Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

3. And this is life eternal ] More exactly, But the life eternal is this. ‘ The life eternal’ means that which has just been mentioned; and ‘is this’ means ‘this is what it consists in:’ comp. Joh 3:19, Joh 15:12.

that they might know ] Literally, in order that they may recognise; comp. Joh 6:29, Joh 15:12; 1Jn 3:11; 1Jn 3:23; 1Jn 5:3; 2Jn 1:6. The eternal life is spoken of as already present (see on Joh 3:36, Joh 5:24, Joh 6:47; Joh 6:54); hence ‘may,’ not ‘might.’ Moreover it is the appropriation of the knowledge that is specially emphasized; hence ‘recognise’ rather than simply ‘know.’ Comp. Wis 15:3 .

thee the only true God ] i.e. ‘Thee as the only true God.’ For ‘true’ see note on Joh 1:9 and comp. Joh 4:23, Joh 6:32, Joh 15:1: ‘the only true God’ is directed against the many false, spurious gods of the heathen. This portion of the truth was what the Gentiles so signally failed to recognise.

Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent ] Better, Him whom Thou didst send Jesus Christ; or, Jesus as Christ. This portion of the truth the Jews failed to recognise. But the words are not without difficulty, even when, we insert the ‘as;’ and the run of the Greek words is rather against the insertion of ‘as.’ If ‘Christ’ were a predicate and not part of the proper name we should expect ‘Jesus, whom Thou didst send, as Christ.’ Probably in this verse we have the substance and not the exact words of Christ’s utterance. That He should use the name ‘Jesus’ here is perhaps improbable; that He should anticipate the use of ‘Jesus Christ’ as a proper name is very improbable; and the expression ‘the true God’ is not used elsewhere by Christ and is used by S. John (1Jn 5:20), We conclude, therefore, that the wording here is the Evangelist’s, perhaps abbreviated from the actual words.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

This is life eternal – This is the source of eternal life; or it is in this manner that it is to be obtained. The knowledge of God and of his Son Jesus Christ is itself a source of unspeakable and eternal joy. Compare Joh 11:25; Joh 6:63; Joh 12:50.

Might know thee – The word know here, as in other places, expresses more than a mere speculative acquaintance with the character and perfections of God. It includes all the impressions on the mind and life which a just view of God and of the Saviour is fitted to produce. It includes, of course, love, reverence, obedience, honor, gratitude, supreme affection. To know God as he is is to know and regard him as a lawgiver, a sovereign, a parent, a friend. It is to yield the whole soul to him, and strive to obey his law.

The only true God – The only God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1Jo 5:20, is called the true God and eternal life.

And Jesus Christ – To know Jesus Christ is to have a practical impression of him as he is – that is, to suffer his character and work to make their due impression on the heart and life. Simply to have heard that there is a Saviour is not to know it. To have been taught in childhood and trained up in the belief of it is not to know it. To know him is to have a just, practical view of him in all his perfections as God and man; as a mediator; as a prophet, a priest, and a king. It is to feel our need of such a Saviour, to see that we are sinners, and to yield the whole soul to him, knowing that he is a Saviour suited to our needs, and that in his hands our souls are safe. Compare Eph 3:19; Tit 1:16; Phi 3:10; 1Jo 5:20. In this verse is contained the sum and essence of the Christian religion, as it is distinguished from all the schemes of idolatry and philosophy, and all the false plans on which men have sought to obtain eternal life. The Gentiles worshipped many gods; the Christian worships one – the living and the true God; the Jew, the Deist, the Muslim, the Socinian, profess to acknowledge one God, without any atoning sacrifice and Mediator; the true Christian approaches him through the great Mediator, equal with the Father, who for us became incarnate, and died that he might reconcile us to God.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 17:3

This is life eternal

The everlasting life

I.

THE INESTIMABLE BLESSING OF WHICH OUR LORD SPEAKS. Life is a great boon. My kingdom, a dying monarch is reported to have said, for an inch of time. Yet after all what is this present life in itself (Jam 4:14)? And when it is most eagerly prized and most hilariously spent, its possessor may in the saddest sense be dead (Rom 8:6). Eternal life is the highest possible life for man. Two causes may end our life on earth. It may be terminated by external force or by inward disease. Eternal life

1. Has nothing to terminate it from without. Force from God alone can end life; and the Divine power is entirely on the side of this life.

2. Is without anything to end it from within. Disease destroys physical life. But eternal life is the progress and consummation of a life begun on earth by a new birth from God, and has in it no element of evil.

II. HOW CAN THIS LIFE BE REALIZED? It is not that this knowledge leads or points out the way to attain it. Life itself consists in this knowledge

1. God and Christ are its objects. The Father is called the true God in opposition to false deities. The juxtaposition of Christ with the Father, and the knowledge of both being defined to be eternal life, is the strongest inferential evidence of the Godhead of the Son. But why does Jesus, as Mediator, thus make the knowledge of Himself essential to life?

(1) Because the Father can be known only through the Son; and

(2) known as gracious towards mankind only in Him.

2. But we must not suppose that this is bare intellectual knowledge. It is the conscious possession of God. Certain truths about God may be seen in many ways and everywhere; but the spiritual perception of God Himself can only be reached in Christ.

3. This knowledge involves spiritual submission to God, or the personal reception of Him. Only to the soul that receives Him will He reveal His Rev 3:20; Joh 14:23). To all who receive Him, He manifests Himself as He does not unto the world. With respect to our fellow-men, we frequently use such language as this: I scarcely know him, or I knew him well, and the phraseology varies according to our acquaintance with the mans character or his moral and social qualities. We may believe from report in a mans generosity; but how different is our estimate or appreciation of his character when we can say from experience that we know it. Abraham believed God and obeyed; but when the Divine promise was fulfilled, and the Divine faithfulness proved, the patriarch knew God in a way that he did not know Him before.

III. HOW COMES IT THAT THIS TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS LIFE? We know what connection there is between knowledge and the energy and enjoyment of our every-day life. Knowledge is power. It has the power of salvation, transformation, progress. It is knowledge which lifts up the life of the savage. The highest knowledge for man must be the highest life.

1. The true knowledge of our heavenly Father involves the communication of influence, and influence flowing forth from God is quickening. Real knowledge cannot be received without a healthful influence on the soul. A penitent child cannot know that his father has forgiven him without feeling emotions of tenderness and joy. What, then, must be the influence of the knowledge of the true God, our God and Father!

2. This knowledge promotes fellowship and communion with God, which is life. To man, as a social being, fellowship with others is life. The contact of thought with thought, and the communion of affection with affection, are elements of mens true life on earth. What, then, must be the fellowship of the soul with God, but life of the highest order?

3. This knowledge promotes likeness to God; and this assimilation to God is the very highest life (1 Col 3:10). (J. Spence, D. D.)

The knowledge of God is eternal life

I. WHAT IS COMPRISED IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD?

1. In answering this question, we need hardly remark that it implies a knowledge of Gods existence. The remark is self-evident. The knowledge that He is the beginning of all knowledge of God. But whilst this is comprised in a knowledge of God, it does not constitute the knowledge. A man may know that there is a God; he may not only know it from the statements of others, but he may have actually examined it, and may be well conversant with the evidence of Gods existence with which nature abounds, and be able to give to every man that asketh him a reason for his belief, and yet he may be destitute of that knowledge which is eternal life. How exquisitely the Scripture speaks upon this point! Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe and tremble. You need to know something more–something that devils do not, and cannot, know–in order to the enjoyment of eternal life.

2. Again, it comprises a knowledge of Gods attributes, such as His eternity. His omnipresence–that, as He existed throughout all time, so He fills all space and pervades all worlds. His omniscience–that, existing throughout all time, and pervading all space, He knows all things. Such are some of the attributes which are essential to Divinity; and I need not say that the knowledge of these is comprised in a knowledge of God. But, then, all that, along with the knowledge of Gods existence, does not constitute the knowledge of which our text speaks. There is reason to believe that devils know Gods nature as well as existence; and yet they tremble. Ah, my brother, this knowledge might well drive thee to despair: but it cannot give thee peace. It may convince thee of sin, and fill thee with alarm, but it cannot give thee peace. The knowledge of something more than this is necessary to eternal life.

3. In proceeding to show what it is which constitutes this knowledge, I beg you to notice that it is what is described in the text as the knowledge of Jesus Christ, whom God has sent. It is so described because it is through Christ that the knowledge is communicated.

(1) And, first of all, you have in Christ a manifestation of Gods hatred of sin. In proof of this I might refer you to the distance at which He kept Himself from all that was sinful, though inhabiting a world in which sin was fashionable, and where temptations to sin were abounding, Not at a distance as regards locality, but distance as regards character. I might refer you, too, to the manner in which He denounced the wickedness of those over whose sin He mourned and wept. If God did not wink at sin in the person of His own Son, how, think you, will He wink at sin in you? If it could not be allowed to pass unpunished when it was beheld in Christ, though He prayed, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me, will it be allowed to pass unpunished if found in you? You think God is merciful, so He is; but He is just, and He is holy–a God of spotless purity. This truth, at first sight, may excite your fears; yet it is needful for you to know it, because it supplies a powerful motive which is necessary to keep you back from sin; to lead you to mortify sin, and thus to produce in you meetness for heaven–the truth that it is not enough to know that God hates sin. This will never give you a title to heaven, nor will it produce in you a meetness for the enjoyment of eternal life.

(2) You need to have something more than this, in order to your enjoying eternal life; and this leads me to observe, secondly, that in Christ you have a manifestation of the love of God. But even this is not enough. It is not enough to know that God loves us; that though He is just, He must punish sin. You need have something more in order to your enjoying life eternal. Oh, then, ponder the statements of Gods Word in which that truth is found; and until it falls on your understanding, until it is impressed on your hearts, never to be erased–and, thank God, you need not wait long–for oh, it is plain and easy, and even now you may open your hearts to the perception of it, and even now you may enter into faith; even now you may look up to your God as your Father and your Friend; for both by word and by deed does God say, I have accepted My Sons work for thee, O sinner; I was well pleased with what He has done for thee; His death is a perfect atonement for all thy sins; I am satisfied with it; be thou satisfied with it, be at peace, be thou reconciled to God. I do not mean to say that what I have set before you contains anything like full knowledge of God. No man can find out the Almighty to perfection. It does not amount to even an index of what might be known; it is only of the knowledge which is necessary to life.

II. And now let me proceed, in the second place, to show, as briefly as I can, HOW THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE, or in what sense it is.

1. And, first of all, it is so, if you consider eternal life as consisting in the enjoyment of Gods favour. We read in this book, And in His favour is life. Now, the knowledge of God is essential to the enjoyment of His favour. It is true that His favour rests on men, whether they know Him or not; for how else could they account for the varied blessings which they are daily receiving? But, then, though it rests on them, they do not enjoy it whilst they do not know Him. Their own feelings are just as unpleasant; their relation to God is as painful; they are as much alienated from God as if He were really their enemy.

2. And, then, again, the knowledge of God is eternal life, if you regard eternal life as signifying the privileges and enjoyments of the heavenly cities. The knowledge of God imparts that character, or produces in man that character, which increases the enjoyment of heaven. The character on which heaven is conferred is conformed into Gods image–sympathy with his feelings and his desires; or, in other words, it is living in a oneness with God. Now, the knowledge of God necessarily and invariably produces this character in man. The Cross of Christ contains a motive power which the human heart, depraved as it is, cannot both contemplate and resist. No man can truly and intelligibly say that Christ died for me, and gave Himself for me; Gods wrath was suspended over me, the Saviour stepped between me and that wrath, that it might fall on Him, and that I might be saved–no man can say that without loving God in return.

3. And then, again, the knowledge of God is eternal life, if you understand the knowledge of God as heavenly happiness. Whence, let me ask, do the redeemed in heaven derive their happiness? Is it from the splendour of the place which they occupy? from the beauty and sublimity of scenes upon which they gaze? is it from the music with which their ears are charmed, or from the delicious fruits with which they regale themselves, or from their exalted companionship? No. They know that God is love, and that is their happiness. God is set forth to their contemplation as a God of love, and they find their employment, and their enjoyment too, in meditating on the proofs of His love with which the universe abounds–every new discovery giving a new impulse to their zeal and a new zest to their praise. And, hence, you find John speaking as if this were the consummation of the saints desire: We know that when He appears we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (W. Landels.)

Eternal life in the knowledge of God and Christ

1. When Jesus said these words, the transitoriness of life was pressing upon Him and His disciples. When life seemed frailest and most unreliable, they heard Him praying, This is life eternal. The assertion of something in life, which lasted and did not go to pieces, must have come in very solidly and nobly. So often when we are most conscious of mortality, when disease is triumphing over that which disease can touch, the least reminder of that which is immortal restores us, puts courage into our frightened hearts.

2. What is it, then, whose eternity Jesus proclaims so confidently? When everything else decays, what is it that is imperishable? Jesus says it is the knowledge of God and of Himself. Now, remember that the knowledge of God and Christ must mean, and in the Bible always does mean, s personal relationship with God and Christ. It is not mere absolute knowledge. It is what He is to us, not what He is to Himself, that we may know of God. So that to know Christ and God is to have to do with Christ and God in the way of love and service. And Jesus says that the permanent part of our life is the part which has to do with God.

3. Here is a very clear and simple test of all our life. Our houses must decay. What is there in them that will last? That which had to do with God. Not their bricks and mortar, but the tempers and the hearts that were cultivated in them. Our institutions will perish–even our churches. But that which really knew God in them no tooth of time can touch. Our friendships and relationships have a promise of permanence only as they are real spiritual intimacies knit in with one common union to God.

4. When we fasten our thoughts on this, how it changes the whole aspect of the lives and deaths of men! Here is a poor, holy man dying. How little difference death makes to him! He is to keep all that has to do with God, and to lose all the rest. What is there for him to lose? How much there is that he will keep! But another man, so much richer, lies dying. What an enormous change death is to him! All his life has been worldly. What is there that he can keep? How almost everything he must lose!

5. Thus the eternal part of us is not that which God shall choose at some future day to endow with everlasting life. Eternity is a true quality in the thing itself. This really brings me to what I wanted to preach about–the regulative and shaping power of a Christian faith in this life. What are the great deficiencies of daily moral life?

I. THE DIFFICULT BALANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY. Men know what duty is, but the even, steady pressure of duty upon the whole surface of a mans life is something which thoughtful men are always missing. On one day the sense of responsibility is overwhelming. The next day it is all gone. The consequence is doubly bad. Some tasks are wholly neglected, and others are done under a burden and a strain which exhaust us. Our life grows all spasmodic. Oh, for some power which, with broad, even weight, should press every duty into its place, coming down from such a height that it should be independent of their whims and moods, and weigh upon tomorrow and to-day alike, calm, serene, eternal. Now hear our text. There is the answer to our longing! To love God out of gratitude, and to want to serve Him out of love–there is the rescue! The doing of all duty, not only for itself, but for His sake who wants it done–this is what puts force and pliability at once into duty, making it strong enough for the largest, and supple enough for the smallest tasks, giving it that power which the great steam engine has, with equal fidelity to strike down a mountain and to pick up a pebble, adapting its movements to such different work. Is not that the redemption of responsibility?

II. THE DIFFICULT SENSE OF BROTHERHOOD. The decay of the power of feeling this is one of the sad things of all advancing life. It is not so hard for children. The young man has not settled yet into the fixed tastes and occupations which decide for him with whom he should have to do. And so he easily strikes hands with everybody, and has a certain superficial brotherhood with every one he meets. But as the man grows older his life draws in. He cannot reach out and take in a larger circle. Even patriotism is harder than it used to be. And to let his affection go sweeping out to the ends of the earth and down into the gutter where the outcasts lie–this seems preposterous. How can one keep and grow humane? This is life eternal, &c. If I have lost sight of my brethren, I must go back to my Father to find them. It is the Fathers house that we must meet. I am not merely a merchant among the merchants, a lawyer among the lawyers, a minister among the minister. I am a son of God, doing His will out of love; a son of God among the sons of God.

