1 John 5:20 — “This is the true God”: the Father, not the Son

“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols!”

1 John 5:20-21

Context: The close of the First Letter of John

1 John 5:20 stands immediately before the last verse of the letter. The whole letter revolves around the assurance of salvation: “I write these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). In the closing passage John heaps up three solemn “We know” statements (5:18, 19, 20): we know that the one born of God does not sin; we know that we are from God; we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding to know the True One. The verse is thus the crowning conclusion of an assurance of salvation whose goal is the knowledge of the true God.

Decisive is the structure of the sentence itself. Its principal subject is not the Son but “the True One” (ho alethinos): the Son has come so that we may know the True One; and we are in the True One. The Son is the way to knowledge, the True One is the goal. When the words “This is the true God” follow at the end of the sentence, it is natural that “This” points back to the very one the whole sentence is about: the True One, the Father.

The letter consistently draws a sharp distinction between God and his Son. “Fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1:3), “an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (2:1), “God sent his Son” (4:9-10) — always God is the Father, and Christ is his Son and emissary. The same ordering shapes 5:20 as well: the true God and his Son Jesus Christ stand over against each other, not in one.

Finally the letter ends with the cry: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols!” (5:21). This contrast — the true God against the idols — is the ancient language of the Shema and the prophets, in which the one Father, the Creator, always stands over against the dead thing made by hands. Verse 21 interprets verse 20: “the true God,” whose loss through idolatry is warned against, is the one God, the Father.

The Socinian core thesis

On the Socinian reading 1 John 5:20 attests the Father as the one true God and Christ as his Son, through whom we know this God — not a second divine person. The concluding “This is the true God” points back to “the True One,” who is the actual subject three times in the same sentence. Christ has come so that we may know this one; in this one we are — in his Son. The Son leads to the true God; he is not himself the true God who is meant.

The Racovian Catechism states the distinction precisely: not that Christ may not be called “God” at all “in his own sense” (in the sense of conferred majesty, as Moses is called “a god to Pharaoh,” Ex 7:1), but that he is not that true God of whom this passage speaks. For “the true God” with the article is, throughout all of Scripture, the Father; nowhere is Christ called so absolutely. And in the same verse he is distinguished from him: we are in the True One, in his Son.

Decisive is the parallel verse from the same author. In his High Priestly Prayer Jesus says: “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Here the Father is “the only true God” and Jesus Christ the one sent by him — expressly distinguished from each other. 1 John 5:20 says the same in another form: through the Son who is sent we know the true God, the Father.

The appended “and eternal life” fits in as well. At the beginning of the letter John calls Christ himself “the eternal life, which was with the Father” (1 John 1:2) — and at the same time the Father gives us eternal life, “and this life is in his Son” (5:11). “Eternal life” is therefore not a name of essence belonging only to the most high God, but designates God as the source of life and Christ as the mediator through whom it flows. That both predicates — “the true God” and “eternal life” — aim at the Father as source is the internally consistent reading.

Key statement

Key terms

Four observations, linguistic and substantive, decide the interpretation of 1 John 5:20:

ho alethinos theos — “the true God” with the article

The definite article before theos (ho theos, “the God”) regularly designates in the New Testament the Father as the one most high God; the anarthrous theos can also express conferred divine dignity. Nowhere in Scripture is Christ called “the true God” (ho alethinos theos) absolutely, with the article. This solemn full form is reserved for the Father.

John uses this very expression for the Father in the High Priestly Prayer: “you, the only true God” (John 17:3). The author’s own usage settles who is meant by “the true God.” It would be harsh to transfer, a few chapters later and without notice, the very title that John expressly applies to the Father alone onto the Son.

houtos — “This”: what the pronoun points to

The trinitarian reading rests above all on the fact that “Jesus Christ” is the immediately preceding word, to which “This” (houtos) must refer. But that is no rule of language. Referring pronouns do not necessarily relate to the nearest word, but frequently to the predominant antecedent in the sentence, even when it stands further off.

The Racovian Catechism proves this from Scripture itself: in Acts 7:18-19 (“a king … This one oppressed our people”), Acts 10:6 (“This one will tell you …”) and 2 John 7 (“This is the deceiver and the antichrist”) the pronoun refers in each case to a more remote person who is predominant in the context. Exactly so “This” in 1 John 5:20 points back to “the True One,” the main subject of the whole sentence.

“in his Son Jesus Christ” — the distinction in the same verse

The sentence itself separates God and Christ: “We are in the True One, in his Son Jesus Christ.” Christ is the Son of the True One — and thereby distinct from him. A son is not the father whose son he is; an emissary is not the one who sends him.

If one were nonetheless to refer “This is the true God” to Christ, it would follow, according to the words of the verse, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the true God — and at the same time himself that true God. Then it would stand in the same verse that the one is the Son of the other and yet both are the same one true God. This tension dissolves only if “the true God” is the Father.

he zoe he aionios — “eternal life” as a title of the mediator

To “the true God” is joined “and eternal life.” At the beginning of the letter John calls Christ himself “the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us” (1 John 1:2). At the same time he says: God “gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (5:11).

