1 John 2:23

1Jn 2:23. Πᾶς, every one) even though he does not think that he also denies the Father.—ἔχει, has) in acknowledgment and fellowship: 2Jn 1:9.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_2:23. Confirmation of the last stated thought in two clauses, which express the same idea, only in different form.[174]

Πᾶς Ὁ ἈΡΝΟΎΜΕΝΟς ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ, ΟὐΔῈ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ ἜΧΕΙ] ἈΡΝΕῖΣΘΑΙ ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ is in meaning synonymous with ἈΡΝΕῖΣΘΑΙ, ὍΤΙ ἸΗΣΟῦς ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς. The assertion that John here confounds with the idea of Christ that of the Son, i.e. of the eternal Logos (de Wette and others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Düsterdieck, Brückner).

Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause: καὶ ἀρνεῖται, corresponding to the first part, John says: ΟὐΔῈ … ἜΧΕΙ, which has a wider import, for ἜΧΕΙΝ is to be taken emphatically = to possess in living fellowship (Düsterdieck); the explanation of Beza is insufficient: nec patrem esse credit (better, a Lapide: habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione); the thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, ἔχειν τ. πατέρα is explained by: to know the will of God; erroneously Storr also: to him is the Father not gracious.

In the following words: Ὁ ὉΜΟΛΟΓῶΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which are wanting in the Recepta (see the critical notes), ὁμολογεῖν forms the antithesis of ἈΡΝΕῖΣΘΑΙ; it means a confession which is the expression of faith (Mat_10:32; Rom_10:10). In regard to the construction, Ebrard rightly remarks: That ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ is dependent on ὉΜΟΛΟΓῶΝ, and not along with ΚΑῚ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ (as in 2Jn_1:9) on ἜΧΕΙ (in which case ὉΜΟΛΟΓῶΝ would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words, to which these form the antithesis.

[174] Braune, rightly: Here is the progress from the denying to the having, and from the particular (ὁ ψεύστης) to the general (πᾶς).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 2:23 . Since the Father is manifested and interpreted in the Son. cf. Joh 1:18 ; Joh 14:9 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They then are deceived themselves, and also do deceive others, which say that the Turks and other infidels worship the same God that we do.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Greek, "Every one who denieth the Son, hath not the Father either" (Jo1 4:2-3): "inasmuch as God hath given Himself to us wholly to be enjoyed in Christ" [CALVIN].

he--that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. These words ought not to be in italics, as though they were not in the original: for the oldest Greek manuscripts have them.

hath--namely, in his abiding possession as his "portion"; by living personal "fellowship."

acknowledgeth--by open confession of Christ.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 23. Whosoever denieth the Son] He who denies Jesus to be the Son of God, and consequently the Christ or Messiah, he hath not the Father-he can have no birth from above, he cannot be enrolled among the children of God, because none can be a child of God but by faith in Christ Jesus.

He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] This clause is printed by our translators in Italics to show it to be of doubtful authority, as it was probably wanting in the chief of those MSS. which they consulted, as it was in Coverdale's Bible, printed 1535; Tindall's Text, printed 1548; and in all the early printed editions (which I have seen) previously to 1566; the Bible of Richard Cardmarden, printed in English at Rouen, where this clause is inserted in a different letter between brackets. But that the clause is genuine, and should be restored to the text without any mark of spuriousness, as I have done in the text of this work, is evident from the authorities by which it is supported. It is found in ABC, and in between twenty and thirty others of the best authority; as also in both the Syriac, Erpen's Arabic, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, and Vulgate. It is also quoted as a part of the text by Origen, Meletius, Athanesius, both the Cyrils, Theophylact, Vigilius of Tapsum, Pelagius, Cerealis, Cassian; and in substance by Euthalius, Epiphanius, Cyprian, Hilary, Faustinus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, and Bede. It is wanting in the Arabic, in the Polyglot, in a MSS. in the Harleian library, and in some few others. It is doubtless genuine, and Griesbach has with propriety restored it to the text, from which it never should have been separated.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Now this is a remarkable sentence, and ought to be reckoned among the first axioms of our religion. yea, when we have confessed that there is one true God, this second article ought necessarily to be added, that he is no other but he who is made known in Christ. The Apostle does not here treat distinctly of the unity of essence. It is, indeed, certain, that the Son cannot be disunited from the Father, for he is of the same essence, (ὁμοούσιος;) but another thing is spoken of here, that is, that the Father, who is invisible, has revealed himself only in his Son. Hence he is called the image of the Father, (Hebrews 1:3,) because he sets forth and exhibits to us all that is necessary to be known of the Father. For the naked majesty of God would, by its immense brightness, ever dazzle our eyes; it is therefore necessary for us to look on Christ. This is to come to the light, which is justly said to be otherwise inaccessible.