III. THE BEARING OF TROUBLE. Trouble comes to everybody, and what men ordinarily call bearing it, is apt to be one of the dreariest and forlornest things conceivable. How you hate and dread to go into that house of suffering. What you do find is apt to be either a man all crushed and broken into fragments, or else a man proud, cold, stern, hard, whom you pity all the more for the wretchedness of his proud, hard misery. But now neither of these men is really bearing his sorrow. Neither of them has really taken his trouble on his shoulders, to carry it whither he pleases. Each of them, in different ways, is borne by his sorrow. And now, what is the matter with both these men? Simply that they laid out a plan of life which was not broad enough or deep enough to have any place for trouble. When they designed their lives, they left sorrow out. So many lives are like ships sailing for Europe in the brilliant morning of a summers day, and, by and by, when they are out in mid-ocean, and the night comes, and the sky and water both grow black, finding that they have brought no lights of any kind. And then, if I turn aside and find a man who really does bear his sorrow, what is it that is different in him? It must be this: that he has some notion of life which is large enough to take in trouble. The Christian enters into the profoundness of consolation because he loves his Governor and his Educator. This is life eternal, &c.

IV. THE LACK OF NOBLENESS. There come occasional moments in every mans long life when he feels that he is living nobly. Something makes him forget himself, with ardent enthusiasm fire up for a principle, with easy scorn push back temptation, with deep delight glory in some friends greatness, greater than his own. The man is pitiable who has known no such moments. But one or two such in a mans life only show out by contrast the general low level at which our lives are lived. There is a littleness that wearies us. There is a drag to everything, that makes us ask: Is it worth while? Now all those qualities which make up nobleness must become permanent and constant in any man who really knows and loves God and Jesus Christ? Be a Christian constantly, and you must be noble constantly. Know Christs redemption, and, seeing all things redeemed in Him, their possibilities, their ideas must shine out to you. Unite your life to Gods, and it must glow with the enthusiasm of His certain hopes. Give yourself up to your Redeemer, and you must be rescued from selfishness. Love God, and you must hate His enemies, treading sin under foot with all His contempt and indignation. (Phillips Brooks, D. D.)

On knowing God

I. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.

1. The existence of God lies at the foundation of all religion: and, therefore, the knowledge of God is the touch-stone of its principles. Error and falsehood are not going to yield to any science but that of Deity.

2. It is the lack of this knowledge which sustains impiety. The stupidity of sinners would be gone if they saw clearly what God is. That one thing they shun. They do not like to retain God in their knowledge.

3. If Christians knew God better, their piety would be increased. Those ancient saints, whose happy attainments held them superior to the world, always nurtured their piety by much study and fellowship with God.

4. This subject of knowledge can never be exhausted. A finite mind, perhaps, may reach some point in eternity when it shall have compassed all other subjects, and be able to look down upon and over all other fields of knowledge without darkness and without a doubt. But God still lies above it–beyond it!

5. By a true knowledge of God, we shall have a clear and experimental discernment of the beauty and grandeur of His character. Hence, we shall feel the desirableness of being like Him.

6. Our relations to God are such that we ought greatly to desire to know Him well. He is our Maker; He wilt be our Judge.

II. SOME ARGUMENTS FOR THIS STUDY. This knowledge of God tends

1. To humble us. When we know Him best we know ourselves best. It is this that dissipates our delusions. Woe is me! I am undone. Why? Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

2. To crucify us to the world. To have a spiritual understanding of the exceeding excellencies of God makes the world seem but a very little thing. It shows us its emptiness. The heart uses that new arithmetic, to count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

3. To purify the heart. No sight is so transforming as that of God. When we can have our minds and hearts brought so as to see with open face the glory of the Lord, we are changed into the same image from glory to glory.

4. To confirm and establish the believers heart. Speculation cannot do this. Self-examination, submission to creeds and forms, and all study of doctrines, cannot do it. To have full views of God; to know Him by direct fellowship; to live in His presence, and lie down and feel that the everlasting arms are around him, shows to the believer the fulness and the faithfulness of God, and confirms his heart in something like the full assurance of hope. Now he can call God his Father.

5. Hence such a knowledge of God is most satisfying and safe. (I. S. Spencer, D. D.)

The knowledge of God

The Holy Scriptures often use the phrase, knowledge of God, or the knowledge of the Lord, as a character of true religion. This phrase is particularly applied to that premised period in which the power of religion shall universally prevail. They shall all know Me, from the least unto the greatest. The knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, &c. In the ancient Scriptures the knowledge of God was usually propounded simply; here it is propounded in a manner corresponding to the clearer light of the Christian dispensation in its inseparable connection with the knowledge of Jesus Christ. And note that our Saviour connects the knowledge of God with the universal prevalence of Divine truth (Joh 17:2).

I. THE NATURE AND PROPERTY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. It comprehends

1. A just conception of His existence, attributes, and administration–i.e., of Him as the only true God. Consider

(1) His matchless Deity.

(2) His inimitable truth. The true God, says our Lord

(a) In opposition to all the false deities.

(b) In His enactments, promises, threatenings; so that He will in no sense deny Himself.

(c) As the sole and inexhaustible source of truth.

(3) His exclusive claim–the only true God.

2. Experimental acquaintance with Him as our God and Father and our portion. This is knowledge of the heart. By the other the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; by this the desires and affections of our hearts are filled and sanctified. It is this knowledge of God which is of the utmost importance. It is not speculation which may teach you to inquire, but faith, which constrains you to trust, which gives you the right knowledge of God.

3. A practical acknowledgment of His authority and government. This last particular shows that the true knowledge of God embraces all religion, as it elevates the mind, sanctifies the heart, and regulates the conduct. The children of Eli knew not the Lord; that is, they gave practical evidence that they were utterly estranged from an obedient acknowledgment of Him. And thou Solomon, my son, says David, know thou the God of thy father. He amplifies and explains that direction in what follows:–And serve him with a perfect heart, &c.

II. THE APPOINTED METHOD IN WHICH THIS KNOWLEDGE IS ATTAINABLE BY US. By approaching Him through the believing knowledge of Jesus Christ, whom He hath sent as our Saviour.

1. Man, until visited by the Day Spring from on high, is destitute of the knowledge of God. Is not his mind covered with darkness? Is not his heart alienated by guilt and depravity? Is not his life one continued scene of rebellion against the Most High?

2. This knowledge of God cannot be obtained by man alone. Man has had opportunities to try to do so on the largest scale. Go, then, through all the resources of human wisdom, the splendid scenes with which His universal temple is hung around; listen to all the voices which are incessantly sounding in our ears and proclaiming our Creator and Preserver; traverse the spacious Temple, mark its stately proportions, and gaze on its sublime beauty; and when you have done all, inquire, What must I do to be saved? There is nothing in all this that teaches me, a guilty and fallen creature, the way to God.

3. This is the way–the way which is opened by Jesus Christ. You cannot come to God as your Father, especially to God as your reconciled and gracious Father, but by Jesus Christ.

III. THE INESTIMABLE BLESSING WITH WHICH THIS KNOWLEDGE IS IDENTIFIED. This is life eternal. Consider the knowledge of God in Christ

1. In its commencement. Go to that simple and happy Christian believer who has just found this knowledge. He will give you, perhaps, not a doctrinal statement, but a living pattern, which in many respects is better. While he speaks of the knowledge of God in Christ, he associates it with inward experience. He will testify that he who believeth in the Son of God hath everlasting life; that he has the life of pardon and peace. He was dead in trespasses and sins, but he is quickened together with Christ.

2. In its more mature progress. Go to the experienced Christian. He may be an unlettered man, perhaps, and be perplexed if you asked him a definition, or to expound a difficult passage of the Holy Scripture; but, under the assistance of the Spirit of God, he has embraced the system of truth itself. In all his course, the knowledge of God in Christ has been inseparable from advancement in the Divine life.

3. In its consummation. Then we shall see as we are seen, and know also as we are known.

Conclusion:

1. Have we acquired this knowledge? If we have not, may I not say, Some of you have not the knowledge of Christ; I speak this to your shame. Have you spent twenty, thirty, forty, or more years, yet dark, dead, rebels against God?

2. Let me earnestly exhort you who are in quest of this knowledge of your God, that you seek it in the right way. Yea, doubtless, says the Apostle, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. To know Him is to know the way that leads to the Father.

3. Let me exhort you to do all you possibly can to promote this knowledge of God in Christ. We ought to do that on a large scale; we ought to unite in those truly sublime societies which are aiming to extend the knowledge of God in Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth. But if it be valuable for the ends of the earth, it is valuable for your own homes. If pagan families and vicinities ought to have it, yours ought to have it. (J. Hannah, D. D.)

Knowledge–power in religion

(Text, and Hos 4:1-19; Hos 5:1-15; Hos 6:1-11):–The adage. knowledge is power, is of universal application. That many act contrary to the truth in their possession is no proof that this is not so. That the wicked remain wicked, the drunkards remain drunkards, the selfish selfish, only proves there is another power within them which decides their course rather than the dictates of knowledge.

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE RECOGNIZED IN THE SCRIPTURES,

1. Moses commanded the Israelites to teach their children Deu 6:9).

2. The prophets were teachers.

3. The Levitical tribe was not only a tribe of priests, but also of teachers.

4. Christ Himself is a Prophet.

5. The apostles were instruments of salvation by proclaiming its principles.

6. The work of the Church in all ages is to bear witness to the truth–to make it known.

II. HOW IS KNOWLEDGE POWER IN RELIGION?

1. Necessary to begin a new life.

(1) We are to know God, His law, duty, and our failure to obey, in order to repent.

(2) We are to know Christ, His power, His acceptableness to God, His willingness to save, in order to believe in Him. How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?

2. Knowledge necessary to the growth of the new life. Life must be fed–vegetable, animal, intellectual, and spiritual life.

3. Knowledge necessary to be useful. I do not underrate silent influence of the faithful. But still the Church needs

(1) Fathers and mothers.

(2) Sabbath-school teachers.

(3) Superintendents.

(4) Helpers in prayer meetings.

(5) Church officers, and

(6) Christians in the walks of private life, with copious religious knowledge.

III. HOW IS KNOWLEDGE TO BE SECURED?

1. In the early Church it was chiefly oral instruction by preaching and catechizing.

2. In palmy days of European Protestantism it was

(1) Family catechizing.

(2) Extensive religious instruction in common schools, religious text-books.

(3) Catechizing by the Church authorities before confirmation.

3. With us the Sabbath School largely takes the place of these.

4. What are we to do?

(1) Seek to appreciate the fact stated in the text. Destruction for lack of knowledge, and Life eternal by knowledge.

(2) Return to perform the parental duties of instructing the young.

(3) Literature inculcating fact rather than fiction, e.g., sacred history, Church history, history of the Reformation, doctrine. (W. Veenschoten)

Saving knowledge

I. SALVATION CONSISTS IN THE POSSESSION OF LIFE. It is clear from the previous verse that the two are synonymous, and it is easy to see from the frequent connection of the two by Christ and the apostles how accurate it is to call salvation eternal life. Men as sinners are spiritually dead Eph 2:1). The power of evil has so worked upon their souls as to make them deaf to the voice, insensible to the goodness, and indifferent to the claims of God. So far, then, as the life of love, trust, and obedience, and joy are concerned, sinners are dead. What they need, then, is a salvation which shall put them in possession of life, which shall consist in the quickening of their dormant powers, in the righting of their perverted affections, in the bringing back of their souls into likeness to, and fellowship with, the living God. This was just the salvation Christ was sent to impart, and for which He had power over all flesh. Consequently, this is life eternal, not as being a life that belongs to eternity, but a life that is distinct from and opposed to temporal, earthly and carnal–eternal in its quality. From the moment that we accept Christ as our Saviour it is ours Joh 10:27-28; 1Jn 5:13).

II. THE LIFE IN WHICH SALVATION CONSISTS HAS ITS ROOT AND GROUND IN KNOWLEDGE. The words must be taken as they stand. This knowledge is not the means of, but is eternal life–a representation to which attention needs to be called now-a-days. Many attach to knowledge a subsidiary importance in relation to the spiritual life. There is no statement more common in certain quarters than that religion is not a creed, but a life. This divorces religion from the intellect and makes it a purely emotional thing. Christ here declares that eternal life is founded on knowledge, thus teaching that before Christianity can be a life it must be a creed. Learn here

1. The sacredness of knowledge.

2. Its importance.

3. Its perpetuity.

III. THIS KNOWLEDGE IS THAT OF GOD AND CHRIST.

1. Of God.

(1) There is a sense in which God cannot be known. He is so different from ourselves in the constitution of His Being, and so superior to us in His attributes, that there is a great gulf which no thought or imagination can overpass (Job 11:7-8). Indeed, if we could know God as we know one another, He would not be God. He would not be infinite, for the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

(2) But there is a sense in which we can know Him; in so far as He has revealed Himself in the gospel, and sufficient for intelligent and trustful love. This knowledge then

(a) Is not simply the knowledge that we can glean from Gods works. Here we can know Gods power, skill, thought, care; but not Himself: just as from a book we may get occasional glimpses of the working of the authors mind and the features of his character, but fail in any real measure to know the man.

(b) Is not merely the knowledge we can gain from His Word. We may be familiar with the contents of Scripture and yet know no more of God Himself than we do of a man from what others have written about him.

(c) Is the knowledge which comes also from fellowship between our souls and God. This is the true ground of our knowledge of others. Souls must reveal themselves to souls through friendship.

1. We must study Gods works and read His Word, but besides this we must get into cordial fellowship. In this we must ask for the help of His Spirit, and lay ourselves open to what His Spirit shall teach.

2. Of Christ also. The line of thought just pursued must be followed here. The persons are two, but the knowledge is the same. And for this reason the mission of Christ was the manifestation of the Father. Exactly in the degree in which we know Christ the Revealer shall we know God the Revealed. This knowledge must come

(1) Through the Scriptures that teach us concerning Him.

(2) Through the fellowship which unites us to Him.

(3) Through the Spirit who takes of the things of Him and shows them unto us.

When in these ways the mind has come to accept Christ, and in the acceptance of Christ has accepted God in Him, eternal life is ours. (B. Wilkinson, F. G. S.)

Death of Fisher

When Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, came out of the Tower of London and saw the scaffold on which he was to be beheaded, he took out of his pocket a Greek Testament, and, looking up to heaven, he exclaimed, Now, oh Lord, direct to some passage which may support me through this awful scene. He opened the book and his eye glanced at this text. He instantly closed it and said, Praised be the Lord! this is sufficient for me and for eternity. (W. Baxendale.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 3. This is life eternal] The salvation purchased by Christ, and given to them who believe, is called life:

1. Because the life of man was forfeited to Divine justice; and the sacrifice of Christ redeemed him from that death to which he was exposed.

2. Because the souls of men were dead in trespasses and sins; and Christ quickens them by his word and Spirit.

3. Because men who are not saved by the grace of Christ do not live, they only exist, no good purpose of life being answered by them. But when they receive this salvation they live – answer all the Divine purposes, are happy in themselves, useful to each other, and bring glory to God.

4. It is called eternal life to show that it reaches beyond the limits of time, and that it necessarily implies –

1. The immortality of the soul;

2. the resurrection of the body; and

3. that it is never to end, hence called , a life ever living; from , always, and , being or existence. And indeed no words can more forcibly convey the idea of eternity than these. It is called , THAT eternal life, by way of eminence. There may be an eternal existence without blessedness; but this is that eternal life with which infinite happiness is inseparably connected.

