Recently, one critic of the Church asked the following question:
Doesn’t 1 John 2:23 show that the
LDS teaching of a lower Terrestrial kingdom where individuals have access to
the Son but not the Father is not a teaching of the New Testament apostles?
The text reads:
Whoever denies the Son does not
have the Father, the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John
2:23 NASB)
The text, in context, is not about the eternal state; it is,
instead, about correct theological knowledge of the Father and his relationship
to the Son (and vice versa). It is focused on the here and now, and Christological
orthodoxy. Consider the following sources:
NET
Commentary (1st ed.) on textual issues concerning this verse:
The Byzantine text,
almost alone, lacks the last eight words of this verse, "The person who
confesses the Son has the Father also" (ὁ ὁμολογῶν
τὸν
υἱὸν
καὶ τὸν
πατέρα
ἔχει,
ho homologon ton huion kai ton patera echei). Although shorter readings
are often preferred (since scribes would tend to add material rather than
delete it), if an unintentional error is likely, shorter readings are generally
considered secondary. This is a classic example of such an unintentional
omission: The τὸν
πατέρα
ἔχει
of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe's eye
skipping from one τὸν
πατέρα
ἔχει
to the other. (Readings such as this also suggest that the Byzantine text may
have originated [at least for 1 John and probably the general epistles] in a
single archetype.)
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary on
1 John 2:23:
WH NU include the phrase ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει (“everyone confessing the Son
also has the Father”), with the excellent support of א A B C P Ψ 33 1739 it syr cop. This is followed by all English versions. TR
omits this phrase, with the support of Maj itz vgMS copboMS.
The omission is the result of homoeoteleuton: the last three words in both
clauses in the verse are identical (τον πατερα εχει). KJV shows its independence from
TR by printing this clause in italics (a sign that the words have been supplied
by the translators). Evidently, the translators had accesses to Greek
manuscripts which include the fuller expression. The WH NU reading, superbly
supported, provides the full thought: Denial of the Son is tantamount to
denying his Father, just as confessing the Son is tantamount to confessing the
Father—for the two are one. This is an important theme in John’s Epistles
because he was combatting those who claimed to know the Father apart from the
Son. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary
on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate
to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., 2008], 775)
Examples of Early and
Medieval Exegesis of 1 John 2:23:
2:23 The Son Is the Way to the
Father
Through the Son. Hilary of Arles: You cannot know the
Father if you deny the Son, because no one comes to the Father except through
him. Introductory Commentary on 1 John. [PL Supp. 3:121]
No One Who Denies the Son Has the Father. Andreas: There were
other heretics who denied the Son but claimed to know the Father. In fact of
course they did not know the Father either, because if they had known him they
would have known that he is the Father of the only-begotten Son. These people
were similar to the Jews, who say that they know the Father but do not accept
the Son. They are also like the Simonians, who share the same ungodly
confusion. Catena. [CEC 119]
Confession by Heart, Word and Deed. Bede: John is looking for
a confession of faith which involves the heart, as well as confessing in both
word and deed. He is saying the same thing as the apostle Paul when he wrote:
“No one can say that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit,” which means
that unless the Holy Spirit gives us the power to do so, we cannot serve Christ
with perfect faith and action. On
1 John. [PL 93:96] (James, 1-2
Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, ed. Gerald
Bray [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2000], 189–190)
Geneva Bible Notes (1560):
Verse 23
‖ But he that cōfesseth the Sōne, hathe also
the Father.
s. Then the infideles worship not the true God. (Geneva Bible: Notes [Geneva: Rovland
Hall, 1560], 2:112)
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of John:
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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary:
As there is an intimate relation
between the Father and the Son, so there is an inviolable union in the
doctrine, knowledge, and interests of both; so that he who has the knowledge
of, and right to, the Son, has the knowledge of, and right to, the Father also.
Those that adhere to the Christian revelation hold the light and benefit of
natural religion withal.
William Hendriksen
(Reformed), New Testament Commentary series:
Doctrinal
Considerations in 2:22–23
During the latter half of the first century, John exposed the heresy of
Gnostic teachers, among whom was an Egyptian Jew named Cerinthus. This person
denied Jesus’ virgin birth and claimed that the Christ descended upon Jesus at
the time of Jesus’ baptism but left him before Jesus died.
John wrote not merely for his contemporary readers but also for the
church universal. In the second century Marcion denied the Son of God, and in
the next century Arius and Sabellius did the same. In every century and every
age, men refuse to acknowledge the Christ of the Scriptures. Some deny the
virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension, and the promise of Jesus’
return. Others distinguish between Jesus of Nazareth and the exalted Christ.