I say, again, that there is not here a distinct discussion respecting the eternal essence of Christ, which he has in common with the Father. This passage is, indeed, abundantly sufficient to prove it: but John calls us to this practical part of faith, that as God has given himself to us to be enjoyed only in Christ, he is elsewhere sought for in vain; or (if any one prefers what is clearer) that as in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Deity, there is no God apart from him. It hence follows, that Turks, Jews, and such as are like them, have a mere idol and not the true God. For by whatever titles they may honor the God whom they worship, still, as they reject him without whom they cannot come to God, and in whom God has really manifested himself to us, what have they but some creature or fiction of their own? They may flatter themselves as much as they please, with their own speculations, who, without Christ, philosophize on divine things; it is still certain that they do nothing but rave and rant, because, as Paul says, they hold not the Head. (Colossians 2:19.) It is obvious, hence, to conclude how necessary is the knowledge of Christ.

Many copies have the opposite sentence, “He who confesses the Son,” etc. But as I think that a note by some copyist has crept into the text, I hesitated not to omit it. But if its insertion be approved, the meaning would be, that there is no right confession of God except the Father be acknowledged in the Son.

Were any one to object and say, that many of the ancients thought rightly of God, to whom Christ was not known: I allow that the knowledge of Christ has not been always so explicitly revealed, nevertheless, I contend that it has been always true, that as the light of the sun comes to us by its rays, so the knowledge of God has been communicated through Christ.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

23. The previous statement is emphasized by an expansion of it stated both negatively and positively. The expansion consists in declaring that to deny the Son is not merely to do that, and indeed not merely to deny the Father, but also (οὐδέ) to debar oneself from communion with the Father. So that we now have a third consequence of denying that Jesus is the Christ. To deny this is (1) to deny the Son, which is (2) to deny the Father, which is (3) to be cut off from the Father. ‘To have the Father’ must not be weakened to mean ‘to hold as an article of faith that He is the Father’; still less, ‘to know the Father’s will’. It means, quite literally, ‘to have Him as his own Father’. Those who deny the Son cancel their own right to be called ‘sons of God’: they ipso facto excommunicate themselves from the great Christian family in which Christ is the Brother, and God is the Father, of all believers. ‘To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God’ (Joh_1:12).

but he that acknowledged the Son] Better, as R. V., he that confesseth the Son: it is the same verb (ὁμολογεῖν) as is used 1Jn_1:9, 1Jn_4:2-3; 1Jn_4:15; 2Jn_1:7. It is surprising that A. V., while admitting the passage about the three Heavenly Witnesses (1Jn_5:7) without any mark of doubtfulness, prints the second half of this verse in italics, as if there were nothing to represent it in the Greek. Excepting the ‘but’, the sentence is undoubtedly genuine, being found in all the best MSS. (אABC) and many other authorities. A few authorities omit it accidentally, owing to the two halves of the verse ending in the Greek with the same three words (τὸν πατέρα ἔχει). Tyndale and the Genevan omit the sentence: Cranmer and the Rhemish retain it; Cranmer marking it as wanting authority, and both omitting ‘but’, which Wiclif inserts, although there is no conjunction in the Vulgate. The asyndeton is impressive and continues through three verses, 22, 23, 24. “The sentences fall on the reader’s soul like notes of a trumpet. Without cement, and therefore all the more ruggedly clasping each other, they are like a Cyclopean wall” (Haupt). It would be possible to translate, ‘He that confesseth, hath the Son and the Father’ (comp. 2Jn_1:9): but this is not probable.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever denieth the Son,.... Jesus Christ to be the true, proper, natural, essential, and eternal Son of God:

