Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
23. The previous statement is emphasized by an expansion of it stated both negatively and positively. The expansion consists in declaring that to deny the Son is not merely to do that, and indeed not merely to deny the Father, but also ( ) to debar oneself from communion with the Father. So that we now have a third consequence of denying that Jesus is the Christ. To deny this is (1) to deny the Son, which is (2) to deny the Father, which is (3) to be cut off from the Father. ‘To have the Father’ must not be weakened to mean ‘to hold as an article of faith that He is the Father’; still less, ‘to know the Father’s will’. It means, quite literally, ‘to have Him as his own Father’. Those who deny the Son cancel their own right to be called ‘sons of God’: they ipso facto excommunicate themselves from the great Christian family in which Christ is the Brother, and God is the Father, of all believers. ‘To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God ’ (Joh 1:12).
but he that acknowledged the Son ] Better, as R. V., he that confesseth the Son: it is the same verb ( ) as is used 1Jn 1:9, 1Jn 4:2-3; 1Jn 4:15 ; 2Jn 1:7. It is surprising that A. V., while admitting the passage about the three Heavenly Witnesses (1Jn 5:7) without any mark of doubtfulness, prints the second half of this verse in italics, as if there were nothing to represent it in the Greek. Excepting the ‘but’, the sentence is undoubtedly genuine, being found in all the best MSS. ( ABC) and many other authorities. A few authorities omit it accidentally, owing to the two halves of the verse ending in the Greek with the same three words ( ). Tyndale and the Genevan omit the sentence: Cranmer and the Rhemish retain it; Cranmer marking it as wanting authority, and both omitting ‘but’, which Wiclif inserts, although there is no conjunction in the Vulgate. The asyndeton is impressive and continues through three verses, 22, 23, 24. “The sentences fall on the reader’s soul like notes of a trumpet. Without cement, and therefore all the more ruggedly clasping each other, they are like a Cyclopean wall” (Haupt). It would be possible to translate, ‘He that confesseth, hath the Son and the Father’ (comp. 2Jn 1:9): but this is not probable.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father – That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his friendship. It is only by the Son of God that the Father is made known to people, Mat 11:27; Heb 1:2-3, and it is only through him that we can become reconciled to God, and obtain evidence of His favor. See the notes at Joh 5:23.
But he that acknowledges the Son, hath the Father also – This passage, in the common version of the New Testament, is printed in italics, as if it were not in the original, but was supplied by the translators. It is true that it is not found in all the manuscripts and versions; but it is found in a large number of manuscripts, and in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Aethiopic, the Coptic, the Armenian, and the Arabic versions, and in the critical editions of Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn. It is probable, therefore, that it should be regarded as a genuine portion of the sacred text. It is much in the style of John, and though not necessary to complete the sense, yet it well suits the connection. As it was true that if one denied the Son of God he could have no pretensions to any proper acquaintance with the Father, so it seemed to follow that if anyone had any proper knowledge of the Son of God, and made a suitable confession of him, he had evidence that he was acquainted with the Father. Compare Joh 17:3; Rom 10:9. Though, therefore, this passage was wanting in many of the manuscripts consulted by the translators of the Bible, and though in printing it in the manner in which they have they showed the great caution with which they acted in admitting anything doubtful into their translation, yet the passage should be restored to the text, and be regarded as a genuine portion of the Word of God. The great truth can never be too clearly stated, or too often inculcated, that it is only by a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ that we can have any true acquaintance with God. and that all who have just views of the Saviour are in fact acquainted with the true God, and are heirs of eternal life.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. Whosoever denieth the Son] He who denies Jesus to be the Son of God, and consequently the Christ or Messiah, he hath not the Father-he can have no birth from above, he cannot be enrolled among the children of God, because none can be a child of God but by faith in Christ Jesus.
