{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibtzkutyff3pvdrxsue65ofur46lfunihtty7oglw6cshlkznnmoy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:gl3kczkbg2rbkbyxzofc7k32/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgbopkvj34m2"
  },
  "description": "\n\n\n\nThe excerpt cited here is taken from Dr. Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1996], pp. 326-327. All emphasis will be mine.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1 John 5:20 houtos estin ho alethinos theos kai zoe aionios\n\n\n\nthis is the true God and eternal life\n\n\n\n\n\nThis text is exegetically problematic for a variety of reasons. What concerns us here is what the antecedent is. Many scholars see ho theos rather than Christ",
  "path": "/wallace-jesus-the-true-god/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-05T01:50:56.000Z",
  "site": "https://answeringislam.blog",
  "tags": [
    "**TRUE GOD OF TRUE GOD**",
    "**William Craig & the Deity of Christ**"
  ],
  "textContent": "The excerpt cited here is taken from Dr. Daniel B. Wallace’s _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament_ , published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1996], pp. 326-327. All emphasis will be mine.\n\n> 1 John 5:20 _**houtos** estin ho alethinos theos kai zoe aionios_\n>\n> **this** is the true God and eternal life\n\nThis text is exegetically problematic for a variety of reasons. What concerns us here is what the antecedent is. Many scholars see _ho theos_ rather than _Christos_ as the antecedent, even though _Christos_ is closer. Winer argues, for example, that “in the first place, _alethinos theos_ is a constant and exclusive epithet of the Father; and, secondly, there follows a warning against idolatry, and _alethinos theos_ is always contrasted with _eidola_.”29\n\nOn behalf of seeing _Christos_ as the antecedent are the following arguments: (1) Although it is true that _alethinos theos_ is not elsewhere referred to Christ, _aletheia_ is, and is so in Johannineliterature (John 14:6). Further, _alethinos theos_ is not a “constant.. epithet” as Winer supposes, being found only in John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20! (2) Christ is also said to be _zoe_ in John’s writings (John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2), **_an epithet nowhere else used of the Father_**. (3) The demonstrative pronoun, _houtos_ , in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner.30 Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which _houtos_ has a personal referent, as many as forty-four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 **_What is most significant is that _never_ is the Father the referent_**. For what it is worth, this datum increases the probability that _Iesou Christo_ is the antecedent in 1 John 5:20.32\n\nThe issue cannot be decided on grammar alone. But suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that _alethinos theos_ is descriptive of Jesus Christ.33\n\n\n\n\n## Further Reading\n\n**TRUE GOD OF TRUE GOD**\n\n**William Craig & the Deity of Christ**",
  "title": "Wallace, Jesus & the True God",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-05T02:41:11.425Z"
}