the same hath not the Father; or does not hold the Father; or "believe the Father", as the Syriac version renders it; for there cannot be a father without a son; and he that honours not the Son, by owning him as such, honours not the Father; whatever reflects dishonour on the Son, reflects dishonour on the Father. If Christ is not truly and properly the Son of God, the Father is not truly and properly the Father of Christ; if Christ is only a Son in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the Father is only a Father in a figurative and metaphorical sense; if Christ is a Son only by office, then the Father is a Father only by office, which is monstrously stupid. Such an one does not hold the true doctrine of the Father, and does not appear to have true faith in him, true love unto him, or real interest in him, only by profession:

but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza's manuscripts, and in some others; and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and confirms and illustrates what is before said; for as he that denies the sonship of Christ cannot hold the paternity of God, so he that owns the sonship of Christ, the second Person, maintains the paternity of the first; for these two are correlates, and mutually put, or take away each other: no mention is made of the Spirit, because, as yet, no controversy had risen concerning him.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Ver. 23. The same hath not the Father] {See Trapp on "Joh 5:23"} Mahomet speaks very honourably of Christ, but denies his Divinity, and that he was crucified. He acknowledged that he was the word and power of God, and that all that believe in him shall be saved, &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father - That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his friendship. It is only by the Son of God that the Father is made known to people, Mat 11:27; Heb 1:2-3, and it is only through him that we can become reconciled to God, and obtain evidence of His favor. See the notes at Joh 5:23.

But he that acknowledges the Son, hath the Father also - This passage, in the common version of the New Testament, is printed in italics, as if it were not in the original, but was supplied by the translators. It is true that it is not found in all the manuscripts and versions; but it is found in a large number of manuscripts, and in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Aethiopic, the Coptic, the Armenian, and the Arabic versions, and in the critical editions of Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn. It is probable, therefore, that it should be regarded as a genuine portion of the sacred text. It is much in the style of John, and though not necessary to complete the sense, yet it well suits the connection. As it was true that if one denied the Son of God he could have no pretensions to any proper acquaintance with the Father, so it seemed to follow that if anyone had any proper knowledge of the Son of God, and made a suitable confession of him, he had evidence that he was acquainted with the Father. Compare Joh 17:3; Rom 10:9. Though, therefore, this passage was wanting in many of the manuscripts consulted by the translators of the Bible, and though in printing it in the manner in which they have they showed the great caution with which they acted in admitting anything doubtful into their translation, yet the passage should be restored to the text, and be regarded as a genuine portion of the Word of God. The great truth can never be too clearly stated, or too often inculcated, that it is only by a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ that we can have any true acquaintance with God. and that all who have just views of the Saviour are in fact acquainted with the true God, and are heirs of eternal life.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

To have the Father and the Son, is, by faith, love, and obedience, vitally to adhere to the one and the other. The latter part of this verse, though it be not in the ordinary Greek copies, is in some of the versions, and said to be in some Greek manuscripts also, whence it is supplied very agreeably to the apostle’s scope, and usual way of writing.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. Hath not the Father—The medium of our divine approach to the Father, namely, the Son, is by them removed, and they, alas! have not the Father. All the blessings of the gracious system, pardon of sin, the chrism from the Holy One, and the assurance of salvation descending from the Father by the Son upon us, are forfeited.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Every one who denieth the Son not only does that, but oujde doth not possess the Father. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Son of God, for the Christ is the incarnate Son; and to deny the Son of God is to deny the Father also, for the incarnate Son is the Revelation of the Father; and not only so, but to deny the Son is to cut one"s self off from the Father, for "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." To emphasize this great truth St. John uses his favourite motive of stating it both negatively and positively. To deny the Son is not to have the Father; to confess the Son is to have the Father. (1Jn_1:5, 8 2:4, 27 3:6 4:2, 3:6, 7, 8 5:12) Note the solemn asyndeta. There is not a single connecting particle in verses 22-24; the sentences fall on the ear like minute-guns. "Every one that denieth." There is no exception. Even an apostle, if he denies that Jesus is the Christ. thereby also loses all possession of the Father. The history of philosophy verifies the statement. Deism has ever a tendency to end in pantheism or atheism.

