1Jn_5:20. In conclusion, the apostle indicates whence the
εἶναι
ἐκ
τῷ
Θεῷ
(the result of the
εἶναι
ἐκ
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
) has come to him and his readers; and he does this by expressing it through
οἴδαμεν
as the substance of their Christian consciousness.
οἴδαμεν
δέ
,
ὅτι
ὁ
υἱὸς
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
ἥκει
] The conditioning cause of the former is the coming of the Son of God.
The particle
δέ
is here used to indicate the antithesis to the immediately preceding thought; Brückner has with justice decided in favour of this reading (contrary to
καὶ
οἴδαμεν
; see the critical notes).
ἥκει
is not = adest (Bengel), but: “has come;” the reference is to the incarnation of the Son of God.
καὶ
δέδωκεν
ἡμῖν
διάνοιαν
,
ἵνα
γινώσκομεν
τὸν
ἀληθινόν
] Still dependent on
ὅτι
.
The subject of
δέδωκεν
is not:
ὁ
Θεός
(Bengel), but:
ὁ
υἱὸς
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
, as the close connection of this clause with that immediately preceding clearly shows;
τὸν
ἀληθινόν
, on the other hand, is not a description of the Son (Bengel), but of God.
By
διάνοια
we are not to understand, with Lücke and de Wette, “knowledge,” or even “insight,” but the capability of knowledge (Düsterdieck, Ebrard), yet in its living activity, hence “the faculty of knowing.”[331]
By
ἵνα
γινώσκομεν
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. it is neither the purpose: “in order that,” nor even the result: “so that,” that is stated, but the object to which the
διάνοια
is directed, and which it attains. We can only regard
ἵνα
as the particle of purpose, if we unjustifiably understand by
διάνοια
“the spiritual disposition” (contrary to Braune).
The idea
γινώσκειν
is here used with the same force as in chap. 1Jn_2:4-5, where it is similarly connected with
ἐν
αὐτῷ
εἶναι
. By
τὸν
ἀληθινόν
God is described, in distinction from all idols, especially from the idol which the false teachers made of God, as the true God; Calvin: Verum Deum intelligit, non veraccm, sed cum qui re vera Deus est, ut cum ab idolis omnibus discernat; comp. Joh_17:3[332] (similarly Lücke, de Wette, Neander, Erdmann, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc.). He is the true God, who has sent His Son into the world; the coming of Christ has not been ineffectual, but has produced in believers the knowledge of God—a knowledge which is one with being in God. Therefore the apostle continues:
ΚΑῚ
ἘΣΜῈΝ
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ
. These words are not dependent on
ὍΤΙ
(Vulg.: et simus), but form an independent sentence. The
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ
refers back to
ΤῸΝ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌΝ
; considering the close connection of the two sentences, it must be the same subject, namely God, that is meant by the same word (Brückner, Braune); it is arbitrary to understand by
τὸν
ἀληθινόν
God, and by
Τῷ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ
, on the other hand, Christ, and it is, moreover, forbidden by the context, in accordance with which the
ΚΑῚ
ἘΣΜῈΝ
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ
states the consequence of the preceding, namely of the fact that the Son of God has come and has given to us the capability of knowing the true God.[333] Therefore also the following words:
ἐν
τῷ
υἱῷ
αὐτοῦ
Ἰησοῦ
Χριστῷ
, are not to be taken as apposition to
ἐν
τῷ
ἀλ
. (Weiss), against which even the
αὐτοῦ
testifies, for then it would have to be referred, not to
τῷ
ἀληθινῷ
, but beyond it to
τὸν
ἀληθινόν
. The additional clause shows in what the
εἶναι
ἐν
τῷ
ἀληθινῷ
has its ground and stability (Brückner, Braune);
ἐν
is not = per, but indicates, as generally in the formula
ἐν
Ἰησ
.
Χριστῷ
, the relationship of intimate fellowship: the believer is in God, inasmuch as he is in Christ.
