 1 John 5:20.

But pretend away if you must.

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.
 
Back
Top