The Faulty Argument of the INC Against 1 John 5:20
“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us
an understanding, 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.” (1 John
5:20)[1]
However, in their zeal to prove their bias against His deity, the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) attempted again and again to go around this clear affirmation of His true nature.
 |
| INC Minister Jose Ventilacion (Screengrab of one of his debates posted on YouTube) |
He disagreed that the proximity rule applies to 1 John 5:20.
If we agree to the suggestion that
Jesus Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun this (Greek, οὗτός) because of its proximity (it follows immediately the noun Christ),
then there is a danger that false ramifications would spring up from such a
process of analysis. Consider the following similar construction containing the
pronoun this: “For many deceivers have gone out
into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is
a deceiver and an antichrist.” (II Jn. 1:7, New King James Version).
If we employ in this verse the
process of analysis that others have utilized in analyzing I John 5:20, the
antecedent to the pronoun this is the
noun Jesus Christ. If the antecedent of the pronoun this were Christ, then the deceiver and the anti-Christ in the
second sentence would be Christ Himself! Therefore, the exegetical method used
by some scholars in determining the context of I John 5:20 is faulty. The
demonstrative pronoun this is not
always referring to the nearest or immediate antecedent as in the case of IIJohn 1:7 and I John 5:20.[5]
Was Ventilacion correct in saying that the proximity rule
does not apply to 1 John 5:20 because of 2 John 1:7? Or, was it just a futile
attempt to go around a verse that clearly called Jesus “the true God”?
Is it just a case of grammatical gymnastics?
Is it just a case of grammatical gymnastics?
I agree with Ventilacion that the pronoun “this” in 2 John1:7 does not refer to the noun “Jesus Christ.” I also agree with him that the
demonstrative pronoun does not always refer to the nearest antecedent. But I
admit that only as far as 2 John 1:7 is concerned. I do not agree with his
argument that such applies to 1 John 5:20 also.
As a general rule, we look for the nearest noun to know what
or whom the pronoun refers to. “The basic rule for the Greek pronouns is that
it agrees with its antecedent in gender and number”.[6] Of course, there are
exceptions to this rule. But, an exception is an exception and a rule is a rule.
We do not make the rule the exception and the exception the rule.
The exception applies to 2 John 1:7 but not to 1 John 5:20.
We see the rule in the latter. We see the exception in the former. However,
Ventilacion appealed to the exception in order to subvert the rule. Thus, his
argument itself is faulty.
It is like using the wrong tool. Saws are for cutting wood. Hammers are for driving nails. We don’t use a saw to drive nail. We don’t use a hammer to cut wood.
It is like using the wrong tool. Saws are for cutting wood. Hammers are for driving nails. We don’t use a saw to drive nail. We don’t use a hammer to cut wood.
In his definitive work, “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,”
Daniel Wallace categorized the use of the demonstrative pronoun in 1 John 5:20
under “Regular Use (As
Demonstratives)”[7] while he put 2 John 1:7 under “Unusual Uses (from an English perspective).”[8] Here we clearly see
that the use of the demonstrative pronoun in 1 John 5:20 is different from its
use in 2 John 1:7. We cannot apply a regular use upon an unusual use. Regular for regular. Unusual for unusual.
Remember the basic rule? That the noun and the pronoun
must have the same number and gender to be connected with each other? In 1 John 5:20, both “this” and “Jesus Christ” are in singular masculine. So, other than
“Jesus Christ” being the nearest antecedent of “this,” they also agree in
gender and number. Plus, the Greek for “this” (οὗτός) “regularly refers to the near object”.[9] First John 5:20 used
the demonstrative pronoun in the “regular use.” As such, it really affirms His
deity. According to Wallace, a demonstrative pronoun has an “unusual use” when, among other things, it is “lacking in concord with its antecedent”.[10] But, in the next breath, he clarified, “Most of the uses, however, are normal in terms of the pronoun having its full demonstrative force.” [11] First John 5:20 uses the pronoun “This” in its normal usage. Therefore, its “full demonstrative force” points to Jesus Christ as “the true God”.
But the use of the demonstrative pronoun is different with 2John 1:7. Wallace notes that an unusual use of the demonstrative pronoun
“overrides strict grammatical concord.”[12] That is, it does not follow the usual agreement between words.
In 2 John 1:7, “this” and “Jesus
Christ” are not connected with each other even if they are both in the singular
masculine and though the latter is the nearest antecedent of the former. The
plain sense of the text shows that the apostle John referred to the “many
deceivers,” even if it is in plural masculine and it is not the noun
immediately preceding the singular pronoun “this.” So, in this verse, the
apostle John did not call Jesus as “a deceiver and an antichrist.” He was talking about those “who have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” They are the deceivers and the antichrists. (Even Ventilacion agrees with that interpretation.)
Wallace called such “unusual use” as constructio ad sensum or “construction according to sense.”[13] That’s
why “the demonstrative has virtually a generic force [in 2 John 1:7]: ‘Such a
person is the deceiver and the antichrist.’”[14] The Contemporary English Version goes like this, “Many liars have gone out into the world. These deceitful liars are saying that Jesus Christ did not have a truly human body. But they are liars and the enemies of Christ.”
In short, Ventilacion was wrong in appealing to the “unusual
use” of the demonstrative pronoun in 2 John 1:7 to question its “regular” use in 1 John 5:20. Though the
proximity rule does not apply to the former, it does apply to the latter. Thus,
he could not really deny that the apostle John called our Lord Jesus Christ as “the
true God.” His argument is faulty.
No amount of grammatical gymnastics by the INC can change
that truth!
© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.
© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.
________________________________
[1] All Bible verses are from the New King James Version,
unless otherwise noted.
[2] See Bible Expose’s Did1 John 5:20 Really Call Jesus “the true God and eternal life”?
[3] Jose Ventilacion, “Who Is the True God According to 1
John 5:20? The Father or the Son?” Pasugo,
August 2004.
[4] Bible Expose
[5] Ventilacion. Emphasis his.
[6] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 316.
[7] Ibid,325, 326-327. Emphasis mine.
[8] Ibid, 329, 332. Emphasis mine.
[9] Ibid, 325. Emphasis his. To refer to distant or far
objects, the Greek NT regularly uses “that” (ἐκείνοις).
[10] Ibid, 316.
[11] Ibid, 329.
[12] Ibid, 330.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid, 332.
posted by Bible Exposé at 12:55 AM
<< Home