Having the Father.

Connecting link: Having shown us of how much the lie of antichrist would deprive us, the apostle declares how rich we are when that lie is rejected, and the truth of Christ abides in us. TopicThe vast wealth of the believer. No uncertainty can attach to the expression, "he that hath the Son;" for while we are sure it must include abiding in the confession of the Son in all his glory and grace, we are equally sure that the confession must be the submission to, the acceptance, the embrace of Christ with all the heart, as well as the avowal of him with the lip. (cf. 1Co 12) To "have Christ is to have received him as a Saviour, to own him as the Revealer of the Father, to honour him as Lord, to follow him as Leader, to grow up to him as the Head. Now, our text contains a remarkable statement about those who thus "have" Christ. They "have" the Father also. In what sense?

1. In the Person of Christ as the incarnate Son they have the exact Imageof the Father, so that they see him through the Son. (Joh_14:9)

2. Through the atoning work of Christ they learn the self-sacrificinglove of the Father, "thphn" (Rom_5:8; 1Jn_4:10)

3. Through the mediation of Christ they have access to the Father (Eph_2:18; Rom_5:2)

1. Through the intercession of Christ they have constant communion withthe Father; not merely occasional access as to a King, but a filial fellowship with a Father.

2. Through Christ as the channel of communication between earth andheaven they receive of the infinite wealth of the Father. (1Co_3:21-23)

3. Through the impartation of power and life from Christ they share the life of the Father. (Gal_2:20) We are not only e]n tw Uiw, but also ejn tw Patri (verse 24).

4. Through the gracious leadership of Christ they will have an everlasting home with the Father. (Joh_14:2, Joh_14:3) And such a Father! Then how ought we:

(1) To delight in God in Christ with rapturous joy!

(2) To rouse all the powers of our soul to contend against those who would miserably impoverish us by compassing the destruction of this blessed life!

(3) To honour such a Father by a calm, pure, heavenly life! Well might Faber ask

O little heart of mine! shall pain Or sorrow make thee moan, When all this God is all for thee A Father all thine own?

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever denieth the eternal Son of God, he hath not communion with the Father; but he that truly and believingly acknowledgeth the Son, hath communion with the Father also.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

23. Whosoever denieth the Son. All who deny the Father and the Son are antichrist; so also those who reject the Son cannot have the Father.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

23. After ἔχει add ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει with [504][505][506][507] and Versions against [508][509]. Omission through homoeoteleuton.

[504] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[505] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

[506] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[507] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1Jn 1:1 to 1Jn 4:2; 3Jn 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[508] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[509] 9th century. All three Epistles.

23. The previous statement is emphasized by an expansion of it stated both negatively and positively. The expansion consists in declaring that to deny the Son is not merely to do that, and indeed not merely to deny the Father, but also (οὐδέ) to debar oneself from communion with the Father. So that we now have a third consequence of denying that Jesus is the Christ. To deny this is (1) to deny the Son, which is (2) to deny the Father, which is (3) to be cut off from the Father. ‘To have the Father’ must not be weakened to mean ‘to hold as an article of faith that He is the Father’; still less, ‘to know the Father’s will’. It means, quite literally, ‘to have Him as his own Father’. Those who deny the Son cancel their own right to be called τέκνα Θεοῦ: they ipso facto excommunicate themselves from the great Christian family in which Christ is the Brother, and God is the Father, of all believers. ‘To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God’ (Joh 1:12). The verse is a condemnation of those who insist on the Fatherhood of God and yet deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. And the condemnation is made with special comprehensiveness: not merely ὁ ἀρνούμενος but πᾶς ὁ ἀρν. As if the Apostle would say, ‘Some may think that there are exceptions to this principle; but it holds good of every one’. Comp. 1Jn 2:29; 1Jn 3:4; 1Jn 3:6; 1Jn 3:9-10; 1Jn 3:15; 1Jn 4:7; 1Jn 5:1; 1Jn 5:4; 1Jn 5:18; 2Jn 1:9.