And still others reject either his divinity or his humanity. In short, everyone
who repudiates the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and
the Son of man deceives himself and, according to John, is a liar. (William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the
Epistles of John [New Testament Commentary 14; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1953], 282-83)
Rudolf Bultmann, Heremeneia Commentary on 1-3 John:
The relationship to the Father is here designated by ἔχειν (“have”), as
in 2 Jn 9. This term does not differ materially from γινώσκειν (“know”), since the
latter does not denote a theoretical knowledge, but that relationship in which
the one knowing is determined existentially by the one who is the object of
knowledge. (Rudolf Karl Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles a Commentary on the
Johannine Epistles [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the
Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973], 39)
Georg Strecker and Harold
W. Attridge, Hermeneia commentary series:
■ 22–23 Only
at vv. 22–23 do we begin to get an account of the content of the false
teaching. The ψεύστης, the false teacher, denies the confessional statement
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν. This is
a negative quotation of the community’s credo that is found in its positive
form at the conclusion of the Fourth Gospel (John 20:31: “that Jesus is the
Christ [or: Messiah], the Son of God”). Christ (or Messiah) is used as a title
(as also in 1 John 5:1 and 2 John 9). Although this corresponds to the use of
the name as a title of messianic honor, it is more common in the Johannine
writings for Χριστός to be used as a proper name. The title ὁ Χριστός and the
proper name Ἰησοῦς Χριστός often
occur in association with the phrase “Son of God,” which clarifies them. Thus
in what follows the denial of Jesus as “the Christ” is equated with the denial
of “the Son.” From the author’s point of view the false prophets thus dispute
not only the application of the title “Christ” to Jesus, but also the fact that
Jesus is God’s Son (cf. 5:5–6). Thereby they question Jesus’ sending and thus
the Father who sent him; for “there is, for the author, no such thing as faith
in God apart from the historical revelation.” Verse 23a* underscores this with
a generalizing (πᾶς) negative thesis that is supported by a positive antithesis in v. 23b.
To confess the Son is to “have” the Father, that is, to know and acknowledge
the Father. (Georg Strecker and Harold W. Attridge, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John [Hermeneia—a
Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn,: Fortress
Press, 1996], 67–68)
Raymond E. Brown, Anchor
Yale Bible Commentary on 1-3 John:
we
may be encountering here a Johannine adaptation of the covenant motif: we have
God as Father through Jesus Christ. . . . The reciprocal relationship between
belief in the Son and belief in the Father echoes GJohn: “The Father and I are
one” (10:30); “No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6); “If you
really knew me, you would recognize my Father too” (14:7); “He who refuses to
honor the Son refuses to honor the Father who sent him” (5:23); “To hate me is
to hate my Father too” (15:23). However, the GJohn statements, when
condemnatory, were directed against outsiders who refused to believe in Jesus,
whereas I John employs them for an inner-Community struggle in which both
parties claim to believe in and honor Jesus. The correlative principle appears
also in Matt 10:32–33, “Everyone who confesses me before men, I will confess
before my Father who is in heaven; whoever denies me before men, I also will
deny before my Father who is in heaven” (note the confess/deny pattern), and in
Matt 11:27, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the
Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” 2
Peter 2:1 shows how such ideas were being used in other Christian communities
for intramural debate: “False prophets also arose among the people, just as
there will be false teachers among you, who will bring in destructive sectarian
ideas [hairesis], denying the Master who purchased them.” The words of 2 Tim
2:12 are also directed to Christians: “If we deny Christ, he will deny us.” (Raymond
E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary
[AYBC 30; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 354-55.
Nicoll, Expositor's Greek Testament Commentary:
Since the Father is manifested and
interpreted in the Son. cf. Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9.
Robert Sungenis, Catholic Apologetics Study Bible:
“whoever denies the Son”; πας
ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, John thus rejecting the position that one can accept the
Father but not the Son. If one rejects the Son, he ipso facto rejects
the Father. The corollary point, “He that confesses the Son has the Father
also,” means more than merely accepting the Son since John uses the word ομολογων
(“confessing”), that is, one must agree with the doctrine of Christ. There were
many who “accepted” the Son, but only their versions of him (e.g., (1)
Christ is divine but not human (Docetism, Apollinarianism, Monarchianism,
Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Marcionism, Gnosticism); (2) Christ is human but not
divine (Arianism, Ebonism, Socinianism, Modern Liberalism); (3) Christ is
divine and human but in one nature (Monophysitism, Eutychianism,
Monothelitism); (4) Christ is divine and human but in two Persons
(Nestorianism). The correct view is from the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD:
Jesus Christ has two natures: a fully divine nature and a fully human nature,
without mixture or confusion, both in one Person. (Robert
A. Sungenis, The Epistles of St. John and St. Jude [Catholic Apologetics
Study Bible 11; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, 2020], 19-20
n. 33)
Karen H. Jobes, Zondervan
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:
2:23 No
one who denies the Son has the Father either. The one who acknowledges the Son
has the Father also (πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει· ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει). “When
you take Jesus as your Savior, you get God as your Father. But if you say ‘no’
to Jesus, you are also saying ‘no’ to the Father who sent him.” John here
further explains that one cannot have fellowship with God the Father and deny
that Jesus is the Christ. The right understanding of who Jesus is is a
necessary element of true fellowship with the Father, which is the only solid
basis of assurance of eternal life (see The Theology of John’s Letters).
The repeated mention of “the Son” (τὸν υἱόν) in vv.
21–24 in inseparable association with the Father informs our understanding of
the ambiguous statement in v. 22 that “Jesus is the Christ/Messiah.” One could
argue that failing to recognize Jesus as the Messiah fails to comprehend the
Father’s redemptive plan and covenant promise. The rejection of the Messiah by
the very people who were expecting him was a great mystery that the apostles
pondered (e.g., John 1:11; Rom 10:21–11:27). But here John’s thoughts transcend
the simple identification of Jesus as the Messiah by pointing to the
inner-Triune relationship of the Father and the Son. The gospel demands more
than the belief that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah; John is calling for
recognition of the truth that the Jewish Messiah is none other than God
incarnate. Therefore, the title “Christ” (Χριστός) as found
here probably is a reference to the truth about the divine nature of Jesus
Christ as both Messiah and Son of God. (Karen
H. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John [Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2014], 130)