He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] This clause is printed by our translators in Italics to show it to be of doubtful authority, as it was probably wanting in the chief of those MSS. which they consulted, as it was in Coverdale’s Bible, printed 1535; Tindall’s Text, printed 1548; and in all the early printed editions (which I have seen) previously to 1566; the Bible of Richard Cardmarden, printed in English at Rouen, where this clause is inserted in a different letter between brackets. But that the clause is genuine, and should be restored to the text without any mark of spuriousness, as I have done in the text of this work, is evident from the authorities by which it is supported. It is found in ABC, and in between twenty and thirty others of the best authority; as also in both the Syriac, Erpen’s Arabic, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, and Vulgate. It is also quoted as a part of the text by Origen, Meletius, Athanesius, both the Cyrils, Theophylact, Vigilius of Tapsum, Pelagius, Cerealis, Cassian; and in substance by Euthalius, Epiphanius, Cyprian, Hilary, Faustinus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, and Bede. It is wanting in the Arabic, in the Polyglot, in a MSS. in the Harleian library, and in some few others. It is doubtless genuine, and Griesbach has with propriety restored it to the text, from which it never should have been separated.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To have the Father and the Son, is, by faith, love, and obedience, vitally to adhere to the one and the other. The latter part of this verse, though it be not in the ordinary Greek copies, is in some of the versions, and said to be in some Greek manuscripts also, whence it is supplied very agreeably to the apostles scope, and usual way of writing.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
23. Greek, “Everyone who denieth the Son, hath not the Father either” (1Jn 4:2;1Jn 4:3): “inasmuch as Godhath given Himself to us wholly to be enjoyed in Christ”[CALVIN].
hethatacknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. These words ought notto be in italics, as though they were not in the original: for theoldest Greek manuscripts have them.
hathnamely, in hisabiding possession as his “portion”; by living personal”fellowship.”
acknowledgethby openconfession of Christ.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Whosoever denieth the Son,…. Jesus Christ to be the true, proper, natural, essential, and eternal Son of God:
the same hath not the Father; or does not hold the Father; or “believe the Father”, as the Syriac version renders it; for there cannot be a father without a son; and he that honours not the Son, by owning him as such, honours not the Father; whatever reflects dishonour on the Son, reflects dishonour on the Father. If Christ is not truly and properly the Son of God, the Father is not truly and properly the Father of Christ; if Christ is only a Son in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the Father is only a Father in a figurative and metaphorical sense; if Christ is a Son only by office, then the Father is a Father only by office, which is monstrously stupid. Such an one does not hold the true doctrine of the Father, and does not appear to have true faith in him, true love unto him, or real interest in him, only by profession:
[but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also]: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza’s manuscripts, and in some others; and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and confirms and illustrates what is before said; for as he that denies the sonship of Christ cannot hold the paternity of God, so he that owns the sonship of Christ, the second Person, maintains the paternity of the first; for these two are correlates, and mutually put, or take away each other: no mention is made of the Spirit, because, as yet, no controversy had risen concerning him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Hath not the Father ( ). “Not even does he have the Father” or God (2Jo 1:9).
He that confesseth the Son ( ). Because the Son reveals the Father (John 1:18; John 14:9). Our only approach to the Father is by the Son (Joh 14:6). Confession of Christ before men is a prerequisite for confession by Christ before the Father (Matt 10:32; Luke 12:8).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Hath not the Father [ ] . Properly, “hath not even the Father,” though he professes to reverence the Father while rejecting the Son. Compare Joh 8:42.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Whosoever denieth the Son”. The “everyone” or “each one” denying the Son indicates personal responsibility – the volition power of personal choice or decision is an inborn and inalienable responsibility that can not be relegated or delegated to another.
2) “The same hath not the Father”. The denier or rejecter of the Son, Jesus Christ, John asserts does not have, hold, or contain Christ in him, the Hope of Glory. Mat 10:32-33; Col 1:27.
3) “(But) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” One can not have one abiding in him without the other. Joh 14:7-11; Joh 17:20-23.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Now this is a remarkable sentence, and ought to be reckoned among the first axioms of our religion. yea, when we have confessed that there is one true God, this second article ought necessarily to be added, that he is no other but he who is made known in Christ. The Apostle does not here treat distinctly of the unity of essence. It is, indeed, certain, that the Son cannot be disunited from the Father, for he is of the same essence, ( ὁμοούσιος;) but another thing is spoken of here, that is, that the Father, who is invisible, has revealed himself only in his Son. Hence he is called the image of the Father, (Heb 1:3,) because he sets forth and exhibits to us all that is necessary to be known of the Father. For the naked majesty of God would, by its immense brightness, ever dazzle our eyes; it is therefore necessary for us to look on Christ. This is to come to the light, which is justly said to be otherwise inaccessible.