ὁ ὁμολογῶν. He that confesseth, as R.V. The translation of ὁμολογεῖν should be uniform in 1Jn 1:9; 1Jn 4:2-3; 1Jn 4:15; 2Jn 1:7. It is surprising that A.V., while admitting the passage about the three Heavenly Witnesses (1Jn 5:7) without any mark of doubtfulness, prints the second half of this verse in italics, as if there were nothing to represent it in the Greek. Excepting the ‘but’, the sentence is undoubtedly genuine, being found in all the best MSS. ([573][574][575][576]) and many other authorities. A few authorities omit it accidentally, owing to the two halves of the verse ending in the Greek with the same three words (τὸν πατἑρα ἔχει). Tyndale, Luther, and the Genevan omit the sentence: Cranmer and the Rhemish retain it; Cranmer marking it as wanting authority, and both omitting ‘but’, which Purvey inserts, although there is no conjunction in the Vulgate. Other Versions insert different conjunctions. The asyndeton is impressive and continues through three verses, 22, 23, 24. “The sentences fall on the reader’s soul like notes of a trumpet. Without cement, and therefore all the more ruggedly clasping each other, they are like a Cyclopean wall” (Haupt). It would be possible to translate, ‘He that confesseth, hath the Son and the Father’ (comp. 2Jn 1:9): but this is not probable.

[573] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[574] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

[575] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[576] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1Jn 1:1 to 1Jn 4:2; 3Jn 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23.] Every one that denieth the Son, neither hath he the Father (the οὐδέ is exclusive and climacteric; not only hath he denied the Son, but he cannot hold, possess the Father): he that confesseth the Son hath also the Father. As nearly the whole of this Epistle, so especially such an assertion as this, formed a battle-field for the old rationalists. Some of the early Commentators and Fathers imagining that Jewish error was indicated by the denying that Jesus is the Christ, the idea has been again taken up by Semler, al., and pressed in the anti-trinitarian interest. Grot., Socinus, Episcopius, all evade the Apostle’s words by inadequate or far-fetched interpretations, understanding the expressions in this verse, of not obeying the teaching, not following the example, &c. of the Son, and by consequence of the Father. But the deeper and truer meaning of the Apostle’s words has been recognized by all the better Commentators, with some variations from one another. While some, as Beza, Calov., Seb.-Schmidt, mark perhaps too precisely the doctrinal character of the words, others, as Lücke and De Wette, make their force consist too much in an ideal and economical relation between the divine Persons. Still all are agreed, that that which is spoken of is the revelation of the Father by the Son only, and that he who rejects this in its fulness rejects all that can be known of the real essence and nature of the Father Himself; “nempe quia Deus se totum nobis in Christo fruendum dedit,” as Calvin. “The antichrists denied that Jesus, the definite Person whom the Apostles had seen, heard, and handled, is the Christ. In whatever sense this denial is to be taken,—the Apostle speaks merely of the fact, as known to the readers;—at all events there is involved in it a denial of the Son of God; because it is only as the incarnate Son of God (ch. 4:2), that Jesus is the Christ. And in the denial of the Son is involved necessarily the denial of the Father, since the Father cannot be known without the Son, and the Father cannot be perceived, believed on, loved, by any man, without the Son, or otherwise than through the Son, i. e. the Son manifested in the flesh, the Christ, which is, Jesus. So that in St. John’s development of the argument there are three essentially connected points: denial of the Christ, of the Son, of the Father. The middle link of the chain, the denial of the Son of God, shews how the denial of the Father is of necessity involved in the denial of Christ. And the cogency of this proof is made yet more stringent by another equally unavoidable process of argument. The antichristian false doctrine consists mainly in a negation, in the denying of the fundamental Christian truth, that Jesus is the Christ. But in this is involved the denial of the essence of the Son as well as of the Father, and again in this denial is involved the losing, the virtual not having of the Son and of the Father. In the sense of St. John, we may say, taking the first and last steps of his argument and leaving out the intervening ones: He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, hath not the Father. And this necessary connexion between denying and not having, is perfectly clear, the moment we understand the ethical character, the living realism, of St. John’s way of regarding the subject. As (ver. 23) we cannot separate the knowledge and confession of the Christ, the Son, the Father, from the having, the real possession of, the practical fellowship with, the actual remaining in the Son and the Father, so conversely, together with the denial is necessarily given the not-having; together with the loss of the truth of the knowledge, the loss of the life which consists in that knowledge (Joh 17:3). In such a connexion, the confession of the truth is as essential on the one side, as the denial on the other. Each is the necessary manifestation of the belief or unbelief hidden in the heart. And this ὁμολογεῖν is not to be understood of the ‘confessio cordis, vocis, et operis’ (Bede), but only as ch. 1:9, of the confession of the month (στόματι ὁμολογεῖται, Rom 10:10, see Joh 12:42). It is parallel with φέρειν διδαχήν, 2Jn 1:7, 2Jn 1:10; and indicates the definite utterance of the doctrine which was made known by the apostolic preaching, ver. 24.” Düsterdieck.