The only true God] The way to attain this eternal life is to acknowledge, worship, and obey, the one only true God, and to accept as teacher, sacrifice, and Saviour, the Lord Jesus, the one and only true Messiah. Bishop Pearce’s remark here is well worthy the reader’s attention: –

“What is said here of the only true God seems said in opposition to the gods whom the heathens worshipped; not in opposition to Jesus Christ himself, who is called the true God by John, in 1Jo 5:20.”

The words in this verse have been variously translated:

1. That they might acknowledge thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, to be the only true God.

2. That they might acknowledge thee, the only true God, and Jesus, whom thou hast sent, to be the Christ or Messiah.

3. That they might acknowledge thee to be the only true God, and Jesus Christ to be him whom thou hast sent. And all these translations the original will bear.

From all this we learn that the only way in which eternal life is to be attained is by acknowledging the true God, and the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, he being sent of God to redeem men by his blood, being the author of eternal salvation to all them that thus believe, and conscientiously keep his commandments.

A saying similar to this is found in the Institutes of Menu. Brigoo, the first emanated being who was produced from the mind of the supreme God, and who revealed the knowledge of his will to mankind, is represented as addressing the human race and saying: “Of all duties, the principal is to acquire from the Upanishads (their sacred writings) a true knowledge of one supreme God; that is the most exalted of sciences, because it ensures eternal life. For in the knowledge and adoration of one God all the rules of good conduct are fully comprised.” See Institutes of Menu, chap. xii. Inst. 85, 87.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Those who deny the Divine nature of Christ, think they have a mighty argument from, this text, where Christ, (as they say), speaking to his Father, calleth him

the only true God. But divines answer, that the term only, or alone, is not to be applied to thee, but to the term God; and the sense this: To know thee to be that God which is the only true God: and this appeareth from 1Jo 5:20, where Christ is said to be the true God, which he could not be if the Father were the only true God, considered as another from the Son. The term only, or alone, is not exclusive of the other two Persons in the Trinity, but only of idols, the gods of the heathen, which are no gods; so 1Ti 6:15,16, and many other Scriptures: so Mat 11:27, where it is said, that none knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any the Father, save the Son; where the negative doth not exclude the Holy Spirit. Besides, the term alone is in Scripture observed not always to exclude all others, as Mar 6:47. Our Saviour saith, it is life eternal to know him who is the only true God, that is, it is the way to eternal life, which is an ordinary figure used in holy writ. He adds,

and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent; by which he lets us know, that the Father cannot be savingly known, but in and by the Son. Knowing, in this verse, signifies not the mere comprehending of God and of Christ in mens notions; but the receiving Christ, believing in him, loving and obeying him, &c.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. this isthat.

life eternal, that theymightmay.

know, c.This lifeeternal, then, is not mere conscious and unending existence, but alife of acquaintance with God in Christ (Job22:21).

thee, the only true Godthesole personal living God in glorious contrast equally with heathenpolytheism, philosophic naturalism, and mysticpantheism.

and Jesus Christ whom thouhast sentThis is the only place where our Lord gives Himselfthis compound name, afterwards so current in apostolic preaching andwriting. Here the terms are used in their strictsignification”JESUS,”because He “saves His people from their sins”;”CHRIST,” asanointed with the measureless fulness of the Holy Ghost forthe exercise of His saving offices (see on Mt1:16); “WHOM THOUHAST SENT,” in the plenitude of Divine Authority andPower, to save. “The very juxtaposition here of Jesus Christwith the Father is a proof, by implication, of our Lord’sGodhead. The knowledge of God and a creature could not beeternal life, and such an association of the one with the other wouldbe inconceivable” [ALFORD].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And this is life eternal,…. That is, the beginning and pledge of it, the way unto it, and means of it, and what will certainly issue in it:

that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. The knowledge of God here spoken of, is not the knowledge of him by the light of nature, and works of creation; for a man may know God in this sense, and not know him in Christ, nor anything of Christ; yea, may know God and profess him in words, and in works deny him, as the Heathens did; nor is eternal life known hereby, nor connected with it: nor is it such a knowledge of God as is to be obtained by the law of Moses, in which God is represented as a righteous and incensed Being; nor is there in it any discovery of God, as a God of love, grace, and mercy in Christ; nor any revelation of a Mediator, Saviour and Redeemer; nor can it either show, or give to persons eternal life; and yet what is here said of the knowledge of God and Christ, the Jews say of the law d,

“one man said to his friend, let us dash them against that wall and kill them, because they have left , “eternal life”; (the gloss upon it is, , “the law”;) and employ themselves in a temporary life, the gloss says of this world, which is merchandise.”

More truly does Philo the Jew say e, that

“fleeing to the Divine Being, “is eternal life”; and running front him is death.”

But this is to be understood of an evangelic knowledge of God, as the God and Father of Christ, as the God of all grace, pardoning iniquity, transgression and sin, and of Christ Mediator; not a general, notional, and speculative knowledge; but a practical and experimental one; a knowledge of approbation and appropriation; a fiducial one, whereby a soul believes in Christ, and trusts in his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice for salvation; and which, though imperfect, is progressive. The Arians and Unitarians urge this text, against the true and proper deity of our Lord Jesus, and his equality with the Father, but without success; since the Father is called the only true God, in opposition to the many false gods of the Heathens, but not to the exclusion of the Son or Spirit; for Christ is also styled the one Lord, and only Lord God, but not to the exclusion of the Father; yea the true God and eternal life; was he not, he would never, as here, join himself with the only true God; and besides, eternal life is made to depend as much upon the knowledge of him, as of the Father. The reason of this different mode of expression, is owing to the character of Christ as Mediator, who is said to be sent by the only true God, about the business of man’s salvation. Nor is it of any moment what the Jew f objects, that Jesus here confesses, that the true God is only one God; nor does he call himself God, only the Messiah sent by God; and that the Apostle Paul also asserts the unity of God, 1Ti 1:17; and therefore Jesus cannot be God: for Christ and his Father, the only true God, are one; and that he is the one true God with his Father, he tacitly suggests here by joining himself with him; and what the Apostle Paul says of the one and only wise God, may as well be understood of Christ, the Son of God, as of the Father; since all the characters in the text agree with him, and of him he had been speaking in the context.

d T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. 1. e De profugis, p. 461. f R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 55. p. 445.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Should know (). Present active subjunctive with (subject clause), “should keep on knowing.”

Even Jesus Christ ( ). See 1:17 for the only other place in John’s Gospel where the words occur together. Coming here in the Lord’s own prayer about himself they create difficulty, unless, as Westcott suggests, be regarded as a predicate accusative, “Jesus as the Christ” (Messiah). Otherwise the words would seem to be John’s parenthetical interpretation of the idea of Jesus. Lucke thinks that the solemnity of this occasion explains Jesus referring to himself in the third person. The knowledge of “the only true God” is through Jesus Christ (14:6-9).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Life eternal. With the article : the life eternal. Defining the words in the previous verse. The life eternal (of which I spoke) is this.

That [] . Expressing the aim.

Might know [] . Might recognize or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know. Compare ver. 23; Joh 10:38; 1Jo 5:20; 1Jo 4:7, 8.

” I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee All questions in the earth and out of it, And has so far advanced thee to be wise.

Wouldst thou improve this to reprove the proved ? In life ‘s mere minute, with power to use that proof, Leave knowledge and revert to how it sprung? Thou hast it; use it, and forthwith, or die.

For this I say is death, and the sole death, When a man’s loss comes to him from his gain, Darkness from light, from knowledge ignorance, And lack of love from love made manifest. “Robert Browning,” A Death in the Desert. ”

The relation of perception of God to character is stated in 1Jo 3:2, on which see note.

True [] . See on 1 9. Compare 1Co 8:4; 1Ti 6:15.

Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. The Rev. brings out better the emphasis of the Greek order : and Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. Didst send [] . The aorist tense, emphasizing the historic fact of Christ ‘s mission.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And this is life eternal,” (aute de estin he aionios zoe) “And this is (exists in essence as) eternal life,” which believers receive from Him, and may know that they have it, Joh 3:14-15; Joh 10:27-29; 1Jn 5:13.

2) “That they might know thee the only true God,” (hina ginoskosin se ton monon alethinon theon) “in order that they may know you the only true God,” the essence, sum and joy of eternal life through Christ, 1Jn 5:20, in whom alone men should trust and glory, 1Co 8:6; Jer 9:23-24. He is “the only true God,” in contrast with “many false gods,” Psa 115:4; Psa 115:9; 1Co 8:5-6.

3) “And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (kai apesteilas lesoun Christon) “And he whom you did send, Jesus Christ,” to redeem or ransom the lost to you, Luk 19:10; Joh 3:17; Gal 4:4-5; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 3:14.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

3. And this is eternal life He now describes the manner of bestowing life, namely, when he enlightens the elect in the true knowledge of God; for he does not now speak of the enjoyment of life which we hope for, but only of the manner in which men obtain life And that this verse may be fully understood, we ought first to know that we are all in death, till we are enlightened by God, who alone is life Where he has shone, we possess him by faith, and, therefore, we also enter into the possession of life; and this is the reason why the knowledge of him is truly and justly called saving, or bringing salvation. (109) Almost every one of the words has its weight; for it is not every kind of knowledge that is here described, but that knowledge which forms us anew into the image of God from faith to faith, or rather, which is the same with faith, by which, having been engrafted into the body of Christ, we are made partakers of the Divine adoption, and heirs of heaven. (110)

To know thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. The reason why he says this is, that there is no other way in which God is known but in the face of Jesus Christ, who is the bright and lively image of Him. As to his placing the Father first, this does not refer to the order of faith, as if our minds, after having known God, afterwards descend to Christ; but the meaning is, that it is by the intervention of a Mediator that God is known.

The only true God. Two epithets are added, true and only; because, in the first place, faith must distinguish God from the vain inventions of men, and embracing him with firm conviction, must never change or hesitate; and, secondly, believing that there is nothing defective or imperfect in God, faith must be satisfied with him alone. Some explain it, That they may know thee, who alone art God; but this is a poor interpretation. The meaning therefore is, That they may know thee alone to be the true God

But it may be thought that Christ disclaims for himself the right and title of Divinity. Were it replied, that the name of God is quite as applicable to Christ as to the Father, the same question might be raised about the Holy Spirit; for if only the Father and the Son are God, the Holy Spirit is excluded from that rank, which is as absurd as the former. The answer is easy, if we attend to that manner of speaking which Christ uniformly employs throughout the Gospel of John, of which I have already reminded my readers so frequently, that they must have become quite accustomed to it. Christ, appearing in the form of a man, describes, under the person of the Father, the power, essence, and majesty of God. So then the Father of Christ is the only true God; that is, he is the one God, who formerly promised a Redeemer to the world; but in Christ the oneness and truth of Godhead will be found, because Christ was humbled, in order that he might raise us on high. When we have arrived at this point, then his Divine majesty displays itself; then we perceive that he is wholly in the Father, and that the Father is wholly in him. In short, he who separates Christ from the Divinity of the Father, does not yet acknowledge Him who is the only true God, but rather invents for himself a strange god. This is the reason why we are enjoined to know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, by whom, as it were, with outstretched hand, he invites us to himself.

As to the opinion entertained by some, that it would be unjust, if men were to perish solely on account of their ignorance of God, it arises from their not considering that there is no fountain of life but in God alone, and that all who are alienated from him are deprived of life. Now, if there be no approach to God but by faith, we are forced to conclude, that unbelief keeps us in a state of death. If it be objected, that persons otherwise righteous and innocent are unjustly treated, if they are condemned, the answer is obvious, that nothing right or sincere is found in men, so long as they remain in their natural state. Now, Paul informs us that

we are renewed in the image of God by the knowledge of him, (Col 3:10.)

It will be of importance for us now to bring into one view those three articles of faith; first, that the kingdom of Christ brings life, and salvation; secondly, that all do not receive life from him, and it is not the office of Christ to give life to all, but only to the elect whom the Father has committed to his protection; and, thirdly, that this life consists in faith, and Christ bestow, it on those whom he enlightens in the faith of the Gospel. Hence we infer that the gift of illumination and heavenly wisdom is not common to all, but peculiar to the elect. It is unquestionably true that the Gospel is offered to all, but Christ speaks here of that secret and efficacious manner of teaching by which the children of God only are drawn to faith.

(109) “ Salutaire, ou apportant salut.”

(110) “ Nous sommes fkits participans de l’adoption Divine, qui nous fait enfans et heritiers du royaume des cieux;” — “we are made partakers of the Divine adoption, which makes us children and heirs of the kingdom of heaven.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) And this is life eternal.For these words, which are more frequent in St. John than in any other of the New Testament writers, comp. Joh. 3:15-16; Joh. 3:36; Joh. 5:24; Joh. 5:39; Joh. 6:27; Joh. 6:40; Joh. 6:47; Joh. 6:54; Joh. 6:68; Joh. 10:28; Joh. 12:25; Joh. 12:50; 1Jn. 1:2; 1Jn. 2:15; 1Jn. 3:15; 1Jn. 5:11; 1Jn. 5:13; 1Jn. 5:20. The thought of the previous verse is that the Messianic work of Christ is to give eternal life to those whom God has given Him. The thought of the following verse is that He has accomplished this work. In this verse He shows in what its accomplishment consistsviz., in revealing to men the only true God through Jesus Christ.

That they might know thee the only true God.Better, That they might recognise Thee as the only true God. (Comp. Notes on Joh. 1:9; Joh. 14:7.)

And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.Better, And Him, whom Thou didst send, Jesus, as Messiah. Eternal life consists in the knowledge of the Father as the only Being answering to the ideal thought of God; and in this knowledge manifested in Him, whom God anointed and sent into the world-to declare His attributes and character. Only in the Word made flesh can we hear the voice of mercy, forgiveness, love, fatherhood; which comes to men as the breath of life, so that they become living souls.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

3. Life eternal might know thee This knowing of God and Christ is that full experimental knowing which, being commenced by the believer on earth, is consummated in eternity: hence it is not the cause of eternal life, but is the very eternal life itself. The vital seed of eternal life, its first minute instalment, is placed within the believing soul on earth, and, unless on earth removed, will put forth in eternal life in heaven. It is the well of water within springing up to everlasting life.

The only true God The only God; for there can be no other. The true God, in opposition to all false gods. Whether Jupiter, or Brahm, or Vishnu, they are false. The fancies of the idolater, of the pantheist, or the atheist, have their absolute contradiction in this the true God. He possesses those attributes of power, wisdom, and mercy; he has unfolded those attributes in such plans and deeds of redemption, as that eternal life is realized in the very knowing them in their knowable fulness.

And Jesus Christ It is remarkable that this is the only instance in the Gospels in which the words Jesus Christ are used as one compound name. They are so used frequently in the Epistles; from which some liberalistic commentators have argued that this phrase was mistakenly used by John, according to a later custom, and falsely attributed by him to Christ. More likely, however, the apostolic custom arose in the Epistles from its original use by Jesus. It is a most expressive compound. Jesus is Saviour: Christ is Messiah; that is, Anointed King. Hence Jesus Christ is Saviour-Messiah, Saviour-King. He is a Royal Saviour sent from God to man. It is with a solemn majesty that Jesus thus pronounces his compound name of dignity, naming himself thus before God and man.

Unitarian writers, who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, have quoted this as a primary text to show that Christ is not God, but purely man. God, as they claim, is pronounced here to be sole God, and Jesus Christ is excluded. But surely it is of that very sole God that Jesus Christ is the Sent, the manifestation, the incarnation. The Father, indeed, as the unknowable Absolute, the reserve of Deity, is often styled by the entire name of God.

So the very first verse of John’s Gospel tells us that the Word was with God; that is, with the Father. But that did not forbid his adding, “and the Word was God.” And so, that the Father is God does not disprove that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“And this is life eternal, that they should know you the only true God and him whom you did send, even Jesus Messiah.”

