34 - 1Jn 2:28-29

1Jn 2:28-29

Καὶ νῦν, τεκνία, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα ὅταν φανερωθῇ, ἔχωμεν παῤῥησίαν, καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. Ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι, γινώσκετε ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγένηται.

We have assumed, in opposition to the current view of our day, that 1Jn 2:28 belongs to the second part of the Epistle. One circumstance may be mentioned here as making this probable: with the exception of the μένειν [“to abide”] at the beginning of the verse, all the ideas in it are new ones, and enter the Epistle for the first time; but that would be a startling close of a discussion which should introduce a new series of ideas instead of summing up the old ones. But the connection of this verse with the second part becomes a certainty, when we observe that the special ideas that are literally touched here for the first time are the ever-recurring constitutive elements of the second. Thus the φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”] is taken up again in 1Jn 3:3-8; the παῤῥησίανἔχειν [“to have boldness”] is elucidated in 1Jn 3:21; 1Jn 4:17, 1Jn 5:14; the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] forms the fundamental idea of the first ten verses of the following chapter; the ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννήσθαι [“having been born of him”] is not only repeated in the τέκνα Θεοῦ [“children of God”], 1Jn 3:1, but also from 1Jn 3:24 onwards is more closely considered. But all this only introduces the all-decisive reason, which is, that the thought announced in 1Jn 2:28 is precisely in the same sense the theme of the next part as 1Jn 1:5 was of that we have just closed. This argument, however, must approve itself as our exposition pursues its course.

Now, if we have in 1Jn 2:28 the beginning of a new part, it follows that the emphasis does not lie on the μένει [“abide”], at the beginning, but on the clause which follows and gives the writer’s design. That word serves to place the new part in connection with the other; the telic clause points to the progress of the thought. The goal of abiding in God, as the end of the development so far, is represented positively and negatively: the former by παῤῥησίανἔχειν [“to have boldness”], the latter by μὴαἰσχυνθήναι [“not put to shame”]. Both these ideas derive a more specific definition from the appendages, common to them, ἐὰνφανερωθῇ [“if it may be made known”] and ἐντῇπαρουσίᾳαὐτοῦ [“at his coming”]. That these expressions refer to the Lord’s return needs of course no proof. But it must be observed that φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”] never occurs throughout the other New Testament Scriptures as denoting the appearing of Christ for judgment: they are accustomed to express that by ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι [“to disclose”], while St. John, again, never uses this latter word (not even in Rev 1:1) for that purpose, but invariably φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”]. (The substantive φανέρωσις [“disclosure”] is not to be found at all in his writings.) Further, it will help to clear up the the general subject if we bear in mind that in 1Jn 3:8 the same φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”] is used concerning the manifestation of Christ in the flesh. The peculiarity of St. John’s phraseology just alluded to is not a fortuitous one, but has its deep internal reasons. Throughout the Scripture, ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”] invariably designates a revelation which has taken place in an extraordinary way, through a direct interposition of God, and therefore as i a perfectly new development. In φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”] this element of the entirely new and the absolutely extraordinary is neither asserted nor denied; but the definite meaning attached to ἀποκαλύπτειν [“to disclose”] assigns to the φανεροῦν [“to make known”] at least a predominant application to such a revealing as is the development of a definitive germ,—a development which is, in comparison with ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”], natural and ordinary. This is the general law in the Bible. This explains how it is that in Scripture the twofold manifestation of Jesus in the flesh and for judgment is spoken of as one ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”]: His appearance in the flesh was not in fact a result of past development, but, beyond everything else, an immediate and extraordinary interposition of God, an entirely new creation; and His appearance for judgment is revealed as nothing less than an instantaneous and sudden catastrophe taking place purely through divine causality, whose product will be a new heaven and a new earth.