I say, again, that there is not here a distinct discussion respecting the eternal essence of Christ, which he has in common with the Father. This passage is, indeed, abundantly sufficient to prove it: but John calls us to this practical part of faith, that as God has given himself to us to be enjoyed only in Christ, he is elsewhere sought for in vain; or (if any one prefers what is clearer) that as in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Deity, there is no God apart from him. It hence follows, that Turks, Jews, and such as are like them, have a mere idol and not the true God. For by whatever titles they may honor the God whom they worship, still, as they reject him without whom they cannot come to God, and in whom God has really manifested himself to us, what have they but some creature or fiction of their own? They may flatter themselves as much as they please, with their own speculations, who, without Christ, philosophize on divine things; it is still certain that they do nothing but rave and rant, because, as Paul says, they hold not the Head. (Col 2:19.) It is obvious, hence, to conclude how necessary is the knowledge of Christ.
Many copies have the opposite sentence, “He who confesses the Son,” etc. But as I think that a note by some copyist has crept into the text, I hesitated not to omit it. (72) But if its insertion be approved, the meaning would be, that there is no right confession of God except the Father be acknowledged in the Son.
Were any one to object and say, that many of the ancients thought rightly of God, to whom Christ was not known: I allow that the knowledge of Christ has not been always so explicitly revealed, nevertheless, I contend that it has been always true, that as the light of the sun comes to us by its rays, so the knowledge of God has been communicated through Christ.
(72) The words are found in most of the MSS., and in most of the versions, and in many of the Fathers. Besides, they wholly comport with the usual style of the Apostle, whose common practice it was to state things positively and negatively, and vice versa. Sec especially 1Jo 5:12. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
23. Hath not the Father The medium of our divine approach to the Father, namely, the Son, is by them removed, and they, alas! have not the Father. All the blessings of the gracious system, pardon of sin, the chrism from the Holy One, and the assurance of salvation descending from the Father by the Son upon us, are forfeited.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Jn 2:23. But he that acknowledgeth the Son, &c. Our translators have printed this passage in Italics; but it is found in many authentic manuscripts, as well as in the Syriac, Vulgate, and other versions.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Jn 2:23 . Confirmation of the last stated thought in two clauses, which express the same idea, only in different form. [174]
, ] is in meaning synonymous with , . The assertion that John here confounds with the idea of Christ that of the Son, i.e. of the eternal Logos (de Wette and others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Dsterdieck, Brckner).
Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause: , corresponding to the first part, John says: , which has a wider import, for is to be taken emphatically = “ to possess in living fellowship” (Dsterdieck); the explanation of Beza is insufficient: nec patrem esse credit (better, a Lapide: habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione); the thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, . is explained by: “to know the will of God;” erroneously Storr also: “to him is the Father not gracious.”
In the following words: . . . , which are wanting in the Recepta (see the critical notes), forms the antithesis of ; it means a confession which is the expression of faith (Mat 10:32 ; Rom 10:10 ). In regard to the construction, Ebrard rightly remarks: “That is dependent on , and not along with (as in 2Jn 1:9 ) on (in which case would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words, to which these form the antithesis.”
[174] Braune, rightly: “Here is the progress from the denying to the having, and from the particular ( ) to the general ( ).”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also .