This life, we now learn, consists of men entering a plane whereby they “know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent”. They enter into a deep and personal experience of God. They ‘know Him’, that is, they ‘see’ and enter under the personal rule of God (Joh 3:3-5) and receive a new spiritual awareness. To them God is no longer far off, but is real in their experience. But this will then lead on to them knowing Him in eternity in the fullness of His being and glory (Rev 22:4-5).

It is significant that here Jesus alters His description from ‘Father’ to ‘only true God’, for here He is including Himself within the Godhead as the One member of the Triune Godhead sent from the only God in all His fullness. Being sent by God does not necessarily signify that He Himself was not God, any more than being sent by a Committee would necessarily involve not being a member of that Committee. Note also the exaltation of His own status as ‘Jesus Messiah (the anointed One)’. This is the first use of a term which will later become a regular one on the lips of His followers, and explains why they so easily took it up. He is the anointed representative of the one true God.

The combination of ‘the only true God’ and ‘the One sent from God, the anointed One’ is Heaven’s view of Jesus’ earthly life. We may liken the words to those of a committee member sent from his committee to act on their behalf. In communicating with the committee he would say to them ‘you sent me’, distinguishing himself as the one sent, without intending to exclude himself from being a member of the committee. In the same way here Jesus Messiah was sent from the Godhead, as a member of the Godhead, but with His own unique task to fulfil as the unique representative of the Godhead, while not excluding Himself from the Godhead.

‘Even Jesus Messiah’. This is the first use of the combined term. No one today can fully appreciate the wonder, the awe, the excitement raised in those days by the idea of the Messiah. He was God’s coming and expected deliverer! The beginnings of the title are found in Dan 9:26 (compare also Isa 61:1), and in all previous references to the coming of a Saviour and Redeemer (often spoken of in terms of God or YHWH). It had been taken up by Jewish writers who tended to interpret him as a military figure, although others saw him as a great teacher. But all saw him as someone supremely sent from God. Jesus had previously only revealed Himself as Messiah to the Samaritan woman, and there it was in terms of the Samaritan expectation of ‘the Restorer’. Martha too had confessed Him as Messiah (Joh 11:27) and as we know from the other Gospels, so had Peter (Mar 8:29; Mat 16:16), but in the latter case He forbade the disciples to make it known (Mat 16:20) and reinterpreted it in terms of ‘the Son of Man’ (Mar 8:31). Evil spirits also testified to Him as the Messiah (Christ) and He forbade them too (Luk 4:41). The only other direct references are in Mat 23:8; Mat 23:10 and Mar 9:41. But now that the danger of misinterpretation has passed He takes the title openly.

‘Even Jesus Messiah.’ Some see this as a comment added by John, but if it was so it would be unique. While he does elsewhere add explanatory comments it is always as a sentence or more in order to explain things that Gentiles may not understand or as an expansion of a previous dissertation. There is hardly need for either here. It is therefore unlikely that this is an explanatory comment.

So this life is to be given to “as many as You have given him” (Joh 17:2 compare Joh 6:37; Joh 6:39; Joh 6:65; Joh 10:26-28). This is a reminder of God’s sovereignty in the work of salvation, a sovereignty which He has put in Jesus’ hands (v. 2). As we are told elsewhere, the Spirit works where He wills (Joh 3:8).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 17:3. And this is life eternal; But, or now, this is the eternal life, &c. “Now, the way to this eternal life, the beginnings and earnests of it, the evidences of right and title to it, lie, not only in their approving and fiducial knowledge of thee, under the character of the only true and faithful God, in opposition to all other gods; but also in the like knowledge of me, the anointed Saviour, whom thou hast sent into the world under the character of the only true Mediator, in opposition to all other mediators, or other ways of approaching thee, and finding acceptance with thee.” That our blessed Lord here speaks of the only true God, in distinction from idols, and not to the exclusion of himself, appears from his speaking of himself as the object of the same fiducialknowledgewiththeFather,andfromhisdistinguishinghimselffromtheFather, not by any essential title, but merely by his office-character, viz. Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. And the same apostle, who recorded this prayer, expressly says of Christ, This is the true God and eternal Life, in opposition to idols. See 1Jn 5:20-21.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 17:3 . The continuative adduces, in keeping with the connection, a more precise definition [187] of (not a transposition of its idea, as Weiss holds), and that with a retrospective glance to the glorification of the Father in Joh 17:1 . On , comp. on Rom 14:17 ; Joh 3:19 .

In this consists eternal life, that they should recognise ( , comp. on Joh 6:29 ) Thee as the only true God (as Him to whom alone belongs the reality of the idea of God, comp. 1Co 8:4 ), and Thy sent one Jesus as Messiah . This knowledge of God here desired (which is hence the believing, living, practical knowledge, , 1Co 8:2 ), is the , so far as it is the essential subjective principle of the same, unfolding this out of itself, its continual, ever self-developing germ and impulse (comp. Sap. Joh 15:1 ; Joh 15:3 ), even now in the temporal evolution of eternal life, and at a future time, besides, after the establishment of the kingdom, in which faith, hope, and love abide (1Co 3 ); the fundamental essence of which is in truth nothing else than that knowledge, which in the future will be the perfected knowledge (1Co 13:12 ), comp. 1Jn 3:2 . The contents of the knowledge are stated with the precision of a Confession , a summary of faith in opposition [188] to the polytheistic ( . . , comp. Joh 5:44 ; Deu 6:4 ; 1Co 8:5 ; 1Th 1:9 ) and Jewish , which latter rejected Jesus as Messiah, although in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation of the only true God. It is in the third person , however, that the praying Jesus speaks of Himself from Joh 17:1 forwards, placing Himself in an objective relation towards the Father during the first intensity of this solemn mood, and first at Joh 17:4 continuing the prayer with the familiar ; He indeed mentions His name in Joh 17:3 , because in the connection of the self-designation through the third person, it here specifically suggested itself, in correspondence to the confessional thought.

] is an appellative predicate: as Messiah , comp. Joh 9:22 . To connect it as a proper name with . ( Jesus Christ , comp. Joh 1:17 ), to ascribe to the evangelist an offence against historical decorum (Bretschneider, Lcke, De Wette), and to see in this a proof of a later reproduction (comp. Tholuck and Weizscker, p. 286; also Scholten, p. 238), would be to accuse the writer, especially in the report of such a prayer, of a surprising want of consideration. Luthardt also takes as a proper name, which he thinks was here, in this extraordinary moment, used for the first time by Jesus, and thereby at the same time determined the use of the word by the apostles (Act 2:38 ). So also Godet, comp. Ebrard. But Jesus prayed in Hebrew, and doubtless said , from which expression a proper name could by no means be recognised. The predicative view of . . . and of is also justly held by Ewald.

Although . . refers solely to the Father , the true divine nature of Christ is not thereby excluded (against the Arians and Socinians, who misused this passage), all the less so as this, in accordance with His (Logos) relationship as dependent on the Godhead of the Father, forms the previous assumption in , as is certain from the entire connection of the Johannean Christology, and from Joh 17:5 . Comp. Wetstein, and Gess, Pers. Chr . p. 162. Hence it was unnecessary, moreover, even a perversion of the passage, and running counter to the strict monotheism of John, when Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Beda, Thomas, Aretius, and several others explained it as if the language were: ut te et quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant solum verum Deum . Only One, the Father , can absolutely be termed the . (comp. , Rom 9:5 ), not at the same time Christ (who is not even in 1Jn 5:20 the ), since His divine entity stands in the relation of genetic subsistence to the Father, Joh 1:18 , although He, in unity with the Father, works as His commissioner, Joh 10:30 , and is His representative, Joh 14:9-10 .

[187] No formal definition . See the apposite observations of Riehm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 539 f.

[188] An antithesis which might present itself naturally and unsought to the world-embracing glance of the praying Jesus, on the boundary line of His work, which includes entire humanity. But He had also thought further of the , which was given to Him. This likewise in opposition to Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 56, who considers the antithesis foreign to the connection.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Ver. 3. That they may know thee ] To know God in the face of Christ is heaven beforehand; Qui non habet Christum in horoscopo, non habet Deum in medio caeli. (Bucholcer.) “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,” saith God concerning Christ, Isa 53:11 , that is, by faith; which enfolds assent of the judgment, consent of the will, and affiance or assurance of the heart. Papists place faith in the will only, and exclude knowledge. Nay, Bellarmine affirmeth that faith may be better defined by ignorance (that mother of devotion) than by knowledge. They dig out men’s eyes (as they dealt by Samson) and then make sport with them; they confine faith to the will, that they may do what they will with the understanding and the heart; as the friars send men on pilgrimage, that they may lie with their wives the while.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

3. ] See a similar definition of a term just used, in ch. Joh 3:19 . , as there, is transitional; bringing out, in fact, the contrast between the incidental mention of the word, and its more solemn definition.

is; not is the way to . The knowledge spoken of is no mere head or heart knowledge, the mere information of the mind, or excitation of the feelings, but that living reality of knowledge and personal realization, that oneness in will with God, and partaking of His nature, which IS itself life eternal: the knowledge, love, enjoyment, of Him who is infinite, being themselves infinite. . Iren [229] adv. Hr. iv. 20. 5, p. 254.

[229] Irenus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 (Iren-int as represented by his interpreter; Iren-gr, when his own words are preserved)

The accusatives after . are purely accusatives of the person, and the emphasis is on . From not seeing this, various mistakes have arisen e.g. the making . . the predicate, ‘ Thee to be the only true God ,’ and similarly with (which would require .) or with , ‘ Jesus, whom Thou hast sent, to be ( the ) Christ ,’ or ‘ Jesus Christ to be Him whom Thou hast sent .’ It is rightly rendered in E. V.

The Latin Fathers (Aug [230] , Amb., Hil [231] ), anxious to avoid the inference unwarrantably drawn by some from this verse against the Godhead of Christ, construed: . . . . ., . , which is of course inadmissible. Others (Chrys., Euth.), construing rightly, yet regarded Jesus Christ as included in the words . . . But all such violences to the text are unnecessary. For, first, the very juxtaposition of Jesus Christ here with the Father, and the knowledge of both being defined to be eternal life, is a proof by implication of the Godhead of the former. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and the juxtaposition of the two would be inconceivable. Secondly, the most distinctly expresses the from God, Joh 17:8 implies the of Joh 17:22 , and cannot, in connexion with what follows, possibly be understood in a Socinian, or an Arian sense. I do not scruple to use and preach on the verse as a plain proof of the co-equality of the Lord Jesus in the Godhead.

[230] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[231] Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers , 354

A difficulty has been found in the use of the name JESUS CHRIST by the Lord Himself: and inferences have been hence made that we have John’s own language here: but surely without any ground. He who said , Joh 17:1 , might well here, before the of Joh 17:4 , use that prophetic Name [ ] which had been divinely given Him as the Saviour of men, and its weighty adjunct (= , 1Jn 5:1 ; 1Jn 5:5 ), in which Names are all the hidden treasures of that knowledge of which He here speaks.

And as to the later use of the two names together having led to their insertion here by the Apostle ( gegen das geschichtliche Decorum , De Wette; similarly Lcke, and even Olshausen), what if the converse were the case , and this solemn use of them by our Lord had given occasion to their subsequent use by the Church? This is to me much more probable than the other.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 17:3 . On in this construction, see Burton, 213, and cf. Joh 15:8 ; in Joh 3:19 is not quite equivalent. In Isa 37:20 God is designated , and in Exo 34:6 ; cf. 2Th 1:10 . He is the only true God in contrast to many that are “called gods,” 1Co 8:5-6 . But cf. especially 1Jn 5:20 . It was by making known to them this God, and thus glorifying the Father, that Christ “gave men eternal life”. The life He gave consisted in and was maintained by this knowledge. But to the knowledge of the Father, the knowledge of “Him whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ,” was necessary, Joh 1:18 , Joh 14:6 . As in Joh 1:17 , so here, is the double name which became common in Apostolic times, and not (as Meyer and others) “an appellative predicate,” “Jesus as the Messiah”. Whether Jesus’ naming of Himself as a third person can be accounted for by the solemnity of the occasion (“der feierliche Gebetstyl,” Lcke), or is to be ascribed to John, is much debated. Westcott seems justified in saying that “the use of the name ‘Jesus Christ’ by the Lord Himself at this time is in the highest degree unlikely. It is no derogation from the truthfulness of the record that St. John has thus given parenthetically, and in conventional language (so to speak), the substance of what the Lord said at greater length.”

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

this, &c. Not a definition of eternal life, but the purpose (Greek. hina, as in Joh 17:1) for which it is given.

know. App-132.

true. App-175., and p. 1511.

God. App-98.

Jesus Christ. App-98.

sent. App-174. Christ said to be the sent One six times in this prayer, forty-three times in John; apostello, 17 times; pempo, 33 times.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3.] See a similar definition of a term just used, in ch. Joh 3:19. , as there, is transitional; bringing out, in fact, the contrast between the incidental mention of the word, and its more solemn definition.

-is; not is the way to. The knowledge spoken of is no mere head or heart knowledge,-the mere information of the mind, or excitation of the feelings,-but that living reality of knowledge and personal realization,-that oneness in will with God, and partaking of His nature, which IS itself life eternal:-the knowledge, love, enjoyment, of Him who is infinite, being themselves infinite. . Iren[229] adv. Hr. iv. 20. 5, p. 254.

[229] Irenus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 (Iren-int as represented by his interpreter; Iren-gr, when his own words are preserved)

The accusatives after . are purely accusatives of the person, and the emphasis is on . From not seeing this, various mistakes have arisen-e.g. the making . . the predicate, Thee to be the only true God, and similarly with (which would require .) or with ,-Jesus, whom Thou hast sent, to be (the) Christ,-or Jesus Christ to be Him whom Thou hast sent. It is rightly rendered in E. V.

The Latin Fathers (Aug[230], Amb., Hil[231]), anxious to avoid the inference unwarrantably drawn by some from this verse against the Godhead of Christ, construed: . . . . ., . ,-which is of course inadmissible. Others (Chrys., Euth.), construing rightly, yet regarded Jesus Christ as included in the words . . . But all such violences to the text are unnecessary. For, first, the very juxtaposition of Jesus Christ here with the Father, and the knowledge of both being defined to be eternal life, is a proof by implication of the Godhead of the former. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and the juxtaposition of the two would be inconceivable. Secondly, the most distinctly expresses the from God, Joh 17:8-implies the of Joh 17:22, and cannot, in connexion with what follows, possibly be understood in a Socinian, or an Arian sense. I do not scruple to use and preach on the verse as a plain proof of the co-equality of the Lord Jesus in the Godhead.

[230] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[231] Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, 354

A difficulty has been found in the use of the name JESUS CHRIST by the Lord Himself:-and inferences have been hence made that we have Johns own language here:-but surely without any ground. He who said , Joh 17:1, might well here, before the of Joh 17:4, use that prophetic Name [] which had been divinely given Him as the Saviour of men, and its weighty adjunct (= , 1Jn 5:1; 1Jn 5:5), in which Names are all the hidden treasures of that knowledge of which He here speaks.

And as to the later use of the two names together having led to their insertion here by the Apostle (gegen das geschichtliche Decorum, De Wette; similarly Lcke, and even Olshausen),-what if the converse were the case, and this solemn use of them by our Lord had given occasion to their subsequent use by the Church? This is to me much more probable than the other.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 17:3. ) is; not merely brings with it.-, that they may know) Knowledge in the matter of our salvation is of the greatest moment: Joh 17:26, The world hath not known Thee, but I have known Thee, and these have known, etc.-, the only, the alone) The Son and Holy Spirit are not excluded by this word. Comp. , ch. Joh 8:9, Jesus was left alone, and the woman. But those meant to be excluded are the false gods, with the idolatrous worship of which the world was crowded. And Jesus in this place speaks of Himself, as the Apostle of the Father [: Heb 3:1].- , whom Thou hast sent) The aspect (relation) under which (the ground upon which) Jesus Christ is to be acknowledged. His being sent, presupposes the Son to be one with the Father.-, Christ) A most open (plain) appellation, which subsequently became altogether prevalent.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 17:3

Joh 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.-To know God as the ruler and maker of the universe and his Son Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and Savior of the world is to obtain eternal life. To know them in the sense of obeying him.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Life in the Knowledge of God

And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.Joh 17:3.