Before the last warning, connected with this (1Jn_5:21), the apostle expressively concludes with the statement:
οὗτός
ἐστιν
ὁ
ἀληθινὸς
Θεὸς
καὶ
ζωὴ
αἰώνιος
. As is well known, views have differed from old times about the meaning of
οὗτος
. While the Arians understand
οὗτος
of God, the orthodox refer it to the immediately preceding
ἐν
τῷ
υἱῷ
Ἰ
.
Χρ
., and use this passage as a proof of the divinity of the Son. This interpretation remained the prevailing one in the Church, even after Erasmus had remarked: “hic est verus Deus” referri potest ad Deum verum Patrem qui praecessit; and against this the Socinians, and then Grotius, Wetstein, the English Antitrinitarians, and the German Rationalists followed the opposite view. It is not to be denied that on both sides the different dogmatic interests did not remain without influence on the interpretation, until in more recent times a more unbiassed consideration has led the way. Among the latest commentators, Rickli, Lücke, de Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Frommann, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, even Brückner and Braune (who, however, leave room for doubt), similarly Hofmann (Schriftbew. 2d ed. I. p. 146), Winer (p. 142; VII. p. 148), and Al. Buttmann (p. 91), have decided in favour of the reference to God; Sander, Besser, Ebrard, Weiss, etc., for the reference to the Son. The dispute cannot be settled on grammatical lines, for
οὗτος
can be referred both to
τὸν
ἀληθινόν
[334] and also to
τῷ
υἱῷ
; the addition:
καὶ
ζωὴ
αἰώνιος
, seems to support the latter reference, for Christ, in the Gospel of John, calls Himself precisely
ἡ
ζωή
, and also in the beginning of this Epistle it is the Son of God that is to be understood by
ἡ
ζωή
and
ἡ
ζωὴ
ἡ
αἰώνιος
. The former reference, on the other hand, is supported by the expression:
ὁ
ἀληθινὸς
Θεός
; for, in the first place, it is more natural to understand here the same subject as is previously designated by
ὁ
ἀληθινὸς
, than any other; and, in the second place, the Father and the Son, God and Jesus Christ, are always so definitely distinguished throughout the whole Epistle that it would be strange if, at the close of it, and, moreover, just after both subjects have been similarly distinguished immediately before, Christ—without further explanation, too—should be described as
ὁ
ἀληθινὸς
Θεός
, especially as this designation is never ascribed to the Son in the writings of John, definitely though the divinity of the Son is taught in them.[335] To this it may be added that, after John has brought out as the peculiar characteristic of the Christian’s life, of which he partakes in the Son of God, the
ΕἾΝΑΙ
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῷ
, the clause in question has its right meaning only if it states who that
ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς
is, namely that he is the
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῸς
ΘΕῸς
ΚΑῚ
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝΙΟς
. Now, though elsewhere it is only Christ that is called exactly
Ἡ
ΖΩΉ
, yet He has the
ΖΩΉ
—according to His own words, Joh_5:26—only from the Father, who originally has the life in Himself (
Ὁ
ΠΑΤῊΡ
ἜΧΕΙ
ΖΩῊΝ
ἘΝ
ἙΑΥΤῷ
), and may therefore be called
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝΙΟς
no less than the Son. Besides, it is to be observed that
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝ
. is here used without the article, so that the expression comes under the same category as the expressions:
Ὁ
ΘΕΌς
ἘΣΤΙ
Φῶς
(1Jn_1:5),
ἈΓΆΠΗ
(1Jn_4:16),
ΠΝΕῦΜΑ
(Gospel of Joh_4:24).
The objection that “it would be a feeble repetition, after the Father had twice been called
Ὁ
ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς
, again to say: this is the
ἈΛΗΘΙΝῸς
ΘΕΌς
” (Ebrard, similarly Weiss; also Schulze, Menschensohn, etc. p. 263[336]), is the less valid, as the apostle has already in view the warning of 1Jn_5:21, and by
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ΥἹῷ
ΑὐΤΟῦ
Ἰ
.
ΧΡ
. it is indicated that He alone is the true God, with whom we are in fellowship in Christ: it is only the Father of Jesus Christ that is the true God.