“Eternal life” is therefore not an exclusive name of essence of the most high God, but designates the Father as the source of life and Christ as the mediator through whom it comes to us. If one understands both predicates — “the true God” and “eternal life” — in terms of the Father as source and the Son as mediator, the sentence fits seamlessly into the language of the whole letter.

Comparison of the interpretations

Sozzini in the original: The Racovian Catechism on “This is the true God”

The Racovian Catechism deals with 1 John 5:20 expressly among the testimonies by which the deity of Christ is to be proved. Its first step is a careful distinction: Christ is not robbed of all divinity, but of being “that true God” of whom the passage speaks:

“I deny that these words, ‘This is the true God,’ refer to the Son — not because I deny that Christ is true God in his own sense, but because I deny that he is that true God of whom this passage speaks. For Christ is nowhere called absolutely, with the article, ‘God’ or ‘true God,’ and in this very place he is manifestly distinguished from that true God, just as in a similar place in the same John (John 17:3) he is distinguished from that only true God.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), On the Person of Christ — Christ as true God

Next the Catechism refutes the chief argument of the opposing side — that the “This” must refer to the immediately preceding “Jesus Christ” — by the usage of Scripture itself. Referring pronouns often point to the predominant, not to the nearest, antecedent:

“Relative pronouns such as ‘this’ and the like do not always refer to what immediately precedes, but are frequently referred to that which is chiefly spoken of, even when it stands further off … From these passages [Acts 7:18-19; Acts 10:6; 2 John 7] it appears that the relative pronoun ‘this’ refers not to the persons immediately preceding, but to those further off.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), On the Person of Christ — Christ as true God

Finally the Catechism brings in the last verse of the letter as a key to interpretation. The contrast of true God and idols is the ancient language of confession, in which it is always the one God, the Father, who is meant:

“Even if the words ‘This is the true God’ were referred to Jesus Christ, John would be saying that Jesus Christ is his own Son, since he indeed calls him the Son of the true God. The contrast, too, of the true God with the idols in verse 21 teaches that, according to the usage of Scripture, it is not Christ but the Father of Christ who is thereby designated.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), On the Person of Christ — Christ as true God

With this the Socinian line is drawn: “the true God” is the Father, whom we know through the Son; the Son is distinguished from him in the same verse. This takes nothing away from the weight of the letter’s close — it only preserves the one-God confession that John himself pronounces when he calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3) and warns against the idols.

Overview of the writings of Sozzini

Logical arguments

From 1 John 5:20 and its context the following arguments against the deity reading arise:

1. Argument from the subject of the sentence. The whole sentence is about “the True One”: the Son has come so that we may know him; in him we are. The Father is the subject three times over. The concluding “This” naturally points to this main subject, not to the “Jesus Christ” named last in passing.
2. Argument from the relative pronoun. “This” (houtos) in the usage of Scripture frequently refers not to the nearest but to the predominant antecedent (Acts 7:18-19; Acts 10:6; 2 John 7). Proximity alone decides nothing; the context decides — and it points to the Father.
3. Argument from the use of the article. “The true God” with the article is, throughout all of Scripture, the Father; Christ is nowhere called so absolutely. John himself calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3). To transfer that fixed title here, unnoticed, onto the Son, the author would have had to make plain.
4. Argument from the distinction within the verse. The verse separates the two: “we are in the True One, in his Son Jesus Christ.” Christ is the Son of the True One — and thereby distinct from him. Whoever is the Son of the true God is not at the same time that true God himself.
5. Argument from the parallel verse. John 17:3 says the same expressly: the Father is “the only true God,” Jesus Christ the one sent by him. Since both passages stem from the same author and concern the same matter, 1 John 5:20 is to be read in the light of John 17:3, not against it.
6. Argument from the closing verse. “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (v.21) sets the true God over against the idols. In this confessional language of the prophets the one true God is always the Father, the Creator. The contrast thus interprets the “true God” of v.20 as the Father.
7. Argument from the title “eternal life.” Christ is himself called “the eternal life” (1 John 1:2), and yet it is the Father who gives the life, “and this life is in his Son” (5:11). “Eternal life” is therefore source-and-mediator language, no exclusive name of essence — an indication that “the true God” too aims at the source, the Father.
8. Argument from self-contradiction. Were “This is the true God” to mean the Son, then Christ would be at once the Son of the true God and himself the one true God. Thus there would be two, each of whom is the one true God — a contradiction of the confession “the Lord is one” (Deut 6:4).

Biblical cross-references

The following passages support, deepen, or illuminate the Socinian interpretation of 1 John 5:20:

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “‘This’ stands directly after ‘Jesus Christ’ — so Christ is the true God.”

The alleged rule does not exist in that form. Referring pronouns frequently relate not to the nearest but to the predominant antecedent in the context. Scripture itself proves it: in Acts 7:18-19 “This” points to the distant “king,” in Acts 10:6 to Peter rather than to the tanner named last, in 2 John 7 to the “deceivers.”

