Murray J. Harris On 1 John 5:20

Murray J. Harris wrote the following chapter on 1 John 5:20 in his book "Jesus As God : The New Testament Use Of Theos In Reference To Jesus" ([Grand Rapids, Mi : Baker Books, 1992], 240-253):

" Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν, καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

It is a curious It is a curious fact that in the case of 1 John 5:20, where the central issue is simple what is the antecedent of ούτος?-and the Greek straightfor ward, scholarly opinion is more evenly divided over the question of whether θεός is predicated of Jesus than is the case with any other verse discussed in this book. This ambiguity is reflected in virtually all English translations, for if they begin a new sentence at outoç, it begins with either "He is" or "This is," where the antecedent of the pronoun is just as uncertain as it is at first sight in Greek.

Whether 1 John 5:14-21 be called a postscript (Dodd, Epistles 133-34), an appendix (Bultmann, Epistles 83, 85), or an epilogue (Vellanickal 276 n. 43), these verses fall into two clear sections: verses 14-17 give direc tions about prayer; verses 18-21 state three reasons for Christian confi dence, each introduced by οιδωκεν ον, and conclude with an exhortation (v. 21). These three Christian certainties are (1) the divine protection of the believer from sin and from the evil one (v. 18), (2) the divine origin of the believer and the satanic grip on the world (v. 19), and (3) knowledge of and fellowship with the true God through his incarnate Son (v. 20). For clarity of reference I shall refer to the six segments of 1 John 5:20 in

the following manner:

οἶδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει

20a

20b καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ΐνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν

20

20d καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ

20e 201

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος

241

A. The Textual Variants

There is one important textual question in the verse. The object of (iva) vokojev is found in five forms.

1. τὸν ἀληθινόν

The variant printed in UBS and NA26, tov dnevov, has support from the two families that have been clearly isolated within the Catholic Epistles (Alexandrian: B 81; Byzantine: K 056 0142 Byz Lect) and best accounts for the rise of the other readings. Its starkness as a substantival adjective used as a divine title (only in 1 John 5:20 bis and Rev. 3:7), "the true one", "him who is the truth," makes it the most difficult reading, for in the LXX and NT ἀληθινός is generally accompanied by a noun.

2. τὸ ἀληθινόν

Supported by * it copa,bors, to dnevov relieves the starkness of the titular tov dnevov and seems to be a modification of that reading based on John 8:32: καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς (cf. 1 John 2:21).

8. τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεόν

Although the third variant is read by the Alexandrian witnesses A Y 33 323 1739 1881 and other "mixed type" manuscripts (326 614 630 945 1505 2495), may conceivably have given rise to the first reading by haplography (ΑΛHΘΙΝOΝΘΝ), and is true to the sense of the verse, it is probably secondary since (1) it is a longer reading than either of the variants above; (2) αληθινός is adjectival, not substantival, in the Fourth Gospel" and in 1 John 2:8 and 5:20f; and (3) under the influence of ό αληθινός θεός in 5:20f and ό μόνος αληθινός θεός in John 17:3, it removes the ambiguity of τόν αληθινόν (which, grammatically, could refer either to God or to the Son of God; cf. 5:20a), and therefore is a less difficult reading than the first.

4. τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν

Only minuscule 629 reads tov Beov tov dnevov, which is a secondary variation of the third reading, reflecting the alternative attributive position of the adjective seen in Isaiah 66:16 bis (LXX), tov Beòv tov dnevov.

5. Patrem (= tov лatéρα)

A variant found in Ambrose, patrem, probably represents a scribal effort to remove all ambiguity from either τὸν ἀληθινόν οἳ τὸν ἀληθινόν θεόν by

excluding any possible reference to the Son of God (5:20a).

We can therefore be confident that ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν was

the original text.

