τὸν ἀληθινόν]i.e. God, the One who alone completely corresponds to His “Name,” in whom the idea is completely realized. The attempt to make God the subject of δέδωκεν, notwithstanding the preceding ἥκει, and to interpret τὸν ἀληθινόν of Christ, hardly needs serious refutation, in spite of the support which it receives from Bengel.
The God who “fulfils the highest conception” of Godhead can only be known through the faculty of discernment given to men by His own Son, by means of His historic appearance on earth. The writer is already mentally contrasting the true with the false conceptions of God against which he warns his readers in the last verse of the Epistle.καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ] ἀληθινός must have the same reference here as in the preceding clause. It can only refer to God. The nearest parallel to the language of this verse is to be found in Jn. 17:3, ἵνα γινώσκουσίν σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: 22 f. ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν. ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν. There is really no difficulty in supposing that a writer who makes use of the phrase ἔχειν τὸν πατέρα should use the words εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ with reference to God. This interpretation is supported by the following clause. To interpret the words ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ as being in apposition to ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, appended in order to leave no doubt as to the change of reference in τῷ ἀληθινῷ͂, is far less natural than to find in these words ἐν τῷ υἱῷ κ.τ.λ.) a description of the method in which union with God is realized. The Thebaic (Sahidic) version has “in the Life” for ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ: with which should be compared the reading of some MSS of the Bohairic (see the critical note).
Brooke, A. E. (1912). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Johannine epistles (pp. 151–152). New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.
The God who “fulfils the highest conception” of Godhead can only be known through the faculty of discernment given to men by His own Son, by means of His historic appearance on earth. The writer is already mentally contrasting the true with the false conceptions of God against which he warns his readers in the last verse of the Epistle.καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ] ἀληθινός must have the same reference here as in the preceding clause. It can only refer to God. The nearest parallel to the language of this verse is to be found in Jn. 17:3, ἵνα γινώσκουσίν σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: 22 f. ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν. ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν. There is really no difficulty in supposing that a writer who makes use of the phrase ἔχειν τὸν πατέρα should use the words εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ with reference to God. This interpretation is supported by the following clause. To interpret the words ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ as being in apposition to ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, appended in order to leave no doubt as to the change of reference in τῷ ἀληθινῷ͂, is far less natural than to find in these words ἐν τῷ υἱῷ κ.τ.λ.) a description of the method in which union with God is realized. The Thebaic (Sahidic) version has “in the Life” for ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ: with which should be compared the reading of some MSS of the Bohairic (see the critical note).
Brooke, A. E. (1912). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Johannine epistles (pp. 151–152). New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.
