27 - 1Jn 2:20
Καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ οἴδατε πάντα. This idea rests of course upon the ceremony of anointing, everywhere so common in the Old Testament. It is well known that in Hebrew the word is rendered in two ways, by סוּ [“to anoint”] and by מָשַׁח [“to anoint”]; the former signifies always merely outward anointing, and for common uses; the latter is the unction as a symbol of religious consecration. So also the Septuagint has two words to reproduce the two Hebrew terms respectively, ἀλείφειν [“to anoint”] and χρίειν [“to anoint”]. It is generally said that the former corresponds always to the סוּ [“to anoint”], and the latter to the מָשַׁח [“to anoint”]. This is certainly not exact, nor is it absolutely and at all points borne out by an induction of instances. For, although we may not lay much stress on the fact that in Eze 16:9סוּ [“to anoint”] is translated by χρίειν [“to anoint”], inasmuch as the translator might there have had in his mind a religious anointing, we find, on the one hand, ἀλείφειν [“to anoint”] used in Exo 40:15 of religious anointing, and, on the other, χρίειν [“to anoint”] used in 2Sa 1:21 of the anointing of a shield for the sake of greater smoothness, and thus without any concomitant religious idea (the similar anointing of the shield in Isa 21:5 is ἑτοιμάζειν [“to prepare”]); as also classical Greek uses ἀλείφειν [“to anoint”] and χρίειν [“to anoint”] promiscuously and interchangeably. Appeal may be made to Exo 40:15, and it may be said that there the translator had in view only the external act of anointing; but when we find in the same verse, and concerning the same anointing, χρίειν [“to anoint”] afterwards employed, it is very obvious to infer that the distinction observed in the Hebrew is not carried out thoroughly by the translation. But, notwithstanding these individual exceptions, it remains true that on the wholeχρίειν [“to anoint”] is used for religious anointing as such. As to the substantives depending on the verb, χρίσμα [“anointing”] is the only one used in the New Testament, and there only three times in this Epistle: the Septuagint has in connection with it χρίσις[LSJ] [“a smearing”] also. These last, however, have not quite the same signification: ἔλαιονχρίσεως[LSJ] [“anointing oil”] is the oil with which I anoint; ἔλαιονχρίσματος [“anointing oil”], the oil with which I am anointed. Χρίσμα [“anointing”], absolutely used, thus signifies (compare with our passage Exo 30:25, ἔλαιονχρίσμαἅγιον [“holy anointing oil”]) that with which we are anointed, or the oil of anointing.
If we pass from the application of the word to the meaning of the symbol, we are met by the expositors who point for the explanation of our passage to 1Pe 2:9, βασίλειονἱεράτευμα,ἔθνοςἅγιονἐστε [“you are a royal priesthood, a holy nation”], as if the χρίσμα [“anointing”] signified the dignity and elevation of the Christian estate. But this exposition does not accord with the train of thought. How should the apostle, without any point of connection, without any bearing on what precedes or what follows, make such an allusion as this? Moreover, it is plain that, according to the close of this verse, the knowledge of the truth is the subject treated of. Then it was neither the priestly nor the kingly, but the prophetic vocation of Christians that was involved; and the prophetic vocation is precisely that which could not be distinguished by the term χρίσμα [“anointing”]. For, in the Old Testament, while priests and kings were anointed, prophets were not anointed. We find indeed the word once in 1Ki 19:16, where Elisha’s institution to the prophetic office is referred to. But when we observe that in the succeeding very full narrative of the calling of Elisha, not a syllable of allusion to anointing occurs, and when we bear in mind that nowhere else and under no circumstances do we hear of prophets being anointed, we shall be disposed to prefer explaining the מָשַׁח [“to anoint”] in the cited passage as a breviloquence, or summary way of describing. The Lord commands that two kings be anointed, and thus consecrated to their office; when Elisha is mentioned, we have to eliminate from the anointing its peculiar idea of consecration and take that alone, understanding the expression as figurative. This one passage being cleared away, we have no shadow of right to refer the χρίσμα [“anointing”] of this verse to the prophetic dignity or position of Christians.