B. The Identity of ὁ ἀληθινός (τὸν ἀληθινόν . . . ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ)

"Αληθινός is a favorite Johannine word, occurring nine times in the Fourth Gospel, four times in 1 John, and ten times in the Apocalypse (there are only five other NT uses). Sometimes αληθινός does not differ in mean ing from αληθής, another common Johannine term, but where a distinction obtains, αληθινός (Latin veras) "signifies truth of being, verity, while άλn eng signifies truth of statement, veracity" (Latin veraz) (Findlay 428 n. 1). R. C. Trench puts it succinctly (28): "The dλneris fulfils the promise of his lips, the αληθινός fulfils the wider promise of his name." Accordingly I pre fer to render ό αληθινός as "the True One" (Law 412), "him who is true" (REB), or "Him who is real" (Moffatt), rather than "the truthful One" (Mala testa 319-20) or even "He who is the truth" (Smalley 292, 306-7).

Two considerations lead me to believe (with BDR §263 and n. 1) that tov ἀληθινόν and τῷ ἀληθινό refer to the same person, via, God (τοῦ θεοῦ). First, both the sequence of thought and Johannine theology make it improb able that τὸν ἀληθινόν refers to the Son of God. Since καὶ δέδωκεν follows immediately after net (whose subject is ό υιός του θεού), it is inappropri ate to make an implied ỏ eeóg the subject of δεδωκεν (pace Bengel 5:154), especially since both verbs are perfective in sense ("has come... and has given": the fact and consequences of the coming and the giving remain).7 The result of the Son's gift of insight or apprehension (Stávora) is knowl edge of o αληθινός. If "the true one" here were the Son of God, one would have expected autóv or tòv vióv in the place of, or standing before, tov dnevov: "so that we know him/the Son of God, the true one," or simply "so that we know him/the Son of God." And it is more in keeping with Johannine theology to say that the Son imparts the understanding that brings a knowledge of the Father (cf. John 1:18; 14:7) than to affirm that the aim or result of the Son's gift of insight to believers is their knowledge of himself. The Son's mission is the revelation of the Father, not of himself. That τὸν ἀληθινόν in fact refers back το τοῦ θεοῦ in the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Beo is confirmed by three of the secondary textual variants discussed above, viz., τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεόν, τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν, and patrem.

Second, év táλneve more naturally refers to God than to the Son of God. If ev to danBev did in fact refer to Christ, (1) John would probably have continued either with τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ or with Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ υἱῷ θεοῦ.--that is, ἐν would be omitted before a phrase that was in epexegetic apposition, and autou would be omitted, as lacking a natural antecedent in τῷ ἀληθινῷ; and (2) αὐτοῦ would have to refer back to τὸν άnervóv (= the Father), but then Jesus would be both ó dλnervos and the Son of o dnevós. There can be no doubt that outou finds its most natural antecedent in to nové, which would then refer to the Father.

If, then, the first two uses of danevóc in this verse refer to God, év t υἱῷ αὑτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ will not be in epexegetic apposition to ἐν τῷ ἀλη ev ("in the one who is true, namely, in his Son, Jesus Christ"), although such an understanding of the relation between the two phrases seems to be reflected in the translation "even in his Son Jesus Christ" (RV, ASV, Moffatt, NIV) 10 The second év phrase is either modal or causal. If modal, the meaning of ev is "by our union with" (TNT), "through" (Goodspeed), or "by being in" (Law 412; Zerwick, Analysis 560; Stott 195). If causal, év bears the sense "because we are in" (Malatesta 321; J. Schneider, Briefe 188; similarly NER. NAB') or "by virtue of our being in" (Alford 4:514; similarly Brooke 162; Bultmann, Epistles 89-90). 12 Ev to vie auto e 245/380 means by which the εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ 1s eftected or states why believers can be said to be "in the true one."

On this view John is affirming that, in addition to enjoying an ever-deep ening knowledge (vooкoμev, present tense) of God, believers are, in very truth (xo), in living fellowship with God 13 through being incorporated in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ.