1. The prayer of Christ from which this text is taken is in some respects the most precious relic of the past. We have here the words which Christ addressed to God in the critical hour of His lifethe words in which He uttered the deepest feeling and thought of His Spirit, clarified and concentrated by the prospect of death. Even among the prayers of Christ this stands by itself as that in which He gathered up the retrospect of His past and surveyed the future of His Church; in which, as if already dying, He solemnly presented to the Father Himself, His work, and His people. Recognizing the grandeur of the occasion, we may be disposed to agree with Melanchthon, who, when giving his last lecture, shortly before his death, said: There is no voice which has ever been heard, either in heaven or in earth, more exalted, more holy, more fruitful, more sublime, than this prayer offered up by the Son of God Himself.1 [Note: Marcus Dods, The Gospel of St. John, 247.]

2. The essence of eternal life is here defined and represented as consisting in the knowledge of the only true God, and of Jesus Christ His messenger, knowledge being taken comprehensively as including faith, love, and worship, and the emphasis lying on the objects of such knowledge. The Christian religion is described in opposition to paganism on the one hand, with its many gods, and to Judaism on the other, which, believing in the one true God, rejected the claims of Jesus to be the Christ. It is further so described as to exclude by anticipation Arian and Socinian views of the Person of Christ. The names of God and of Jesus are put on a level as objects of religious regard, whereby an importance is assigned to the latter incompatible with the dogma that Jesus is a mere man.

3. It may seem strange that, in addressing His Father, Jesus should deem it needful to explain wherein eternal life consists; and some, to get rid of the difficulty, have supposed that the sentence is an explanatory reflection interwoven into the prayer by the Evangelist. Yet the words were perfectly appropriate in the mouth of Jesus Himself. The first clause is a confession by the man Jesus of His own faith in God His Father as the supreme object of knowledge; and the whole sentence is really an argument in support of the prayer, Glorify Thy Son. The force of the declaration lies in what it implies respecting the existing ignorance of men concerning the Father and His Son. It is as if Jesus said: Father, Thou knowest that eternal life consists in knowing Thee and Me. Look around, then, and see how few possess such knowledge. The heathen world knoweth Thee notit worships idols; the Jewish world is equally ignorant of Thee in spirit and in truth; for while boasting of knowing Thee, it rejects Me. The whole world is overspread with a dark veil of ignorance and superstition. Take Me out of it, therefore, not because I am weary of its sin and darkness, but that I may become to it a sun. Hitherto My efforts to illuminate the darkness have met with small success. Grant Me a position from which I can send forth light over all the earth.

I

Life Eternal

1. What is the meaning of eternal? The answer of the ordinary man would be, Something that lasts for ever. With him eternity would simply mean endless time; it would mean duration, or permanence, or endless succession, or unalterability; it would mean adding so much time together that you could add no more. And so the sort of metaphors that people have used to express eternity have been the metaphors of the circle or the sand on the seashore. We have all been told that if we tried to count the sand on the seashore we should never reach the idea of eternity. Now, that sort of language is eminently misleading. Time shall be no more. That phantom of succession of time is wholly inapplicable to the life of God. With God there is no timeno past, no future; all is the everlasting now. It is only in consequence of our present limitations, only in consequence of that great condition of time under which we live, that we are unable to think of God as living out of time, and that we are compelled to think of Him as living only in endless time. The life eternal is the real life; it is the life that is life indeed.

The Greek word bios and the Greek word zoe both mean life and are translated by life; but they are words of entirely different significance in the Greek. The first word signifies chiefly animal lifethe brief space of time, the brief space of life through which we have to pass; bare existence is the word used, for example, in such passages as What is your life? It is even as a vapour. But the other word zoe belongs to an entirely different and higher conception. In the New Testament, it is used almost, if not entirely, for the inherent principle of life which is involved in the very being of God Himself, so that the first word means conscious existence; the second word means the sort of life of which God is capable, and we have it in all such passages as should not perish, but have eternal life. I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord. I am the bread of life.1 [Note: Archbishop W. Alexander.]

Even so is man: No matter how well he may know the law governing his animal personality, and the laws governing matter, these laws do not give him the least indications as to how he is to act with that piece of bread which he has in his handswhether to give it to his wife, a stranger, his dog, or eat it himself; whether to defend this piece, or give it to him who asks for it. But the life of man consists only in the solution of these and similar questions.2 [Note: Tolstoy, Works, xvi. 281.]

2. There would be little worth or significance in the mere endless prolongation of life, apart from the question of the kind of life that is to be lived for ever. The life that Christ promises us is of an order altogether higher than the life of ordinary experience. It is a life that lifts us up to a new region above the cares and meannesses of this world, that makes us indifferent to most of the ends and ideals for which the mass of men live, and at least independent of the pleasures to which they are so wedded. Eternal life, in fact, is spiritual life. When the spirit, the highest part of our nature, is called forth unto full activity and matured to its full stature, and when it subdues and regulates the whole man, then we have entered on this new plane of existence.

3. This spiritual life may be ours here and now. It is an error to connect the thought of eternal life exclusively with the future. If we are of Gods elect, we are now living this eternal life. At this very moment the eternal life of God is throbbing in our hearts. Every act of prayer and communion with God, every effort after righteousness and truth, every enterprise of love and mercy, is a manifestation of this life. The gift of eternal life is a present possession, not merely a future expectation. We have all been baptized into this life, we have all been made partakers of this life, we are all exhorted to show forth this life.

Too often is eternal life regarded as the reward of a life of active virtue, as the far-off hope which stimulates the fainting heart to patient continuance in well-doing; too often is it supposed that only when the battle is over and the victory won shall we pass beneath the dark gateway of death into the bright peace of the heavenly Kingdom. But, on the other hand, the herald of Christ came with the cry, The kingdom of heaven is at hand, a cry which Christ Himself confirmed by proclaiming to His hearers, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. Eternal life, then, is not set before the world as the prize of patient purity, the reward of long-continued well-doing, or the stimulus to incite men to a life of holiness. It is not a glory which only after death will crown the successful endeavours of the faithful; it is the purity, the well-doing, the holiness itself. It is the knowledge of God and Christ, with all the spiritual virtues which attend itknowledge which, if the rational nature of man be no delusion, may be ours now; virtues which, if the life of Christ have any significance, if His blessed example and exhortations have any meaning for us, may adorn our present earthly life.1 [Note: A. Semple, Scotch Sermons (1880), 333.]

II

Eternal Life as Knowledge of God in Christ

1. It is knowledge.Knowledge is a word of more than one meaning, and that knowledge of God which is eternal life has very little in common with that knowledge of Him which is called theology. For there is a difference, and that a fundamental difference, between knowing a thing and knowing about it; there is a difference, and that a fundamental difference, between the knowledge which we gain from books and that which comes through feeling.

Those who know God most worthily are not the intellectually powerful, but the spiritually sensitive, and very often such are found among the poor of this world. To them is given the higher vision. The husband knows his wife, not by keen intellectual estimates of her character, but by the insight of a close and intimate fellowship. In this way the mother knows her child, and adjusts all her relations by the knowledge. The friend could not tell us why he loves his friend, or recount those elements of character which he admires. Heart knows heart, and love knits bonds. And the innermost secret is that we must feel God, and by the feeling gain our knowledge of Him.1 [Note: R. T., Light for Lifes Even-tide, 79.]

The mere knowing of the understanding is never life, but only the instrument or tool of life. That which my understanding, my logical faculty, knows is, so far, outside of me. I may build my life on it. But of it I cannot build my life. I know that twelve times twelve are a hundred and forty-four, that London lies nearly two hundred miles from Liverpool, and that June is likely to bring warm days and December cold. And on each of those bits of knowledge I build up now and again fragments of my life. They are useful to me in my planning and contriving; but they are not life. But I know the remorse that is the fruit of sin, the pleading of the Holy Spirit in my conscience, the look of love in my friends eyes, the bliss of the summer sunshine, the chill pain of a great bereavement; and that knowing is itself of the very texture of my life. If you could take this strange abstract thing, my life, and divide it up into its several elements, you would find it all made up of knowings such as these. They are of its essence. For these knowings in me are not information given me by others, not inferences reached by syllogism, not even convictions grasped by closest reasoning, but immediate realizations, instant experiences. And so these are not the furniture of life, but life itself. And if the eternal life consists in knowing certain objects, then the knowing must be of this immediate kind, facts of the soul, realizations woven into the very structure of the self.2 [Note: R. C. Armstrong, Memoir and Sermons, 253.]

Comrades, I said, who to the West

Have through a thousand dangers pressed,

Let not the little space

Remaining to our race

Run out before our senses find

Experience of the world behind

The courses of the Sun,

Where people there are none.

Consider what hath been your lot:

Not for brute life were ye begot:

But that ye might pursue

Virtue and knowledge too.1 [Note: Dante, Inferno, xxvi. (trans. by Shadwell).]

2. It is knowledge of God.The one thing needful for men, the great cry of our nature, in which all other cries are swallowed up, is for knowledgethe knowledge of God. To know the true God has been the deep desire of living souls through all time. Wearied by the changes of a fleeting world, finding no repose in the best that the finite can give, men of earnest minds long to know the Eternal that they may rest in Him. An old mystic has said: God is an unutterable sigh of the human soul. With greater truth we may reverse the saying, and affirm that the human soul is a never-ending sigh after God. In its deepest recesses there lives or slumbers inextinguishable longing after Him, and the more we consider the nature of that longing, the more we discover that what it aims at is not a mere intellectual apprehension of God, but a personal relationship to Him. It is essentially of a practical nature. It is an impulse to draw nigh to God, to place ourselves in personal fellowship with Him from the conviction that He hath made these hearts of ours for Himself, and they are altogether restless till they find their rest in Him. And thus the cry of the earnest has always been that of the disciple: Shew us the Father and it sufficeth us. The dream that has haunted the earnest of the world has ever been thisto live the blessed life man must know the true God, and Christ proclaims that dream to be a fact.

What does knowing God mean? It does not mean knowing Him by name, knowing about Him, knowing Him as a stranger and foreigner, whose speech and ways we have not been accustomed to; it means knowing Him in the sense in which we know a father, or mother, or friend, whom we love and value above every one else; whose ways and thoughts we are thoroughly acquainted with; and who, we feel, knows us thoroughly, feels with us, cares for us, and longs for our being happy.1 [Note: R. W. Church, Village Sermons, 143.]

3. It is knowledge of God in Christ.The great want of humanity is the knowledge of God. This want is met by Jesus Christ whom God has sent. Christ has power over all that He might give eternal life. It is He that gives eternal life: it is He that gives the knowledge of the only true God which is eternal life. There is nothing that tends to life in the knowledge you have apart from Him. For the knowledge of the true God and for eternal life we are utterly and entirely dependent on Jesus Christ. Christ came to give us this knowledge, and how did He give it? Not simply by telling us certain truths or teaching certain doctrines about God, but by living among us, as God-man in the flesh breathing our cerulean air, and speaking our human speech, loving us with a human heart, and healing and helping us with human hands, and then telling us that he who had seen Him had seen the Father. This is eternal life, that we should see the glory of Godthe love of Godin the face of Jesus Christ.

The latest taken away of those who made the happiness of my Oxford life was Robert Gandell, who ended his days at Wells, of which cathedral he was Canon:but who was chiefly known at Oxford (where he had passed all his time), first, as Michel Fellow of Queens; then, as Tutor of Magdalen Hall and Fellow of Hertford College; but especially as Hebrew Lecturer, and Professor of Syriac and Arabic. I have never known a man who with severe recondite learning combined in a more exquisite degree that peculiar Theological instinct without which an English Hebraist is no better than,in fact is scarcely as good as,a learned Jew.2 [Note: J. W. Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, i. p. xxii.]

Jesus Christ whom thou didst send. He is the key to the difficulty which we all must feel more or less when we speak of knowing God. For us men in this human life the knowledge of the Father is the knowledge of the Son, the knowledge of God is the knowledge of Jesus Christ. We have before us in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ the satisfaction of this need of a divinity which is, if not nearer, at least more apparent, to our human life, and more possible for mortal men to approach. We have before us in the Gospels the picture of God clothed with humanitytreading the streets of an earthly city, living that very life of struggle which seems at first sight to be at the very opposite pole of existence from God. Again and again, through the prison bars of that humanity, there flashed forth the light of the divinity that was in Him; but His life was a human lifea life like yours and mine; a life which felt pain and disappointment and temptation, and a life consequently which, though at far distance, it is possible for us to know and to imitate.1 [Note: E. Hatch, Memoirs, 187.]

4. What is it to know Christ? Is it to trust Him? Not simply that, if we trust only in something He did long ago. Is it to love Him? Not simply that, if we love Him only as He stands far back in the past, for the redemption He achieved then. What is it to know Him? It is to have Him pressing Himself, with all the power that ever was in Him still in Him, upon our hearts to-day. It is to be conscious that He is for ever taking my life afresh and impressing Himself upon it afresh. It is to hear Him calling to me, not down the centuries from long ago, but from hereclose at my side, with a voice that is newly lifted to-day, an invitation that is newly given to-day. It is not to be inspired by what He was, but to feel His power now coming straight from the living heart of Him to me. It is to experience, not the reflex influence of what He did far back in the history of mankind, but the direct influence of what He does. It is to discern, amid the figures which crowd the canvas of our life, that One Figure moving ceaselessly to and fro. The Real Presence, if you like. To know Christ in this sensethat every moment He comes with a new ministry to snatch me out of my littleness into His greatnessthat is eternal life. To know Christ in this sensethat He gives the secret of life newly to me ever and ever againthat is eternal life. To know Christ in this sensethat He repeats to-day every blessing He bestowed in other days, changing the form of it to meet the changing need, answering to every hours requirement with grace newly-born out of His great and loving heartto know Him so is to take life from Him now, is eternal life.2 [Note: H. W. Clark, Meanings and Methods of the Spiritual Life, 21.]

Knowing Christ makes us live as God lives, so far as that can be for us. Knowing Christ makes us live as God livesthat is the miraclesets us into worlds where limitations and sorrows and dyings cease to have any meaning. Know Christ, and the wearinesses and weaknesses by which an unceasing cry is wrung out from the world cannot touch your true life to harm it any more than they can touch Gods; for Christ gives you eternal life. Know Christ, and you cannot die any more than God can die; for Christ gives you eternal life. There is nothing partial about the blessing Christ bestows. Eternal life is a thing others dare not speak of; but He gives that because He Himself possesses it, and, in giving that, gives all. One may look on this trial of humanity and another may look on that; one voice may speak a word to make this struggle lighter, and another may possess some secret to strengthen the soul in that conflictChrist, when we know Him, does not patch and mend life so, but just lifts us away out of all these things into the eternal worlds, so that trial and struggle and conflict are to us no more than they are to Himself, to God. One has the secret that will make life worthier, he thinks; and another speaks the word to make life happier, he thinks: Christ bids us just know Him, and all is done.1 [Note: H. W. Clark, Meanings and Methods of the Spiritual Life, 24.]