We must rather make our starting-point the fact, that in the Old Testament not only persons, but things also—for instance, altars—were anointed. This, together with the connection which the Pentateuch loves to establish between anointing and ἁγιάζειν [“to consecrate”], shows that the anointing generally signifies the separation from profane or common to religious use. Accordingly the exposition will need to be modified by the thought that the anointing signifies the reception of the Holy Ghost. Certainly, in Isa 61:1 this element is expressly declared; but it is obvious that neither altars nor vessels might receive the Spirit. This symbol was the preparation for the feasts; the oil pertained to the expression of festal and elevated feeling; hence in times of lamentation it was omitted. It is in such a meaning that the idea occurs in Mat 6:17. As a result of this, everything was anointed which was brought out of the profane and common world into fellowship with God. The fundamental meaning of the unction is that an object is withdrawn from the domain of creaturely life, and is supposed to enter into sacred relation with God. At the stone which Jacob anointed, the Supreme revealed Himself to him; and it was marked out by him with oil as the place of that manifestation. The anointed altar was thereby declared to be a sacred spot at which God would enter into union with men, and place them through sacrifice in union with Himself.
Now, if persons are anointed, or separated from profane life to the service and to the revelation of God, that must assuredly take place through this, that the Holy Spirit of God works in them; and in such cases the anointing was the symbol of the impartation of the Spirit; but it is such only as a consequence of the fundamental idea of separation from common use; the fundamental meaning is always the same; and χρίειν [“to anoint”] is thus the symbolical expression for ἁγιάζειν [“to consecrate”]. And in this passage of ours, that expression is to be understood as taken precisely in this sense. Undoubtedly, of course, the χρίσμα [“anointing”] is here used for the reception of the Holy Ghost; for the εἰδέναι πάντα [“you know all”], εἰδέναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν [“you know the truth”], the derivation of the anointing unction from the Holy One, the resulting μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”],—all this, too surely to leave any doubt, reminds us of the Lord’s explanation touching the Paraclete whom He would send, whose office would be ὁδηγεῖνεἰςπάσαντὴν ἀλήθειαν [“to guide into all truth”], Joh 16:13, whose proceeding from the Father and the Son is there taught, and who is the bond of the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”]. But, on the other hand, all that does not make it clear why St. John should describe the Holy Ghost precisely here as χρίσμα [“anointing”]; for the mere similarity of sound between it and ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”] would be, after all, an altogether too external reason.
It is quite otherwise if we firmly hold fast the idea that separation from the profane is the real meaning of the symbol. The apostle is speaking pre-eminently of the separation of Christians from the world, especially from the world in its most perilous form as anti-Christianity. That separation was already accomplished in the church; through their participation in the Spirit they had been set apart from everything ungodly and opposed to God; and this significance of the bestowment of the Holy Ghost He imprints on their souls by the descriptive χρίσμα [“anointing”]. This separation was given them as their portion ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου [“from the Holy One”]. When we observe that the χρίσμα [“anointing”] is to form the antithesis to the anti-Christian spirit, and therefore to the renunciation of Christ, not of the Father, we shall see fit to understand the ἅγιος [“Holy One”] here of the Son and not of the Father. He who Himself was indeed in the world, but yet not of the world, has also defended His own that they should not be mingled again with the world, Joh 17:16 ff. The whole contents of the high-priestly prayer generally gives sufficient confirmation of the truth of this exposition. What is here figuratively expressed by the χρίσμα [“anointing”] is there expressed by the literal ἁγιάζειν [“to consecrate”]. And as here the being released out of the lie through the knowing of the truth is regarded as the matter of the χρίσμα [“anointing”], so there the ἀλήθεια is the sphere in which the anointed are ἡγιασμένοι [“sanctified”].