One difficulty needs to be faced. The precise notion of "being in" God is unparalleled in the Johannine corpus. The nearest parallels are "being in us" (Father and Son; John 17:21) and "abiding in God/the Father" (1 John 2:24; 4:15-16). But even in the absence of a precise parallel, one is justified in assuming that if John could use the expressions Beòv Exeiv (2 John 9a) and tov яatépa Exeiv (1 John 2:23 bís; 2 John 9b) in addition to the phrases ἐν ἡμῖν εἶναι and ἐν τῷ θεῷ μένειν mentioned above, he might equally be able to say eiva év tp dneve, referring to God. Perhaps this unique turn of phrase was used as the antithesis of ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖσθαι (ν. 19).

C. The Antecedent of ούτος

Three preliminary points must be established. First, it seems incontest able that outog points backward, not forward. If John were defining o dλn eLVòç Beóç as Çam aiovios, "this is the true God, namely (xi) eternal life," the Kai would have been omitted before Car cicovios-at least if Johannine usage of the prospective outoç elsewhere be a guide (1 John 2:22; 5:4, 6; Rev. 20:14).14

Second, it is unnatural to find two separate subjects in 5:20f. Such an expedient takes two forms. Some see the Father as ó dλnevoç Bɛóc and the Son or the knowledge of the true God as an oidovioç. Findlay (428), for example, renders 5:20f as "this is the true God, and (here, in this knowledge, is) eternal life" (similarly Dodd, Epistles 140). And Smalley (292, 307) pro poses "he is the real God, and this is eternal life" (similarly NB). But whether one reckons on an implied outoç after Koi, referring to Jesus Christ, or on a case of prozeugma, so that our is implied after Kai, 15 the predicate would need to be ǹ on aivios to indicate the interchangeabil ity of the concept (the Son/this knowledge/being in the true one is eternal life, and vice versa) and to preserve the parallelism of the sentence (cf. obros... daηevoç Beóc). Stated in another way, the anarthrous state of Con indicates a conceptual conjunction between Coon and Beóç so that both terms may be predicated of a single subject (ovtos).

The other way two distinct subjects are found in 5:20f is by referring οὗτος το ὁ ἀληθινός and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός simultaneously. W. E. Vine believes that the singular outoç reflects "the inseparable unity of the Father and the Son in the one Godhead" (109): "This (the undivided, indivisible Father and Son) is the true God.... Christ is the embodiment, as well as the source, of the life which springs from God" (109-10). Such diction, how ever, where a singular pronoun refers to two persons of the Trinity, is unparalleled in the NT, although on occasion two separate subjects (Father and Son) are followed by a singular verb. 16 If it had been the author's intent to predicate ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος of two persons, he would have begun the sentence with οὗτοι or οἱ δύο or οὗτοι οἱ δύο εἰσίν (cf. 1 John 5:8b and the textual variants in 5:7-8).

The third preliminary point is this. Although in 5:20c-d there are two sub stantival uses of the adjective aλnevóç, it is unnecessary for the sake of consistency to treat ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός in 5:20f as a further instance, with θεὸς Kai Çan aidvios in epexegetic apposition: "He [Christ] is the truthful One, God and Life eternal" (Malatesta 320). In the other two NT cases (viz., John 4:23; 17:3) where dinervóç stands between the article and a noun it is clearly attributive¹7 and the onus of proof certainly rests on any exegete who would treat danevóç as substantival in 5:20f, especially given the almost precise parallel in John 17:3: τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν. These prolegomena have established that in 5:20f outoç is retrospective, not prospective, that ζωή αιώνιος must be construed with ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός, not directly with outoç or an implied auth; that outoç has a single not a dual referent, and that άnovóc is adjectival, not substantival.

There are no fewer than seven possible antecedents of outoç. A repre sentative advocate for each view may be mentioned.