24,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. ἔχει] “As one who enjoys the certain possession of a living friend.” Cf. 2Jn 1:9.1

ὁ ὁμολογῶν] For the stress laid on ἀρνεῖσθαι and ὁμολογεῖν, cf. Joh 1:20, Joh 9:22, Joh 12:42.

ο11] om. Ia 397 fff. (96) Ic 364: + ουν K.

πας] om. Ib 472 (312).

ο ομολογων … εχει 2o] om. K L al. plur. Oec.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hath not the Father [ουδε τον πατερα εχει] . Properly, "hath not even the Father," though he professes to reverence the Father while rejecting the Son. Compare Joh 8:42.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. πᾶς ὁ ἀρν. τ. vi....] Qui negat Filium nec Patrem habet V. The original is compressed: Hvery one that denieth the Son hath not even the Father (οὐδὲ τ. 1. 2.) or, according to our idiom, No one that denieth the Son hath even the Father. Such a one hath not the Son, whom he rejects, nor yet the Father, whom he professes to regard. The translation quoted by Augustine completes the sentence: gut negat Filium nec Filium nec Patrem habet.

The ‘denial of the Son’ expresses in another form that which has been more fully described before as ‘the denial of Jesus as the Christ.’

The denial of the Son involves the

loss of the Father, not only because the —

ideas of sonship and fatherhood are correlative, but because the Son alone can reveal the Father (Matt. xi. 27; John xiv. 9), and it is, in other words, only in the Son that we have the revelation of God as Father.

The οὐδέ retains its full force ‘has mot even the Father,’ though this result may seem to be against expecta-

tion, and contrary to the claim of the false teachers. Comp. John v. 22, viii. 42; Gal. ii. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 7.

For the use of πᾶς ὁ apy. in place of the simple ὁ apy. see 6. iii. 3 note.

οὐδὲ ἔχει... ἔχει] hath not even... hath... The second clause in each case is more than a simple repetition of the first (comp. Wisd. x. 8), It is not said of him ‘that denieth the Son’ that he denieth the Father also; but that he ‘hath not even the Father.’ Such a man might shrink from denying the Father in words, and even claim to do Him honour, but yet ᾿ St John says ‘he hath not even the Father, as one who enjoys the certain possession of a living Friend. And conversely he ‘that confesseth the Son’ not only confesses the Father in an act of faith, but also lives in conscious communion with Him.

Augustine has an interesting discussion on the application of the test to Catholics and Donatists. His conclusion is: ‘Quisquis factis negat Christum Antichristus est) adding the words quoted on v. 19, And Bede says of this confession: confessionem hic cordis vocis et operis inquirit qualem queerebat Paulus (1 Cor. xii. 3).

ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱόν] gut confitetur Filium V., he that confesseth the Son, he that openly acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The constructions of ὁμολογεῖν in N.T. ure numerous. The simplest are those with the injin. and with ὅτε which serve for the affirmation of a definite fact past, present or future (¢n/jin. 6. iv. 2; Tit. i. 16; Matt. xiv. 7; dre c. iv. 15; John i. 20; Acts xxiv. 14; Heb. xi. 13). From the construction with the infin. that with the accus.

which suggests the idea of an acknowledged fellowship.

To know the Son as Son is to have such knowledge as we can have at present of the Father (John xiv. 7 ff.). Hence he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also as well as the Son whom he directly acknowledges.

24f. The view of the true nature of the confession and denial of Christ is followed by a view of the power of the confession. The knowledge to which it witnesses carries with it eternal life.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.