Ver. 23. The same hath not the Father ] See Trapp on “ Joh 5:23 “ Mahomet speaks very honourably of Christ, but denies his Divinity, and that he was crucified. He acknowledged that he was the word and power of God, and that all that believe in him shall be saved, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23 .] Every one that denieth the Son, neither hath he the Father (the is exclusive and climacteric; not only hath he denied the Son, but he cannot hold, possess the Father): he that confesseth the Son hath also the Father . As nearly the whole of this Epistle, so especially such an assertion as this, formed a battle-field for the old rationalists. Some of the early Commentators and Fathers imagining that Jewish error was indicated by the denying that Jesus is the Christ, the idea has been again taken up by Semler, al., and pressed in the anti-trinitarian interest. Grot., Socinus, Episcopius, all evade the Apostle’s words by inadequate or far-fetched interpretations, understanding the expressions in this verse, of not obeying the teaching, not following the example, &c. of the Son, and by consequence of the Father. But the deeper and truer meaning of the Apostle’s words has been recognized by all the better Commentators, with some variations from one another. While some, as Beza, Calov., Seb.-Schmidt, mark perhaps too precisely the doctrinal character of the words, others, as Lcke and De Wette, make their force consist too much in an ideal and economical relation between the divine Persons. Still all are agreed, that that which is spoken of is the revelation of the Father by the Son only, and that he who rejects this in its fulness rejects all that can be known of the real essence and nature of the Father Himself; “nempe quia Deus se totum nobis in Christo fruendum dedit,” as Calvin. “The antichrists denied that Jesus, the definite Person whom the Apostles had seen, heard, and handled, is the Christ. In whatever sense this denial is to be taken, the Apostle speaks merely of the fact, as known to the readers; at all events there is involved in it a denial of the Son of God; because it is only as the incarnate Son of God (ch. 1Jn 4:2 ), that Jesus is the Christ. And in the denial of the Son is involved necessarily the denial of the Father, since the Father cannot be known without the Son, and the Father cannot be perceived, believed on, loved, by any man, without the Son, or otherwise than through the Son, i. e. the Son manifested in the flesh, the Christ, which is, Jesus. So that in St. John’s development of the argument there are three essentially connected points: denial of the Christ, of the Son, of the Father. The middle link of the chain, the denial of the Son of God, shews how the denial of the Father is of necessity involved in the denial of Christ. And the cogency of this proof is made yet more stringent by another equally unavoidable process of argument. The antichristian false doctrine consists mainly in a negation, in the denying of the fundamental Christian truth, that Jesus is the Christ. But in this is involved the denial of the essence of the Son as well as of the Father, and again in this denial is involved the losing, the virtual not having of the Son and of the Father. In the sense of St. John, we may say, taking the first and last steps of his argument and leaving out the intervening ones: He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, hath not the Father . And this necessary connexion between denying and not having, is perfectly clear, the moment we understand the ethical character, the living realism, of St. John’s way of regarding the subject. As ( 1Jn 2:23 ) we cannot separate the knowledge and confession of the Christ, the Son, the Father, from the having , the real possession of, the practical fellowship with, the actual remaining in the Son and the Father, so conversely, together with the denial is necessarily given the not-having ; together with the loss of the truth of the knowledge, the loss of the life which consists in that knowledge ( Joh 17:3 ). In such a connexion, the confession of the truth is as essential on the one side, as the denial on the other. Each is the necessary manifestation of the belief or unbelief hidden in the heart. And this is not to be understood of the ‘confessio cordis, vocis, et operis’ (Bede), but only as ch. 1Jn 1:9 , of the confession of the month ( , Rom 10:10 , see Joh 12:42 ). It is parallel with , 2Jn 1:7 ; 2Jn 1:10 ; and indicates the definite utterance of the doctrine which was made known by the apostolic preaching, 1Jn 2:24 .” Dsterdieck.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Jn 2:23 . Since the Father is manifested and interpreted in the Son. cf. Joh 1:18 ; Joh 14:9 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
the same = he.
not. Greek. oude.
he that, &c. This clause is added by all the texts.