1. the epistle's teaching about God (Dodd, Epistles 140)

2. v. 20 in general (Ewald, as cited by Huther, General Epistles 485)

3. Inσoû Xpiot (R. N. Longenecker, Christology 137) 4. vie (Ebrard 347)

5. τῷ ἀληθινῷ (Brooke 152) 6. auto (Robertson, Grammar 703, 707)

7. to Bɛo (v. 19) (Buttmann 104)

These seven options may be reduced effectively to three: a general concept defined by what precedes (options 1 and 2 above), Jesus Christ (3 and 4), or God the Father (5-7).

1. A General Concept Defined by What Precedes C. H. Dodd avers that outoç has "a wider and vaguer reference" than to the person of Jesus Christ. "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" (Epistles 140). H. Ewald, on the other hand, focuses more narrowly on the first two sentences in verse 20 and especially oiбquev and équév: "This, both these things together, that we know and that we are all this, this is the true God and eternal life."18

It is not impossible that the masculine pronoun outoç should encapsu late some preceding idea or set of ideas19such as teaching about the knowl edge of God through Christ, for the toûto that one might have expected in such a case is nowhere used in the Johannine corpus without a grammatical (as opposed to a conceptual) antecedent (see 1 John 4:3).20 The real diffi culty with this proposal is twofold: it is arbitrary to prefer an impersonal antecedent, such as certain concepts or teaching, when there are two pos sible personal antecedents, viz., God and Jesus Christ; if ouros had an impersonal antecedent, the word order οὗτος ἐστιν (ἡ) ζωὴ αἰώνιος καὶ ὁ dnevò Bóg would be more natural, with "the true God" forming the personal climax after two impersonal references: "This is eternal life-and the true God."

2. Jesus Christ (either Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷoυ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ)

a. Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ as the Nearest Antecedent Locally, Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ is the nearest antecedent of οὗτος and there is the necessary accord of number and gender. "Otoç does, as a rule, refer to what is near or last mentioned and exeivos to what is remote" (Robertson, Grammar 702, who, however, refers outos in this verse to God).

But one should not overlook the deictic use of obtoç (see Buttmann 104; Winer 157; N. Turner, Syntax 13, 44; Zerwick, Greek §214).21 Just as exeivoç may have a proximate antecedent which is of secondary import in the con text (e.g., Matt. 17:27, where exivov refers to otapa; Acts 3:13, where ἐκείνου refers to Πιλάτου), 8ο οὗτος may have a remote or "nonimmediate" antecedent which is nevertheless dominant in the writer's mind (e.g., Matt. 3:3, 17; Acts 4:11; 7:19; 8:26). There are two notable instances in the Johan nine Epistles.

1 John 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος. 2 John 7 "Οτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμοῦ λογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

Pointers to what was dominant in John's mind in 1 John 5:20 may be found in τὸν ἀληθινόν . . . ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ . . . αὐτοῦ, al three expressions refer ring to God.22 There is also the significant point that elsewhere in 1 John exivoç is exclusively the demonstrative pronoun that refers to Christ (1 John 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17),23

b. Jesus as ζωή

In two passages in the Fourth Gospel (11:25; 14:6) Jesus is identified as "the Life" (eyó eiu...non). And just as "life" existed in the preexistent Logos (John 1:4: év auto Con v), "eternal life" resides in and is experi enced through the incarnate Son of God (1 John 5:11: Conv aivov αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν). In 1 John 1:2 ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος is both Jesus himself and the divine life revealed in him. In keeping with such usage it would be natural for John to affirm of Jesus οὗτός ἐστιν . . . ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

It is true that the emphasis throughout the Johannine corpus is on the Father as the source of the (eternal) life that is in his Son (e.g., John 5:26; 10:28), rather than on God as himself life or eternal life. But it is only a small step from the statement ó natip exe Conv év éavto (John 5:26) or the characterization of God as ó Cov xamp (John 6:57) to the absolute identi fication outós éonv... Can aiovioç. In any case, whether 1 John 5:20c describes the Son or the Father, the statement is unique, for nowhere does John assert that either person "is life eternal," using both the present tense (eony) and the adjective (aicvioç).