The connection of the words:
ΚΑῚ
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝΙΟς
, as a second predicate, with
ΟὟΤΟς
, has appeared a difficulty to many commentators. Socinus wanted to take
ΟὟΤΟς
=
ΤΟῦΤΟ
, with reference to the whole preceding thought, and then he paraphrases
ΤΟῦΤΟ
by
ἘΝ
ΤΟΎΤῼ
and interprets: in eo, quod diximus, est ille verus Deus et vita aeterna; nam quatenus quis habet et cognoscit Christi Patrem et ipsum Christum, habet et illum verum Deum et aeternam vitam; similarly Ewald, when he paraphrases: “this, both these things together, that we know and that we are all this, this is the true God and eternal life.” The arbitrariness of this explanation is self-evident. Others, as Clarke, Benson, Lücke (in his 1st ed.), supply before
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝ
. an
ΑὝΤΗ
ἘΣΤΊΝ
out of
ΟὟΤΌς
ἘΣΤΙΝ
, referring
ΑὝΤΗ
either to
Ὁ
ΥἹΌς
or to the idea
ΕἾΝΑΙ
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ἈΛΗΘ
. Lücke has rightly withdrawn this explanation in his 2d edition as unwarrantable, and correctly says: “
ΚΑῚ
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝ
. can certainly not be grammatically connected directly with
ΟὟΤΟς
;” Lücke, however, thinks that there is an ellipsis in the expression, and that it is to be interpreted: “this … the true God is eternal life, which can either be understood of the fact that God is the cause and source of eternal life, or thus: His fellowship is eternal life.” But why could not John have described by
ζωὴ
αἰών
. the substantial character of the divine nature? If God has
ΖΩΉ
in Himself (Joh_5:26), namely the
ΖΩΉ
which He has given to the Son, and which believers possess through the Son (Joh_5:24), then God in His very nature is
ζωή
, and
ΖΩῊ
ΑἸΏΝΙΟς
too. As John mentions this as the characteristic of God’s nature, there certainly lies in this the indication that God is the source of life for us.
[331] It is quite arbitrary, with Semler, to interpret the idea
διάνοια
=
μετάνοια
καὶ
πίστις
. Paulus lays a special emphasis on
διά
: “thinking through (out) in contrast to a vague acceptance and thoughtless belief” (!).
[332] Baumgarten-Crusius thinks that
ἀληθ
. means more here than in Joh_17:3, namely: “he who gives a satisfaction, in quo uno acquiescendum est;” but if this were really contained in the idea here, that would be the case in Joh_17:3 also.
[333] This explanation is so much the more justifiable, as it is to be expected from John that at the close of his Epistle he would express in brief language the highest thing that can be said of the life of the believer, and this is the
εἶναι
ἐν
τῷ
Θεῷ
(
τῷ
ἀληθινῷ
).
[334] It lies in the very nature of the case that
οὗτος
may refer to the principal subject, nay, that this is the reference most suitable to the word; comp. 1Jn_2:22; 2Jn_1:7; Act_4:11; Act_7:19. Calvin’s rule, which Sander repeats, is erroneous: Pron. demonstr.
οὗτος
ordinarie, nisi evidenter textus aliud requirat, immediate antecedens nomen respicit ac demonstrat.
[335] It is only through a superficial consideration that, for the refutation of this assertion, appeal can be made to Joh_1:1; Joh_20:28, and the passages in the Apocalypse in which the predicate
ἀληθινός
is ascribed to Christ.—How little care is sometimes exercised in the proof of the truth that what is stated by John of Jesus Christ really proclaims Him as the true God, is shown, amongst others, by Schulze, in the way in which he appeals on behalf of this to Joh_17:23; Joh_14:20, since it would follow from this that even the disciples of Jesus could be described as the true God.
[336] Brückner and Braune also consider the “tautology” at least as something not quite out of the question; but a real tautology is here so far from being the case, that “
Θεός
” is here added to
ἀληθινός
, and the idea
ζωὴ
αἰώνιος
is directly connected with the idea
ὁ
ἀληθινὸς
Θεός
.