acknowledgeth = confesseth, as Mat 10:32, &c.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23.] Every one that denieth the Son, neither hath he the Father (the is exclusive and climacteric; not only hath he denied the Son, but he cannot hold, possess the Father): he that confesseth the Son hath also the Father. As nearly the whole of this Epistle, so especially such an assertion as this, formed a battle-field for the old rationalists. Some of the early Commentators and Fathers imagining that Jewish error was indicated by the denying that Jesus is the Christ, the idea has been again taken up by Semler, al., and pressed in the anti-trinitarian interest. Grot., Socinus, Episcopius, all evade the Apostles words by inadequate or far-fetched interpretations, understanding the expressions in this verse, of not obeying the teaching, not following the example, &c. of the Son, and by consequence of the Father. But the deeper and truer meaning of the Apostles words has been recognized by all the better Commentators, with some variations from one another. While some, as Beza, Calov., Seb.-Schmidt, mark perhaps too precisely the doctrinal character of the words, others, as Lcke and De Wette, make their force consist too much in an ideal and economical relation between the divine Persons. Still all are agreed, that that which is spoken of is the revelation of the Father by the Son only, and that he who rejects this in its fulness rejects all that can be known of the real essence and nature of the Father Himself; nempe quia Deus se totum nobis in Christo fruendum dedit, as Calvin. The antichrists denied that Jesus, the definite Person whom the Apostles had seen, heard, and handled, is the Christ. In whatever sense this denial is to be taken,-the Apostle speaks merely of the fact, as known to the readers;-at all events there is involved in it a denial of the Son of God; because it is only as the incarnate Son of God (ch. 1Jn 4:2), that Jesus is the Christ. And in the denial of the Son is involved necessarily the denial of the Father, since the Father cannot be known without the Son, and the Father cannot be perceived, believed on, loved, by any man, without the Son, or otherwise than through the Son, i. e. the Son manifested in the flesh, the Christ, which is, Jesus. So that in St. Johns development of the argument there are three essentially connected points: denial of the Christ, of the Son, of the Father. The middle link of the chain, the denial of the Son of God, shews how the denial of the Father is of necessity involved in the denial of Christ. And the cogency of this proof is made yet more stringent by another equally unavoidable process of argument. The antichristian false doctrine consists mainly in a negation, in the denying of the fundamental Christian truth, that Jesus is the Christ. But in this is involved the denial of the essence of the Son as well as of the Father, and again in this denial is involved the losing, the virtual not having of the Son and of the Father. In the sense of St. John, we may say, taking the first and last steps of his argument and leaving out the intervening ones: He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, hath not the Father. And this necessary connexion between denying and not having, is perfectly clear, the moment we understand the ethical character, the living realism, of St. Johns way of regarding the subject. As (1Jn 2:23) we cannot separate the knowledge and confession of the Christ, the Son, the Father, from the having, the real possession of, the practical fellowship with, the actual remaining in the Son and the Father, so conversely, together with the denial is necessarily given the not-having; together with the loss of the truth of the knowledge, the loss of the life which consists in that knowledge (Joh 17:3). In such a connexion, the confession of the truth is as essential on the one side, as the denial on the other. Each is the necessary manifestation of the belief or unbelief hidden in the heart. And this is not to be understood of the confessio cordis, vocis, et operis (Bede), but only as ch. 1Jn 1:9, of the confession of the month ( , Rom 10:10, see Joh 12:42). It is parallel with , 2Jn 1:7; 2Jn 1:10; and indicates the definite utterance of the doctrine which was made known by the apostolic preaching, 1Jn 2:24. Dsterdieck.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Jn 2:23. , every one) even though he does not think that he also denies the Father.-, has) in acknowledgment and fellowship: 2Jn 1:9.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
denieth: 1Jo 2:22, 1Jo 4:15, Mat 11:27, Luk 10:22, Joh 5:23, Joh 8:19, Joh 10:30, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:10, Joh 15:23, Joh 15:24, 2Jo 1:9-11
Reciprocal: Job 31:28 – for Mat 10:33 – deny me Mat 10:40 – and he that Mar 8:38 – ashamed Luk 12:8 – Whosoever Luk 12:9 – shall Joh 1:34 – this Joh 14:6 – no Joh 20:31 – believing Col 3:17 – God 2Ti 2:12 – if we deny Tit 1:1 – the acknowledging 1Jo 1:3 – our fellowship 1Jo 5:1 – believeth 1Jo 5:12 – that hath the 2Jo 1:3 – the Son Rev 3:8 – and hast not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Jn 2:23. God and Christ are two distinct persons but are one in divinity, hence to reject the one is the same as rejecting the other. The last half of this verse is not found in some copies of the Greek text and for that reason some translations leave it out. However, it does not add anything that disagrees with the rest of the New Testament, hence no harm is done by retaining it at least to the extent of endorsing it.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Verse 23
The latter part of this verse is so printed in all copies of the common English version, on account of a doubt by the translators, whether the words which represent it properly belong in the original, They are found in some manuscripts, and are wanting in others.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:23 {s} Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
(s) They deceive themselves, and also deceive others, who say that the Moslems and other infidels worship the same God that we do.