c. ἀληθινός as Applied to Jesus

On five occasions in the Johannine literature the adjective dλnervóç is applied to Jesus. He is the true light (John 1:9; 1 John 2:8), the true bread (John 6:32), the true vine (John 15:1), and the true witness (Rev. 3:14). Then, since he is called Beóç in John 1:1, povoyevns Beós in John 1:18, 6 Beóc μov in John 20:28, and ó áλneivóc in Revelation 3:7, it would seem unobjec tionable for him to be called ó áλnevòç Beóç in 1 John 5:20. One could even argue that the change in this verse from two substantival uses of an ivóc to an adjectival use marks a change of referent, from God to Jesus.

As for John's use of eeóç in the Fourth Gospel in reference to the preex istent Logos (John 1:1), the incarnate Son (John 1:18), and the risen Lord (John 20:28), we should not overlook the fact that in the first two cases Beog is anarthrous and in the third case it is articular simply because a vocatival nominative followed by a possessive pronoun is invariably articular.24 Given this calculated nonuse of the article with Beóg, it would be strange if such grammatical precision were compromised by equating Jesus Christ with ὁ θεός.25 Support for applying ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός to God may be found in the repeated tov eeòv tov dnevov in Isaiah 66:16 (LXX), in the unam biguous tov μóvov dnevov Beóv in John 17:3 (where a distinction is drawn between "the one true God" and "the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ"),26 in the application of devós to God in John 7:28 and Revelation 6:10, and in the twofold use of o nevóc in reference to God in 1 John 5:20c-d.

d. Christological Inclusio

If outos = Jesus Christ, then 1 John, like the Fourth Gospel (1:1; 20:28), begins and ends with a crucial christological affirmation that points to or expresses the deity of Christ (1:2; 5:20). This is true in a general sense, but there is the difference that whereas in the Gospel Beóç is applied to Jesus at the beginning and end, in the First Epistle it is the concept of Jesus as (n) Con (1) civioç, not an explicit statement of his deity, that is the common feature.

e. οὗτός ἐστιν in 1 John 5:6

Since outóç éony in 5:20f echoes 5:6 (Malatesta 322 n. 11), the referent in 5:20 will be the same as in 5:6, viz., Jesus Christ. A. Škrinjar (153) goes one step further. this "very solemn description" (o dnevòç Beóc) is intro duced by obrócony, to which there corresponds in the Gospel the christological formula ἐγώ εἰμι 27

The parallel with 5:6 is only verbal, for there outóc conv is prospective, not retrospective as it is in 5:20. Nor can any correspondence between où tóc èotv and eyó eit be pressed, for whereas the "I am" formula is fre quent and is used exclusively of Jesus in the Gospel, outós éonv occurs only three times in the First Epistle, once clearly referring to Jesus (5:6) and once not (2:22). But this is not to doubt that ouróç eonv in 5:20, whatever its referent, forms an inclusio with aüt éotiv at the beginning of the epi logue (5:14) (Malatesta 320 n. 3).