(1) Knowledge of Christ implies obedience.To know Jesuswhat does it mean? Here is a guiding word from the Apostle John: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar. Then how many of us know Him? He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not. Then knowledge implies obedience. There can be no knowledge of Christ without obedience. Without obedience we may have a few ideas about Him, but we do not know Him. If we are destitute of obedience, then that which we assume to be knowledge is no knowledge at all, and we must give it another name. Obedience is essential. What is obedience? Confining our inquiry strictly to the human plane, what is essentially implied in obedience? When one man obeys another it is implied that he subjects his will to the will of the other, and works in harmony with its demands. The oarsmen in our university boats have to subject their wills to the will of the strokesman, whose stroke determines and controls the rest. The oarsmen have but one will. That is obedience, a will attuned to the will of another, and without that attuning of the will no knowledge of Christ can ever be gained.

And once when he was walking with Francis and came to a cross-way where one could go to Florence, to Siena or to Arezzo, and Brother Masseo asked, Father, which way shall we take? Francis answered him, The way God wishes. But Brother Masseo asked further, How shall we know Gods will? And Francis answered: That I will now show you. In the name of holy obedience I order you to start turning round and round in the road here, as the children do, and not to stop until I tell you to. Then Brother Masseo began to whirl round and round as children do, and he became so giddy that he often fell down; but as Francis said nothing to him, he got up again and continued. At last as he was turning round with great vigour, Francis said, Stop and do not move! And he stood still, and Francis asked him, How is your face turned? Brother Masseo answered, Towards Siena! Then said Francis, It is Gods will that we shall go to Siena to-day.1 [Note: J. Jrgensen, St. Francis of Assisi, 110.]

(2) Knowledge of Christ means love.He that loveth not knoweth not God. Then how many of us know Him? No love: no knowledge! May we not slightly alter the former word of the Apostle, and read it thusHe that saith, I know Him, and loveth not, is a liar. It would be just as reasonable for a man without eyes to claim that he sees the stars as for a man without love to claim that he knows the Lord. Without love we cannot know Christ. What is love? It is indefinable, as indefinable as fragrance or light. Our descriptive words are at the best only vague and remote. Though we cannot define a sentiment, we can sometimes suggest it by its effects, and this will suffice for our immediate purpose. Love is good will toward men. Observe, good will toward men, not merely good wish; willing good, not only wishing it! To wish a thing and to will it, may be two quite different things. Wishing may be only a sweet and transient sentiment; willing implies effort, active and persistent work. Wishing dreams; willing creates. Love is good will, the willing of good toward all men, the effort to think the best of all men, and to help them on to the best. That is love.

The path of the intellect is not the path that brings the soul into that Sacred Presence which it seeks. He is reached by another means altogether. What is it? Let the soul take to itself the wings of love, and the distance between it and Him will be covered in a moment. The mountain will become a plain, and He who seemed to be afar off will be found to be nigh at hand. Or, to use the figure which Browning employs, love is the single leap that gains Him, which leap the mere intellectual faculty is powerless to take.1 [Note: J. Flew, Studies in Browning, 145.]

(3) Knowledge of Christ is likeness.Knowledge necessitates likeness. Have we not abundant proof of its truth? Two unlikes cannot know each other. Two men who are morally unlike each other may live together, and neither can possibly know the contents of the others life. How would you describe pain to a man who has never experienced it? He cannot know it. He cannot even imagine it. Pain is known only by the pain-ridden. Knowledge implies likeness. The principle has a wide application. To know we must be. To know music, we must be musical. To know art, we must be artistic. To know Christ, we must be Christlike. This is life, to know Jesus. To know Jesus is to share His life! His life is eternal. Life eternal is just Christ-life. This is life eternal, to have life like Christ, to know Him in spirit and in truth.

All grows, says Doubt, all falls, decays and dies;

There is no second life for flower or tree:

O suffering soul, be humble and be wise,

Nor dream new worlds have any need of thee!

And yet, cries Hope, the world is deep and wide;

And the full circle of our life expands,

Broadening and brightening, on an endless tide

That ebbs and flows between these mystic lands.

Not endless life, but endless love I crave,

The gladness and the calm of holier springs,

The hope that makes men resolute and brave,

The joyful life in the great life of things.

The soul that loves and works will need no praise;

But, fed with sunlight and with morning breath,

Will make our common days eternal days,

And fearless greet the mild and gracious death.2 [Note: W. M. W. Call.]

Life in the Knowledge of God

Literature

Allen (T.), Children of the Resurrection, 72.

Armstrong (R. A.), Memoir and Sermons, 248.

Barry (A.), Sermons preached at Westminster Abbey, 3, 71.

Church (R. W.), Village Sermons, i. 140.

Clark (H. W.), Meanings and Methods of the Spiritual Life, 14.

Crump (W. W.), A Buried Sphinx, 1.

Eyton (R.), The Apostles Creed, 195.

How (W. W.), The Knowledge of God, 3.

Jowett (J. H.), Thirsting for the Springs, 114.

Kingsley (C.), Sermons for the Times, 14.

Lambert (B.), Memoir, Sermons, and Lectures, 129.

Lonsdale (J.), Sermons, 162.

Lyttelton (A. T.), College and University Sermons, 1.

McLeod (M. J.), The Unsearchable Riches, 93.

Pearce (J.), The Alabaster Box, 70.

Sandford (C. W.), Counsel to English Churchmen Abroad, 194.

Sinclair (W. M.), Christ and our Times, 91.

Swann (N. E. E.), New Lights on the Old Faith, 159.

Walpole (G. H. S.), Vital Religion, 1.

Christian World Pulpit, xxxiii. 21 (Brooks); xxxviii. 291 (Leitch); lxviii. 259 (Horne); lxxiii. 153 (Horne); lxxx. 81 (Alexander).

Churchmans Pulpit: Easter Day and Season, xi. 314.

Scotch Sermons (1880), 324 (Semple), 365 (Stevenson).

Treasury (New York), xiv. 759 (Scudder).

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

this: Joh 17:25, Joh 8:19, Joh 8:54, Joh 8:55, 1Ch 28:9, Psa 9:10, Isa 53:11, Jer 9:23, Jer 9:24, Jer 31:33, Jer 31:34, Hos 6:3, 1Co 15:34, 2Co 4:6, 2Th 1:8, Heb 8:11, Heb 8:12, 1Jo 4:6, 1Jo 5:11, 1Jo 5:20

the only: Joh 14:9, Joh 14:10, 2Ch 15:3, Jer 10:10, 1Co 8:4, 1Th 1:9, 1Ti 6:15, 1Ti 6:16, 1Jo 5:20

and Jesus: Joh 3:17, Joh 3:34, Joh 5:36, Joh 5:37, Joh 6:27-29, Joh 6:57, Joh 7:29, Joh 10:36, Joh 11:42, Joh 12:49, Joh 12:50, Joh 14:26, Isa 48:16, Isa 61:1, Mar 9:37, Luk 9:48, 1Jo 4:14, 1Jo 4:15, 1Jo 5:11, 1Jo 5:12

Reciprocal: Exo 33:13 – that I Deu 30:20 – thy life 1Sa 2:12 – knew 1Ki 10:1 – concerning 2Ch 30:22 – the good 2Ch 33:13 – knew Job 22:21 – Acquaint Job 24:1 – they that know Psa 36:10 – that Psa 91:14 – known Psa 100:3 – Know Psa 119:144 – understanding Pro 2:5 – find Pro 9:10 – the knowledge Pro 30:3 – nor Ecc 7:12 – the excellency Isa 19:21 – Lord shall Jer 9:3 – they know Jer 22:16 – was not Eze 20:42 – ye shall Eze 39:22 – know Dan 11:32 – the people Hos 2:20 – and Mat 11:27 – neither Mat 19:16 – eternal Luk 10:42 – one Joh 1:26 – whom Joh 3:15 – eternal Joh 4:10 – and who Joh 4:14 – shall never Joh 4:15 – give Joh 5:26 – so hath Joh 7:28 – whom Joh 10:14 – am Joh 14:6 – the life Joh 14:7 – ye Joh 16:3 – because Act 5:20 – all Act 17:23 – To 1Co 2:2 – not 1Co 8:6 – one God 1Co 15:45 – a quickening Gal 4:9 – ye have Eph 1:17 – in the knowledge Eph 3:19 – to know Eph 4:13 – the knowledge Phi 3:8 – the excellency Col 1:10 – increasing Col 2:2 – understanding Col 3:10 – knowledge 1Ti 2:5 – one God 2Ti 1:1 – the promise Jam 2:19 – General 2Pe 1:2 – the knowledge 2Pe 1:3 – through 2Pe 3:18 – knowledge 1Jo 1:2 – that eternal 1Jo 1:3 – our fellowship 1Jo 2:3 – we know 1Jo 2:13 – because 1Jo 2:25 – General 1Jo 3:23 – his commandment 1Jo 4:7 – and knoweth

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE ONLY TRUE GOD1

And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.

Joh 17:3

The truth and the reality of a mans religion depend on his conception of God. We see this as we study other systems and other religions. If we go to a heathen country and want to know the character of the people there, we immediately begin to try to find out what their conception of God really is. If they have an idea of a bloodthirsty God, you will find that they are a bloodthirsty people. It is necessary that our worship and our service should be reasonable.

I. Reasonable worship required.God revealed Himself to man in order that mans worship might be given unto Him. It is impossible for us to reach God, for the finite to grasp the infinite, but it is not impossible for the infinite to grasp the finite, to reach him and to reveal Himself to him. God in His mercy has revealed to us Himself by Christ Jesus and by the Holy Spirit, and it is necessary that we should use our faculties and find out what God has revealed, in order that we might know Him. The very basis of the doctrine of the Trinity is the unity of God. This cannot be adequately illustrated. All illustrations that we may use are weak.

II. The witness of Scripture.What does the Old Testament and what does the New Testament really teach us with regard to the Trinity? In Genesis 1., In the beginning God. Now in the English version we just have one idea of one person in the word, but when we turn to the Hebrew Bible we find that that which was translated God in English is Elohim, a word plural in form, but joined with a singular verb, except when referring to false gods; and further down we see, The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and from the original you will find that it might be translated A mighty wind of God. Compare the idea with the coming of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples were waiting for the promise of the Father. What do we read? That while they were there waiting and praying, suddenly there came from heaven as it were a rushing mighty wind, and filled the place. Then we read a little further down in Genesis 1, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God said. There we have the Word of God brought out. In John 1 we read, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. What is the Word? Jesus Christ is the eternal Word incarnate, the expression of the Father, and so in these few opening verses of the Bible, in the first words that meet our eyes, we have God the Elohim, then we have the Spirit of God, and then we have the Word of God. Further on we hear God speaking with regard to the creation of man, Let us make man in our image. We have the same expression in Gen 11:7, Let us go down, and there confound their language. Then in Isa 6:8, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then we might pass on to the priestly blessing in Num 6:24-26, where The Lord, The Lord, The Lord is thrice mentioned; and finally we turn to Isaiah 6, where the prophet gains a glimpse into heaven, and hears the Holy, holy, holy! Why three Holies? These things, although they do not actually prove to us the personality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet they all point that way. God reveals to us His great truths gradually. He works in revelation as He works in Nature. In the Old Testament revelation God gradually led on to the fullness of time, when he sent forth His own Son with all might and all power and all healing; and when Christ came there was the fullness of the revelation at His baptism. The Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came out of heaven saying, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. There we have the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the voice of the Father. Then we turn to John 14, I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth. Here we have the distinctions sharp and clear. The Son prays, the Father hears, and the Holy Ghost comes. Then we proceed to the Mount of the Ascension, and as Christ bade His disciples farewell, He said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Then, once more, if we look at our text we find that Christ says He came into the world to reveal the Father. Thus we see how full the Scripture is of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

III. The offices of the Three Persons.What are the various offices of the ever-Blessed Trinity? God the Father, if one may reverently say so, propounded the plan for mans redemption, for mans salvation. God sent His Son. The Lord Jesus Christ, in obedience to the will of the Father, came. He revealed the Father to us. Then He gave Himself as our sacrifice on Calvarys Cross, and in Him we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins. Then, having accomplished His work on earth, He rose again from the dead and ascended gloriously into heaven. Now He sits on the right hand of God as our High Priest, and He ever liveth to make intercession for us. The Holy Spirit glorifies Christ.

Do we know God? Do we know God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost? By the power of the Spirit, have we been born again? If we have not known God hitherto, we may know Him to-nightAcquaint now thyself with Him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee.

Rev. Edward Rhodes.

Illustration

St. Patrick, when he went to Ireland in the early days of Christianity, tried to instruct the poor ignorant people he found in that country from a leaf of the shamrock. On that one leaf there are three leaves, and that is exactly the position of the Trinity. It is on that account that the shamrock has become so revered by the people of Ireland, because in the early days they were taught by it to know God. Others have perceived an illustration of the Trinity in manin his body, in his soul, and in his spirit. The illustration is not of the best, but still it gives us some idea of what we mean when we say, One in Three, and Three in One.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

3

This is life eternal denotes that the fruit of knowing (recognizing and obeying) God and Christ is eternal life. There is no way of obtaining such a reward except through a life on earth that is patterned faithfully according to divine law.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 17

3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

CommentaryJesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son. Salvation depends on knowing both Father and Son. Jesus is the “way, the truth, and the life.” No one comes to the Father but through the Son, for it is the Son who “explains” the Father, the beloved and One and Only Son who is in the heart of the Father. The Son does everything the Father shows Him, is one with the Father, and assures us that when we have seen Him, we have seen the Father as well. The Son is God in every sense the Father is (1:1), does whatever the Father does (5:19); is to be honored equally with the Father (5:23), and is confessed at Lord and God (20:28). It would be strange, indeed, if a secondary god, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing him with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation. Unless, of course, He was essentially equal with the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him. This Gospel is replete with assertions that life is in Christ: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (1:4). “The Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (3:15-16). “The water I give him will become in him [who drinks it] a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4:14). See also 5:21, 26; 6:33, 54; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6. These words and others like them emphatically express the central purpose of Jesus: to glorify the Father by imparting life to men. The second sentence (v. 3) defines the nature of eternal life. It is not described in chronological terms but by a relationship. Life is active involvement with environment; death is the cessation of involvement with the environment, whether it be physical or personal. The highest kind of life is involvement with the highest kind of environment. A worm is content to live in soil; we need not only the wider environment of earth, sea, and sky but also contact with other human beings. For the complete fulfillment of our being, we must know God. This, said Jesus, constitutes eternal life. Not only is it endless, since the knowledge of God would require an eternity to develop fully, but qualitatively it must exist in an eternal dimension. As Jesus said farther on in this prayer, eternal life would ultimately bring his disciples to a lasting association with him in his divine glory (v. 24) (EBC ).

Grammatical Analysis`ina ginwskwin se ton monon alhqinon qeon hINA GINSKSIN SE TON MONON ALTHINON THEON so that they should [get to] know you, The only true God GINSKSIN Should know (ginsksin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject clause), “should keep on knowing” (RWP ). The word know (ginsksin) here in the present tense, is often used in the Septuagint and sometimes in the Greek New Testament to describe the intimacy of a sexual relationship (e.g., Gen 4:1, “lay”; Matt. 1:25, “hadunion”). Thus a person who knows God has an intimate personal relationship with Him (BKC ). ALTHINOS Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real (BAGD ). Opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended (Thayer ). Pertaining to being real and not imaginary … ‘that they may know you, the only one who is really God’ (Louw & Nida ).

Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses This verse has become a favorite of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who deny the Trinity. They claim that since Jesus says that the Father is the only true God, Jesus cannot also be the only true God. Jehovah’s Witness Greg Stafford, for example, writes: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of God, in that He is the only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived) sense. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus said. (Joh 17:3) The description “true God” is used only three times in the NT. In all three of these texts Jesus is distinguished from the true God. In John 17:3 he prays to the “only” true God….This is significant in that there is no clear indication of Jesus as this “true God” in the Bible, which would stand to reason in view of the restriction he himself places on this title in the NT (Stafford , pp. 119-120). Trinitarians have often responded that if the Father is the only true God, and the Watchtower is correct in saying that Jesus is “a god,” then Jesus must be a false God, for anything that is not true, must be false. Greg Stafford cites such an argument presented by Ron Rhodes (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 227-228). Stafford responds: The Greek word translated “true” (alethinos) can have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD [the Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker lexicon], alethinos can mean: “genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real . . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies” (Stafford, op. cit., p. 121). Are Jehovah’s Witnesses right? Is Jesus really saying that only one Person – the Father – is the true God? Are the Witnesses using sound exegetical principles in defining alethinos the way they do? Let’s examine this verse closely to find out. The Only True God Had Jesus said, “Only you, Father, are the true God,” He would, indeed, be proclaiming what the Watchtower says. However, that’s not precisely what Jesus said. He said to the Father, “you, the only true God.” The word “only” does not modify “Father,” but rather “God.” Does this fact change the meaning of the what Jesus is saying? Stafford reasons: While in certain contexts the word “only” might not mean only in the absolute sense, there is no indication that we have such use here in John 17:3. Also, there is no example that I am aware of where the person who makes the assertion that another person is the “only” something, means to include him- or herself in the description. (IBID, p. 120). But is there a subtle presupposition in this line of reasoning? I would submit there is: The presupposition is that the person in question is a unipersonal being. That is, human nature is such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Person (or Identity, Consciousness, or Will) and Being (the essence or nature that makes a human, human); therefore, any example of a human person saying that that another person is the “only” something, indeed does not mean to include him- or herself in the description. But what if there is Biblical evidence of a Being that subsists in more that one person – a multi-personal being? If such a Being exists (and Trinitarians believe the Bible teaches that God is such a Being), it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described as the “only” something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that Being from that description. Put another way, Jesus includes the Father in the identity of the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He does not logically exclude Himself from that category. Indeed, it is logically fallacious to claim that He does (). Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal God from the outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their preferred definition of “true,” for without it, they would be forced to concede that the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John 17:3 excludes Jesus from the category of “true” God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from the category of Lord? Indeed, here, there is not even the qualifying adjective that provides the basis of the Witness interpretation of John 17:3. Matthew 19:17 presents Witnesses with a similar problem, for here Jesus says that there is only “One” who is good; Witnesses must interpret this to mean that Jesus in His humility is denying His own goodness (or, at least, is not “as good as God,” though this distinction is not to be found in the context). In practice, Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as “good,” and Jehovah as their Lord. Their exegetical methodology appears inconsistent and subject to their theology; whereas Trinitarians are consistent in holding that an exclusive title may be given to any member of the Trinity, without excluding other members from that category. More importantly, Stafford and the WT cannot interpret verses like John 5:44, 1 Timothy 1:17, or Jude 25, in which we find the phrase “[the] only God,” without introducing the concept “God in a non-derived sense” – that is, that Jehovah is the “only God” in the sense that He is the only true or non-derived God. However, this sense is foreign to the contexts of these verses and requires Witnesses to bring other verse, such as John 17:3, into the discussion, which they interpret in ways conducive to their theology. As we shall see, John 17:3 does not really support the idea of a “non-derived” God, at least not in the view of most lexicographers. When Scripture makes a clear declaration that there is only one God, the burden lies with any who would argue otherwise. Only if one assumes before hand that God is unipersonal can one conclude that John 17:3 proves that only the Father is true God. Notice how the quoted passage from Stafford, above, begins with the premise, “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of God, in that He is the only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived) sense.” He would no doubt say that the WT derives this belief from the passages he cites; however, in each case – and particularly John 17:3 – only by assuming a unipersonal God can one conclude that the Father is the only Person who is that true God. Thus, the Watchtower and its apologists are guilty of “begging the question” with regard to John 17:3, for only by first assuming that God is one Person, can they “prove” by this verse that Jesus calls the Father the only Person who is God. Interestingly, Stafford accuses Trinitarians of this very fallacy: Trinitarians, he says, “import their ideas into the Bible, making it practically impossible for them to view theological or christological statements apart from Trinitarian concepts” (IBID, p. 129). In the case of John 17:3, I believe the opposite is actually the case. It is Jehovah’s Witnesses who import their Unitarian view of God, while Trinitarians draw no specific conclusions regarding God’s nature from this verse. Let’s be clear: Trinitarians do not claim that John 17:3 “proves” the Trinity; we simply maintain that scripturally and logically, it does not deny it. The Meaning of “True” We may first note that in English, the word “true” may mean “real, in the sense of an archetype, as distinguished from a copy” or “true contrasted with false.” Althinos has the very much the same semantic range in Koine Greek, as BAGD makes clear (p. 37). The question is, which connotation does Jesus intend here? Extending the meaning of a word beyond that required by the context is not a sound exegetical practice. After all, the word “true” has within its semantic range the connotation of “straight,” but Jesus is not saying the Father is the only straight-line God! Which connotation do the lexicons support for althinos in John 17:3? After all, Watchtower apologists have used BAGD and Thayer to support their view, haven’t they? BAGD recognizes the semantic range of althinos as containing “true in the sense of reality possessed only by an archetype, not its copies.” However, it references this shade of meaning for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, not in reference to John 17:3. When we consult the lexicon with regard John 17:3, BAGD is quite clear: “of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real.” Thus, BAGD recognizes the context of John 17:3 as requiring the “true contrasted with false” connotation. Stafford notes: “While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal meaning to alethinos in John 17:3, we believe this sense best fits the use of ‘true’ in this and other passages” (IBID, p. 121). He then argues for this connotation in John 17:3 by citing John 1:9, John 6:32-33, Hebrews 8:5, and Hebrews 9:9 (sic; 9:24?). “In all these texts, alethinos is not contrasted with something ‘false,’ but is used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the original” (IBID). Stafford is quite right about the verses he cites, and interestingly, BAGD references these as well for the archetype connotation. This means that BAGD was fully aware that the verses in question supported the archetypal connotation, and yet believed the “true vs false” connotation applied to John 17:3. Stafford offers no reason why we should consider the archetype connotation in this verse; he merely asserts that Witnesses hold this view. Further, he considers BAGD authoritative with regard to the connotation of althinos he prefers, but does not tell us why he considers them unable to distinguish the proper connotation for John 17:3. It is possible, of course, that the authors got it right in the first case and wrong in the second, but without evidence to demonstrate why their authority should be questioned, we must conclude that Greek scholars who are capable of ascertaining the various connotations of a particular word must also be capable of determining specific usage in a given context. We may wonder why the authors of BAGD chose the particular connotation they did in John 17:3. Let’s take a look at the context of the verses in discussion. In Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, the writer is clearly referring to the “true Tabernacle” in heaven where Jesus is the High Priest, in contrast to the earthly (and less “real”) Tabernacle. However, in context, John 17:3 does not imply a contrast between Jesus and God. Instead, the context is Jesus’ concern that the disciples know the Father in an intimate way, that they may thus obtain eternal life. For who gives eternal life, but the true God (as contrasted with false gods)? Thus, context argues for the connotation of “the true God” who give eternal life, as opposed to “false gods,” who cannot. If BAGD is reliable in both their understanding of the various connotation of althinos and their specific definition in John 17:3, we would expect that other authorities would corroborate it. Similarly, if BAGD got it wrong with regard to John 17:3, we would expect other authorities to disagree. Grimm/Thayer defines althinos as “contrasts realities with their semblances” for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, but “opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended” for John 17:3 (p. 27). So, Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of althinos in John 17:3 as “true contrasted with false.” In his Expository Dictionary, Vine recognizes Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 as requiring the meaning: “the spiritual, archetypal tabernacle,” but defines althinos in John 17:3 as: “‘very God,’ in distinction from all other gods, false gods” (p. 645). Louw and Nida similarly recognize several connotations for althinos, including those discussed. They define althinos in John 17:3 as: “pertaining to being real and not imaginary … ‘that they may know you, the only one who is really God'” (p. 667). Moulton and Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical examples of althinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning ‘real’; ‘genuine’; ‘true, as opposed to false’ (p. 22). Finally, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT ) does not specifically reference John 17:3 in its discussion of althinos, but says “As a divine attribute it has the sense of ‘reliable,’ ‘righteous,’ or ‘real,'” and cites 1 John 5:20, a verse Stafford relates to John 17:3 (IBID, p. 120). This meaning is contrasted with the archetype connotation: “In Heb 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle is ‘true’ in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb. 9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy of the true one, which is genuine as divine” (Abridged edition, p. 39). So, we see that the standard lexical works specify the connotation of althinos in John 17:3 as “the only true God (as distinguished from all other gods, who are false).” This definition of althinos presents serious problems for Watchtower theology, for by saying “the only true God,” Jesus states quite clearly that any other who is termed “a god,” must be a false god. Origen’s Understanding of the True God Stafford cites Origen in support of his view that althinos in John 17:3 should be read with the archetype connotation: In his Commentary on John he wrote: God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken and called the earth.” [Ps. 136:2] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for they drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then is “The God,” and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype [ANF 10, Book 2, p. 323. emphasis added]. Origen evidently understood that the reference to the Word as theos was not intended to make him equal to God the Father, for he wrote: “Nor must we omit to mention the Word, who is God after [hexes] the Father of all” (IBID, pp. 120-121). Origen’s theology is complex, to say the least. Drawing conclusions from a few scattered passages does little justice to what Origen actually taught, and what his terminology meant to his contemporaries, as opposed to what it may be thought to signify today, looking back as it were through the lens of the Arian controversy which raged some hundred years after Origen died. Stafford is correct that Origen does appear to apply the archetype connotation to althinos in his Commentary on John 1:1. But we may ask exactly what does Origen mean by this usage? Is it the same as that expressed by Stafford and the Watchtower? What may have led him to view the “true” God in an archetypal way? Finally, we must also consider whether Origen bases his view of althinos on grammar or on theology. Let’s first consider what Origen means by the “true God.” It would be a mistake to read a post-Arian meaning into Origen’s use of autotheos or the distinction his draws between theos with the article and without. In terming the Father autotheos, Origen does not mean that the Father possesses a “true” divine nature, and the Son a “lesser” divine nature. Origen taught that the “begetting” of the Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting (First Principles 1:2:4), that the Son and Father share the same nature (Commentary on John 2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6;), and that there was never a time when the Son did not exist (Commentary on Romans 1:5; First Principles 1:2:9; 4:4:1 in both Rufinus’ Latin translation and Athanasius’ Greek). The begetting of the Son is a part of the Divine Being and is from all eternity (First Principles, 1:2:9; 4:41, again in both Rufinus and Athanasius) and is also continual (Homily on Jeremiah 9:4); the Father is the “source” of divinity, and the Son “attracts” that same divinity to Himself through his eternal contemplation of the Father (Commentary on John 2:2:18). () It is true that for Origen, the Son’s Deity is derivative, and at times speaks of the Son as a “secondary God (Against Celsus 5:39; Commentary on John 6:39:202); but it is also true that Origen was strongly influenced by Middle Platonism in this regard, as numerous scholars have recognized: “The parallel with Albinus, who believed in a supreme Father Who organized matter through a second God (Whom he, however, identified with the World Soul) is striking; as is the fact that both thinkers envisaged the generation of the Son as the result of His contemplation of the Father” (Kelly , p. 128). “In a more limited field the impact of Platonism reveals itself in the thoroughgoing subordinationism which is is integral to Origen’s Trinitarian scheme. The Father, as we have seen, is alone autoqeos, so S. John, he points out, accurately describes the Son simple as qeos, not qeos” (Ibid., pp. 131 – 32). “Thus, Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation….Here Origen is directly indebted to the Platonism of his day” (Rusch , p. 14) “This distinction also has its origin in Philo (quod a deo somnia, Mangey 1.655 line 20), and it is again Origen who takes it up and imports it into Christian theology” (Prestige , p. 144). Origen’s apologetic arguments against Gnosticism and Modalism , in which he sought forcefully to affirm the true Human nature of the Son and the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit, and his use of Platonic concepts and language, have led some to conclude, as apparently has Stafford, that Origen taught that the Son was different in nature from the Father, truly a “second god” in the sense later argued by Arius. However, a careful reading of Origen leads one to conclude that while complex and couched in philosophical terminology, Origen taught the essential unity of Father and Son in categories not incompatible with later creedal statements. Indeed, this can be seen in the passage from the Commentary on John, which Stafford quotes, above. Immediately preceding the quote provided by Stafford, we read: Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other (Commentary on John 2:2:10-13). Thus, the Son is distinct in person, but of one “essence” with the Father. For Origen, though he may speak at times of “a secondary God,” he is also quite comfortable speaking of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God. In his Dialog with Heraclides, Origen refers to Scripture in order to show in what sense two can be one: Adam and Eve were two but one flesh (Gen. 2:24). He (the just man) who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (Cor. 6:17). He introduces Christ himself as a witness because He said: “I and My Father are one.” In the first example, the unity consisted of “flesh;” in the second of “spirit;” but in the third of “God.” Thus Origen states: “Our Lord and Savior is in His relation to the Father and God of the universe not one flesh, nor one spirit, but what is much higher than flesh and spirit, one God” (Dialog with Heraclides 2). Thus, when Origen says that the “Word is God after the Father of all,” he is not teaching an inequality of nature or essence, as Stafford implies. Immediately after Stafford’s quote, we find: But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father (Commentary on John 2:2:18). For Origen, then, while the other ‘gods’ are “images” of the true God, the Son is not in their category of being. He obtains His divine Nature by always being with the Father, while the other ‘gods’ are “formed” – that is created – and they derive their divinity from the Son. While some have argued that Origen refers to the Son as a created being in his reference to Colossians 1:15 (First Principles 1:2), this language should not be pressed, since Origen used the term KTISIS to refer to all the activities of God, including the eternal begetting of the Son, and therefore is not to be construed as signifying that the Son is a created being. Contrary to what Arianism was to say, the eternity of this generation is clearly affirmed, for it is inconceivable that the Father ever existed without his Wisdom, his Reason, his Word, all expressions which, as we have seen, denote the Son. Nor did the Father begin to be Father, as if He had not been so before, since all change in God is inconceivable (Crouzel , pp. 186-187). While Origen uses the term althinos in a manner similar to that suggested by Stafford, it is because he viewed God as the ‘source’ of Deity, while the Son eternally partakes of that same Deity. Origen’s use of middle Platonic thought and language led him to express the relationship of Father to Son in such terms. It must be emphasized the Origen’s use of althinos is theological, not lexical. Origen’s language and philosophical constructs are other than those used by later theologians to describe the Trinity (as they are from those preceding him), but his theology is not far distant from them, certainly not as far as it is from the theology later proposed by Arius and his followers. He taught plurality within the unity of the Godhead; He perceived the Godhead to be Father, Son, and Spirit, each of whom participated in creation and participate in salvation. Conclusion If God is unipersonal, this verse does not teach it. If a lesser “copy” of God is not a false god, the context of this verse does not demonstrate it. Jesus says that eternal life is an intimate personal knowledge of God (not “taking in knowledge about God,” as the Watchtower teaches), and of Jesus Christ, whom the Father has sent. Our hope for eternal life, then, resides in knowing both the Father and the Son in a personal way, and knowing them as they truly are: One God, One Lord, One Savior. ___________________ Notes 1. In fact, the entire argument that Jesus cannot be the true God based on John 17:3 is an example of a logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent.” To illustrate this point, let’s rephrase John 17:3b in the form of a logical proposition: If one is the Father, one is the only true God. “If one is the Father” is the antecedent of the proposition. “One is the only true God” is the consequent. In the terms of formal logic, it is not logically valid to deny the antecedent, and conclude that the consequent is also denied. For example, consider the following proposition: If one is a man, one is mortal. Now, consider the denial of the antecedent: Fido is not a man, therefore Fido is not mortal. Clearly, since (sadly for dog lovers) dogs do not live forever, denying the antecedent does not prove that the consequent must also be denied. Technically speaking, if one is a man, that is sufficient cause for the conclusion that one is mortal. However, if one is mortal, that is not a necessary cause that one is a man. There are numerous other mortal creatures, including man’s best friend. From the standpoint of pure logic, then, it is not valid to argue that because Jesus is not the Father (denying the antecedent in our paraphrased proposition) He cannot be the only true God. Being the Father is sufficient cause for being the only true God; however, being the only true God is not a necessary cause for being the Father. Some may object at this point that in our canine example, we do not have the restricted language of John 17:3b (“the only true God”). However, while placing “only” before the antecedent can have the effect of making the antecedent both sufficient and necessary, placing “only” before the consequent (as it is in John 17:3b) does not. That is, in logical terms, affirming that the Father is the true God is the same as affirming that He is the only true God. The antecedent, in either case, is sufficient, but not necessary. 2. Much has been made of the fact that large portions of Origen’s writing is preserved only in Latin translations by Rufinus and Jerome. Rufinus, in his preface to the Treatise of First Principles, states that he suppressed some passages on the Trinity which he judged to be inserted by heretics. Jehovah’s Witness apologists, when confronted by the quotations I have provided here often reply that we cannot be certain that they reflect Origen’s beliefs, but rather are interpolations by Rufinus. First, this objection cannot be raised with regard to the Commentary on the Gospel of John or the Homily 9 on Jeremiah, since we possess the Greek text of the books quoted. The passages quoted from First Principles exist both in Rufinus’ Latin and Athanasius’ Greek. There is no evidence that these two witnesses are related; therefore, we have two independent sources suggesting that these quotes accurately reflect Origen’s original words. As Henri Crouzel notes, Rufinus’ translation suffers primarily from omissions, often arising from a desire to abridge or avoid repetition: “Comparisons of the texts in the Philocalia [containing about 1/7 of the Greek text of First Principles] with Rufinus’ work yields on the whole a favorable result” (Crouzel , pp. 46-47). Any discrepancies between Rufinus’ Latin and Origen’s Greek would, then, seem to be in the area of omissions rather than interpolations, and the extent to which Rufinus altered the text has, perhaps, been exaggerated by some. Thus, we have several works, some preserved in Greek, others in Latin but corroborated by independent Greek witnesses, which demonstrate that Origen held the belief that the Son was of the same essence as the Father, co-eternal and uncreated.

Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Joh 17:3. And this is the eternal life, that they may learn to know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus, as Christ. The article is used before eternal life in order to carry our thoughts back to the life eternal of Joh 17:2; and the conception involved in these words is now dwelt upon in meditation which finds utterance because of the disciples who heard (comp. chap. Joh 11:42). Therefore when Jesus, with His mind full of the thought of the glorification of the Father and the Son, speaks of the eternal life bestowed upon His people, He turns to the manner in which, through the reception of that life, such a glorification shall be effected by them. Two points must be kept in view while we endeavour to understand the words:(1) The force of that; this word sets before us the knowing as a goal towards which we are to strain our efforts. (2) That the word know does not mean to know fully or to recognise, but to learn to know: it expresses not perfect, but inceptive and ever – growing knowledge. Those, then, who receive eternal life enter into a condition in which they learn to know the Father and the Son as They really are,learn to know Them in Their love and saving mercy,and are thus enabled to glorify Them. The knowledge of the Father and the Son is neither the condition of the life, nor the same thing as the life. It is rather that far-off goal which is constantly before us, and to which we come ever nearer, in proportion as we enter more deeply into the life which Christ bestows. The life, on the other hand, is that state in which we are introduced to the knowledge of the Father and the Son, the state in which we learn to know Them with constantly-increasing clearness and fulness, and finally the state in which, when life is perfected in us, we come to know Them as They are, to see Them, and to be like Them (comp. 1Jn 3:2). Strictly speaking, the knowledge is thus dependent on the life, rather than the life on the knowledge. But, in truth, the interdependence is mutual; neither can exist without the other; there is no life which does not lead to knowledge; there is no knowledge without life. The eternal life is thus also a present thing, stretching indeed into the endless future, but begun now.

The constituents of the knowledge are also given. They are first to be viewed as two; and each has a distinguishing attributive connected with it. The first is God: He is the only true God. We cannot exclude from these words the thought of a contrast to heathen divinities; for, as we have already seen on Joh 17:2, the Gentiles are here present to the mind of Him who prays for all that are to believe in Him. But, if so, we must recognise in them an allusion to the cardinal formula of Judaism, The Lord our God is one Lord (Deu 6:4); and the force of such an allusion in its present use we shall see immediately. In addition to this, however, the word true has also its meaning real. This God whom we are to know is the foundation of all real being, the God in whom all things are that are, and thus as true the only God. The second constituent of the knowledge is Jesus: He is Christ,Gods anointed One, the Messiah. In a chapter where so much importance is attached to the word name, we are justified in thinking that the name Jesus is here regarded in its proper meaning of Saviour: it expresses what the word Me would not express with anything like similar fulness. These two constituents of the knowledge spoken of are next to be viewed as one; for the fact that the words. Him whom Thou didst send precede the name Jesus, as well as the whole teaching of this Gospel, suggests not the thought of God and Christ but of God in Christ, of God declaring Himself in Him whom He sent. Herein, therefore, lies the truth, that the one God whom Israel so vainly boasted that it knew could only be known in connection with, and by means of the knowledge of, Jesus. Hence, also, we need not wonder that Jesus here names Himself in the third Person instead of the first. He is giving expression in its most purely objective form to the sum of saving knowledge. To effect this the second clause mentioning this knowledge has to be combined with the first: it must, therefore, be presented not less objectively; and thus, seeing this knowledge as it were without Himself, our Lord speaks not of Me but of Jesus. Had such a use been unsuitable to prayer, it would be as difficult to account for it from the pen of the Evangelist (on the supposition that the words are remoulded by him) as from the lips of Jesus.[1]

[1] The words of this verse are so important that it may be well to explain more fully in a note that in the clauses attached to learn to know there is probably a fusion of two thoughts:

learn to knowthat Thou art the only true God. Thee as the only true God.

learn to knowthat Jesus whom Thou sentest is Christ. Jesus whome Thou sentest as Christ.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

That is, “This is the true way and means to obtain eternal life, namely by the true knowledge of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ the Mediator, who was commissioned and sent by his Father to accomplish the work of redmption for a lost world.”

Here observe, Christ calls God the Father the only true God; not in opposition to the Son and Holy Ghost, who, being one in essence with the Father, are truly and really God, as well as the Father; but in opposition to idols and false gods. There is a great difference betwixt these two propositions: the Father is the only true God, and the Father only is true God. Christ saith the former: This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God. The Socinians say the latter: this is life eternal to know only thee to be the true God, and that neither Jesus Christ nor the Spirit are God, but the Father only.

But how comes eternal life to depend as well upon the knowledge of Jesus Christ, as of God the Father, if Jesus Christ, be only man, and not truly and really God? For this our Saviour affirms, This is life eternal, to know thee and Jesus Christ.

Whence learn, 1. That the beginning, increase, and perfection of eternal life, lieth in holy knowledge.

2. That no knowledge is sufficient to eternal life, but the knowledge of God, and Jesus Christ, who is also God; for who can think that the knowledge of a mere creature should be accounted equally necessary to salvation with the knowledge of the great and mighty God?

Surely, if our happiness consists equally in the knowledge of God and Christ, then God and Christ are of the same nature, equal in power and glory. The comprehensive sense of the word seems to be this, “That the knowledge of the only true God, and of Jesus Christ the Mediator, is the life of grace, and the necessary way to the life of glory.”

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Vv. 3 establishes the connection between the idea of glorifying God (Joh 17:1) and that of giving eternal life(Joh 17:2): to live is to know God; to glorify God is, accordingly, to give life by giving the knowledge of Him.

Ver. 3. Now this is eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou has sent, Jesus Christ.

Jesus contemplates that eternal life in which He is to make mankind participate; He fathoms the essence of it; it is the knowledge of God. Such a knowledge is certainly not, in His thought, a purely rational fact. The Scriptures always take the word know in a more profound sense. When the question is of the relation between two persons, this word designates the perfect intuition which each has of the moral being of the other, their intimate meeting together in the same luminous medium. Jesus has described in Joh 14:21-23 the revealing act from which there will result for His own this only real knowledge of God. It is the work of the Spirit, making Jesus, and with Him God, dwell in us.

The epithet only neither refers, as Luthardt says, to the word true, nor to the word God, but to the entire phrase true God. The term, true, declares that this God is the only one who answers perfectly to the idea expressed by the word God. How is it possible not to find here, with Meyer, the contrast to manifold divinities and divinities unworthy of this name which appertained to the reigning polytheism? I do not see how Weiss can refuse to admit this tacit antithesis. It suits precisely the idea of the extension of Christ’s action beyond the limits of Israel, which is, according to him, the idea of Joh 17:2. Does not the word all flesh call up the image of all these peoples foreign to Israel, which compose the idolatrous portion of mankind?

But Meyer is certainly mistaken in making the words: the only true God, the attribute of , thee : recognize thee as the only…. In this construction the word know takes a meaning too intellectual and one contrary to the part here ascribed to the knowledge as being one with the life itself. The expression: the only true God, is appositional with : to know thee, thyself, the only true God. Thus the word to know preserves the profound and living sense which it should have. This does not at all exclude the contrast with polytheism indicated above.

If Jesus had prayed only with a view to Himself, He would have limited Himself to these words: That they should know thee, the only true God. But He prays aloud, and consequently associating in His prayer those who surround Him. This is the reason why He adds: and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. While rendering homage to God, as the first source of eternal life, He has the consciousness of being Himself the sole intermediate agent through whom those who listen to Him can have access to this source; for it is in Him that God manifests and gives Himself (Joh 14:6). The possession of eternal life is identified therefore in His view, for all that is called man, with the knowledge of Himself, Jesus, as well as with that of God. Since Augustine, some interpreters (Lampe, etc.) have made the words (him) whom thou hast sent, etc., a second apposition to , thee.

The aim of this impossible construction is evidently to save the divinity of Christ; but this is exposed to no danger with the natural construction. The words: Him whom thou hast sent, are certainly the object of the verb that they should know. No more need we make the word Christ the attribute of Jesus: that they should know Jesus whom thou hast sent as the Christ; this construction would bring us back to the intellectual sense of the word know. The words Jesus Christare in apposition with the object, him whom thou hast sent. But we need not unite them in one single proper name, in conformity with the later use of this phrase, as Weiss, Reuss and some others do, who see in such an expression, which could not, as they say, be placed in the mouth of Jesus Himself, a proof of the freedom with which the evangelist has reproduced this prayer.

Tholuck also finds here a coming in of the later ecclesiastical language; even Westcott regards these words, as well as the preceding ones: the only true God, as glosses due to the evangelist who is explaining the Master’s prayeran explanation which is indeed certainly superfluous.Bretschneider is the one who has most severely criticised this form; he sees in it a gross historical impropriety from which he derives a proof against the authenticity of the Gospel. We think that this objection, on the contrary, springs from the fact that one does not place himself, in a sufficiently living way, in the historical situation in which this prayer was uttered. Until now, Jesus had always avoided assuming before the people the title of Christ. Rather than use this term, subject to so many misapprehensions, when the ordinary designation Son of man was not sufficient, He had had recourse to more strange circumlocutions (Joh 8:24, Joh 10:25 ff.). He had acted in the same way in the circle of His disciples (Joh 13:13; Joh 13:19). Once only, and by way of exception, in Samaria, on non-Jewish ground, He had openly assumed the title of Messiah (Joh 4:26). In the Synoptics, He conducts Himself in the same way. Mat 16:20, while accepting Peter’s confession, He takes occasion to forbid the disciples to designate Him publicly as the Christ. This reticence must not continue to the end. And since the moment was come when the new word of command for mankind, Jesus Messiah, was to be proclaimed throughout the whole earth by the apostles, it was necessary that once at least they should hear it coming expressly from the lips of their Master Himself. And under what more favorable circumstances and in what more solemn form could this watchword of the new religion be proclaimed than in this last conversation with His Father, which was setting the seal upon His whole work? This is what Jesus does in this solemn formula: Jeschouah hammaschiach (Jesus Messiah).

John has not therefore committed an inadvertence here. He has faithfully reproduced this inexpressibly serious and thrilling moment, when he heard Jesus Himself, by this declaration, explicitly sanction at last the faith which had not ceased to develop itself within him since the day when he for the first time drew near to Jesus (Joh 1:42)that faith which he and his colleagues had henceforth the mission of preaching to the world. Would to God that all the confessions of faith, throughout the Church, had always been, like this, acts of adoration!

It has been objected that the word , without the article, can only be regarded as a proper name. But comp. Joh 9:22, where John says, If any one confessed him as the Christ, without using the article. As to Joh 1:17, we have there the technical form indeed, but as a reproduction by the pen of the evangelist of the more living form which is found in our prayer.

This second clause of the verse separates the new religion from Judaism, as the first does from Paganism.

The Arians and Socinians have combated the divinity of Jesus Christ by means of this verse in which Jesus is placed beside and apart from the only true God. But John takes the same course in speaking of the Logos, Joh 1:1. No one is more express in his statements of subordination than John. And yet, at the same time, no one teaches more distinctly the participation of Jesus, as the Word, in the Divine nature. In this very verse Jesus is presented as the object, and not only as the intermediate agent, of the knowledge which is eternal life. How could the knowledge of a creature be the life of the human soul?

The conjunction , that, is used here rather than , because this knowledge is presented as an end to be reached, the supreme good to be obtained.

After this outpouring, Jesus returns to the prayer of Joh 17:1; He presents to God in a new form the same ground to justify the petition: Glorify me! He insists on all that He, Jesus, has already done, to establish on the earth this twofold knowledge which is eternal life, and on the actual necessity of a change in His position in order to finish this divine work (Joh 17:4-5).

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Verse 3

This is life eternal; that is, the way and means to the attainment of life eternal.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the {b} only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(b) He calls the Father the only true God in order to set him against all false gods, and to include himself and the Holy Spirit, for he immediately joins the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of himself together, and according to his accustomed manner sets forth the whole Godhead in the person of the Father. So is the Father alone said to be King, immortal, wise, dwelling in light which no man can attain unto, and invisible; Rom 16:27; 1Ti 1:17 .

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus proceeded to define the nature of eternal life. Eternal life is essentially knowing (Gr. ginoskosin, cf. Gen 4:1 LXX; Mat 1:25) God experientially through faith in His Son (cf. Joh 3:5; Jer 31:34; Hab 2:14; Heb 8:11). Jesus described it in terms of relationship rather than duration. Everyone will live forever somewhere. However the term "eternal life" as Jesus used it means much more than long life.

"Life is active involvement with environment; death is the cessation of involvement with the environment, whether it be physical or personal. The highest kind of life is involvement with the highest kind of environment. A worm is content to live in soil; we need not only the wider environment of earth, sea, and sky but also contact with other human beings. For the complete fulfillment of our being, we must know God. This, said Jesus, constitutes eternal life. Not only is it endless, since the knowledge of God would require an eternity to develop fully, but qualitatively it must exist in an eternal dimension." [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 162.]

Jesus described the Father here as the only true God. He is knowable only through Jesus Christ whom He sent (cf. Joh 1:18; Mat 11:27). We sometimes say that it is a blessing and an inspiration to know certain people. This is all the more true when we know God. Knowing Him changes us and introduces us into a different quality of living. [Note: Morris, p. 637.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)