But the predominant subject of the sentence is “the True One”: it is his knowledge that is at issue, in him we are. To him “This” points back. Mere word order cannot displace the continuous subject of the sentence.

Added to this is the fixed usage of the author: “the only true God” in John is the Father (John 17:3). If one reads “This is the true God” of the Father, everything fits without contradiction; if one reads it of the Son, it falls into tension with the author himself.

Objection 2: “Only God is ‘eternal life’ — so Christ is God.”

John precisely does not use “eternal life” as an exclusive name of essence of God. He calls Christ himself “the eternal life, which was with the Father” (1 John 1:2) — and says in the same chapter that the Father “gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (5:11). The Father is the source, the Son the one in whom the life is.

“Eternal life” is therefore source-and-mediator language. It says that God bestows life on us through Christ — not that Christ is by essence the one God. Even if one referred the predicate to Christ, it would designate only his role as mediator.

On the reading defended here, however, both predicates — “the true God” and “eternal life” — aim at the Father as the source of the life that he gives through the Son. This is the simplest interpretation, consistent with the whole letter.

Objection 3: “If the Father were meant, the sentence would be a superfluous repetition.”

Even read of the Father the sentence is no empty repetition, but the solemn closing point of the whole letter: the one whom we, through the Son who has come, now truly know, this one — and no idol — is the true God and eternal life. Precisely against pagan idolatry (v.21) the affirmation is anything but self-evident.

The Shema too (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one”) and countless words of the prophets seem to say “something self-evident” — and are yet the heart of the confession. To affirm the truth that the Father alone is the true God was never superfluous in the face of many “so-called gods” (1 Cor 8:5).

Besides, the argument from “redundancy” weighs little against the clear linguistic findings: the continuous subject of the sentence, the fixed use of the article, and the express distinction “in his Son.” An interpretation does not become false merely because it affirms a fundamental truth.

Objection 4: “The Church Fathers and the tradition read the verse of Christ.”

The tradition is by no means unanimous here. Already in the early Church and among later interpreters the verse was often referred to the Father; the reference to Christ is one possible, but not the only, transmitted reading. But where the tradition is itself divided, it cannot serve as a decisive counter-argument.

Decisive in any case is not the later consensus, but the text and its author. And the author — John — commits himself when he calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3) and distinguishes God and Son throughout his whole letter. The text is to be read in the light of its author, not in the light of later dogmatic formation.

Finally, the Socinian interpretation does not appeal to arbitrariness, but to verifiable grounds: the subject of the sentence, the use of the pronoun, the use of the article, the distinction within the verse, and the closing verse against the idols. These grounds are stronger than a transmitted record that is not even uniform.

Objection 5: “If Christ is not the true God, he is a false god.”

The opposition “either the one true God or an idol” is false. Scripture knows a third estate: the one sent and appointed by God, to whom divine dignity is conferred without his being the one God. Thus Moses is called “a god to Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1) and the judges are called “gods” (Ps 82:6) — and yet are no idols.

Christ is in this sense the true Son of the true God, his Word, his image, his appointed Lord — infinitely exalted above every idol, and yet not himself “that true God of whom this passage speaks.” The Racovian Catechism holds precisely this middle: it does not deny that Christ can be called God “in his own sense,” but only that he is the one true God of the Father.

The idols against which v.21 warns are the dead things made by the heathen, not the living Son of God. To subordinate him to the Father is not to debase him, but to set him in his place: at the right hand of the one God, “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast with the interpretation presented here:

• John 17:3 — the Father “the only true God,” Jesus the one sent: the key parallel verse.
• John 20:28 — “my Lord and my God”: conferred majesty, not essential deity.
• John 20:17 — “my God and your God”: the Son himself has a God.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — one God (the Father) and one Lord (Christ): Paul’s ordering of the titles.
• Mark 10:18 — “no one is good except God alone”: Jesus directs the highest honor back to God.
• John 14:28 — “the Father is greater than I”: the precedence of the Father over the Son.

Summary

1 John 5:20 — “This is the true God and eternal life” — confesses the Father as the one true God, whom we know through his Son, not Christ as a second divine person. The “This” points back to “the True One,” who is the subject three times in the same sentence; the Son is expressly distinguished from him (“in his Son Jesus Christ”). “The true God” with the article is, according to John’s usage, the Father (John 17:3), and “eternal life” is a title of the mediator (1 John 1:2; 5:11).

The Racovian Catechism (1605) treats the saying in a separate answer: it denies that “This is the true God” refers to the Son, “not because … Christ is [not] true God in his own sense, but because … he is not that true God of whom this passage speaks.” For Christ is “nowhere called absolutely, with the article, ‘God’” and in this place is “manifestly distinguished from that true God.” The “contrast of the true God with the idols in verse 21” too teaches that “not Christ, but the Father of Christ” is meant.

On the Socinian reading the verse fits into the continuous one-God confession of Scripture. John confesses not a second God consubstantial with the Father, but the one true God, the Father, whom we now truly know through the Son who has come — the same whom the same John calls “the only true God” (John 17:3) and against whose loss through idolatry he warns: ‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols’ (1 John 5:21).