Convinced by the arguments rehearsed above (viz., &C.2.a-e), a large number of scholars refer obtoç to Jesus Christ28 and therefore believe that the author is unequivocally asserting that "his (God's) Son, Jesus Christ" is devós beo Those who discuss the matter further express this relation between Jesus and "the true God" in various ways. A. Corell, for instance, speaks only of the "absolute affinity" that always exists between Christ and God (140). Both R. Schnackenburg (Johannesbriefe 291) and G. Schunack (106) use the expression "die volle Identität," emphasizing (respectively) that this total identity is here affirmed "ohne Einschränkung" or "unein geschränkt." But, one may ask, identity of what? No one, of course, suggests identity of person, since John clearly distinguishes ó viòç tou Beoû from o danevós (=ó лamp) in 5:20a-c. The only other option would seem to be identity of nature. Accordingly, H. Balz (204) explains his phrase "selbst wirklicher Gott" by "vom Wesen Gottes selbst" and J. Schneider affirms that this Johannine confessional formula asserts "the full unity of essence" ("die vollkommene Wesenseinheit") of Christ and God (TENT 2:607; similarly Briefe 188). The Achilles' heel of such proposals is the presence of the arti cle.29 Although he propounds an odd solution to the problem, J. H.A. Ebrard

is correct that "in declaring what any one is, the predicate must have no arti cle; in declaring who any one is, the predicate must have the article" (347),30

3. God the Father (either to τώ αληθινώ or αὐτοῦ or τοῦ θεοῦ)

In the course of evaluating the case for Jesus Christ as the antecedent of outos, several arguments in favor of God as the antecedent were mentioned:

1. Otoç may be deictic, referring back not to the nearest antecedent

but to the dominant thought in the writer's mind (cf. the use of outoç in 1 John 2:22; 2 John 7) as seen in the sequence tov άne νόν . . . ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ . . . αὐτοῦ, 2. In 1 John the demonstrative pronoun used to refer to Jesus is invariably ἐκεῖνος, not οὗτος. 3. Aλnevóc is applied to God in Isaiah 65:16 bis (LXX) (τον θεόν τόν αληθινόν), John 7:28, and Revelation 6:10.

4. It is very improbable that John would jettison two explicit and precise distinctions found in the Fourth Gospel by speaking of Jesus as ó Beóc (cf. John 1:1, 18)31 and as ó dλnevos Beóc (cf. John 17:3). To these arguments four additional points may be added.

a. Parallels to 1 John 5:20f

The closest verbal parallel to 5:20f is found in John 17:3 rather than in John 14:6. Now it is true that in the latter case danetvós matches dreta und ζωὴ αἰώνιος parallels ζωτή, but in the forner ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός recalls o μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός and ζωὴ αἰώνιος corresponds to ή αἰώνιος ζωή. And it is there, in John 17:3, that the title ó dλnevóc Beóc is applied to the Father as opposed to the Son, who is depicted as the messenger of "the one true God" (ὃν ἀπέστειλας).32 Also, wherever the articular nominative ὁ θεός is found in the Gospel (fourteen instances) or elsewhere in 1 John (twelve cases), it refers to the Father. This leads me to suggest that if John had intended to affirm that God's Son was ò dnevòç Beóç, John 17:3 indicates that he would probably have written something like οὗτος καὶ κτλ., “He (God's Son, Jesus Christ) also is the true God and life eternal."

b. God as ζωή

We have seen that whether the predicate ἐστιν . . . ζωὴ αἰώνιος apples to God or to Christ, it is an unparalleled assertion in precisely this form (viz., with the present tense and this adjective). It is therefore unjustified for J. Schneider to reject the application of the predicate to God on the ground that John nowhere says of God that he is eternal life (Briefe 188). If the knowledge of the true God is eternal life (John 17:3), and if God "has life in himself" (John 5:26) so that he may be termed "the living Father" (John 6:57), there would be little difficulty in affirming that he "is life eternal." By this John means not merely that God is eternally the essence of all life and "eternally the Living One" (Law 413) but also that all eternal life granted to believers through his Son (John 10:28) stems from him and him alone. It is not exactly that he has eternal life and imparts it; rather he is eternal life and therefore is its only source. Zoom aiovioç is anarthrous, I suggest, for two reasons: to indicate the intimate link between true deity and eternal life, viz., that the true God is eternally and essentially the living one and all those who have eternal life derive it from him; and to indicate a nonreciprocating proposition, viz., that, while God by nature and as revealed in Christ is eter nal life, eternal life cannot be precisely equated with God. In any case John never writes ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, only ζωὴ αἰώνιος (as here) or ή αιώνιος ζωή.

c. Contextual Support

The immediate and wider contexts support a reference to the Father. First, ό αληθινός twice refers to the Father in 5:20c-d, and while a change of referent is not impossible one would expect an identity of referent when ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός occurs in the next sentence, even if ἀληθινός has become adjectival. In this case a clear progression is evident within 5:20: 6 θεός ὁ ἀληθινός (bis)-ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός, all in reference to the Father.33 Sec ond, there are two indications that the phrase ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστού is of secondary import:34 word order shows that the main assertion is εσμέν εν τω αληθινω, "we are in union with this (anaphoric to) true one"; the repeated év reveals the sense to be not "namely in," but either "by being in" or "because we are in" (see §B above) so that the phrase intro duced by εν is subsidiary or even parenthetical (as Harnack proposes, Dogma 110 n. 1) and not essential for the completion of sense. And the addition "Ιησού Χριστού is even less central, for it is in epexegetic apposi tion to to vie autou. If all this be so, the dominant line of thought in 5:20c-f will be τὸν ἀληθινόν ... ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ . . . οὗτος. . . . Third, 1' οὗτος = God, this verse provides the final member of a trilogy of affirmations found In 1 John: God is φῶς (1:5), ἀγάπη (4:8, 16), and ζωὴ αἰώνιος (cf. πνεύμα, John 4:24).

d. Apparent Tautology

Defenders of the equation outoç - Jesus Christ frequently draw attention to the apparent tautology that results if outoç refers to the Father. "To choose the more distant antecedent-that is, the Father-injects a tautol ogy, if not an inanity, into the verse, for one does not need to be informed that the Father, who admittedly has just been twice identified already as the true One,' is 'the true God" (Reymond 311).

To begin with, we should observe that there is no simple repetition: "This (true one) is the true God." On the one hand, just as the article with dλnBtvo is anaphoric, referring back to what has been said with respect to tov ἀληθινόν, το οὗτος gathers up all that has preceded in the verse. “This true one, whom believers now know because of his Son's coming and gift of insight and with whom they are now united in fellowship, this one (ούτος) is the true God and life eternal. "35 Also, ούτος stresses that it is only the Father of Jesus Christ who is the true God. On the other hand, in the pred icate of verse 20f there is not simply repetition (αληθινός) but also expansion (θεός and ζωή αἰώνιος).

Then again, a twofold progression is represented by verse 20f. There is a development within the chapter from "God gave us eternal life" (5:11) to God "is eternal life" (5:20), and within verse 20 from ό θεός to ό αληθινός (bis) to ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός. Finally, the combination o dnevòç eróg is designed to prepare the way for verse 21 with its warning against the worship of false gods: "He is the real God....Little children, guard yourselves against false gods" (Smalley's rendering, 292). Whether είδωλα is understood literally as pagan idols, or by metonymy as paganism in general or as false images or heretical concep tions of God (e.g., 1 John 2:21-23, 26-27; 4:1-6), or as any substitute for the worship of the true God, 36 the "true God-false gods" antithesis, so common in both Testaments (eg, Isa. 45:16-22; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Thess. 1:9-10), is clearly present in the transition from verse 20 to verse 21,37

4. Conclusion

Although it is certainly possible that ούτος refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to "the true one," God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, ούτος God, is held by many commentators,38 authors of general studies, and, significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.40 " ("Jesus As God : The New Testament Use Of Theos In Reference To Jesus" [Grand Rapids, Mi : Baker Books, 1992], 240-253)

About Murray J. Harris : Murray J. Harris is professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He was for a time warden of Tyndale House at Cambridge University. He gained his PhD from the University of Manchester, studying under F. F. Bruce.

__________________
Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Facebook.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nathan-Lerr