Now, however obvious would be here such an application of ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”], it is not the less easy to be understood how St. John in particular comes to use, concerning both these events, not this word ever, but always φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”]. “We have already often remarked that he delights to bring out into prominence the germs of the future lying in the present; it is the effect of this peculiarity that the difference between the present and the future is reduced from an absolute one to one merely relative; and when the question is of a revelation, he exhibits this rather as a φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”], or making visible of potencies long working secretly, than as an ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”], or something entirely new, resting immediately on divine causality. Now when St. John, in his Gospel, Joh 1:3, teaches us to behold the operation of the λόγος [“word”] already in the creation, and, since the creation. His energy as that of the φῶςἀληθινόν [“true light”], it must of course have been very natural to him to regard the manifestation of our Lord in the flesh not as something new, and as an ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”], but as a φανέρωσις [“disclosure”]: this indeed we find him doing in our own Epistle, 1Jn 1:2; 1Jn 3:8. And similarly, to this apostle, with such a habit of looking at things, who sees the decision of judgment already involved in unbelief, who always regards the resurrection as a thing present (compare especially Joh 5:25 with Joh 11:25), the future judgment would appear not as altogether a new thing,—that is, as an ἀποκάλυψις [“laying bare”],—but as a natural result and conclusion of a long series of sacred events which only now brings out into light (φανεροῦν [“to make known”]) that which had been long present spiritually and secretly. The apostle therefore describes by ἐὰνφανερωθῇ [“if it may be made known”] that day in which the Lord, who abideth with His people always, will make His presence apparent at once and forever to all eyes. In the second member of the sentence which contains the purpose there comes in an ἐντῇπαρουσίᾳαὐτοῦ [“at his coming”] instead of the ἐὰνφανερωθῇ [“if it may be made known”]. This expression, which is so very current among the other writers of the New Testament, occurs in St. John nowhere but in this passage. Probably this is not an accidental circumstance; but has its reason, though the apostle might not have been altogether aware of it, in the very same habit of considering things which we have been trying to explain. It was far from his thoughts at any time to regard the appearance of the Lord as an arrival from a distance: the presence of Jesus in the midst of His disciples, and within their hearts, was ever before his thoughts. This, however, did not hinder him from using this expression for once concerning the last day. When the Lord shall in that great day enter into the world of manifestation, our relation to Him will also be a manifest one, revealed and withdrawn from all delusion. And the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”] will then fit us and enable us in our appearance before Him παῤῥησίανἔχειν [“to have boldness”]. It has been thought, without reason, that in this and other similar passages, παῤῥησία [“boldness”] has lost the fundamental idea of free and unrepressed speech. But we must remember that the subject here is the appearance of the Lord for judgment; that therefore question and answer, charge and exculpation (compare Mat 25:34 ff.), enter into the accessories of the scene; and then it will not be thought absolutely necessary, at least in this passage, to resort to an enfeebled interpretation of the word. If we have continued in Him, we shall be able to answer with perfect tranquility of mind, unqualified by fear and trembling, the questions of our righteous Judge. The negative counterpart of παῤῥησία [“boldness”] is given us in the αἰσχυνθήναι [“put to shame”]. Formally, the correlative is not exactly adequate; while the former presents to us the joyful tone of mind which we shall maintain in the day oi judgment, the latter refers rather to the result of the judgment, as appears from the added words ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ [“from him”]. The phrase, formed after the analogy of the Hebrew בּוֹשׁמִן [“from shame”] compare, for example, Jer 2:36, Sept., ἀπὸΑἰγύπτουαἰσχυνθήσῃ [“you will be ashamed of Egypt”]), does not describe the source from whence the shame springs, which would be expressed by ἀπὸ [“from”], but the object from whom we are in our shame severed. But as the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] is possible only on the ground of the testimony of a good conscience, which in itself includes the result of the judgment, its happy consequence, so also the αἰσχυνθήναι [“put to shame”] includes its necessary result, the separation from the Lord.

Looking at 1Jn 2:29 apart and by itself, as detached from what precedes and what follows, we are met by no difficulties of any kind. It is obvious that the subject in the δίκαιόςἐστιν [“he is righteous”] at the commencement is God. For, as the meaning and bearing of the verse is that as “He” is righteous all must be righteous too who are His children; as throughout the New Testament we never read of a relation of sonship to Christ, only of sonship to God; as, finally, in 1Jn 3:8 we are expressly called τέκνα Θεοῦ [“children of God”],—it is impossible to understand the δίκαιός [“righteous”], whose nature we as His children should carry in ourselves, of our Lord Christ. It is true that 1Jn 2:28 had spoken of Christ. But a transition, immediate and not marked by any external sign, from discourse concerning the Son to discourse concerning the Father, is not strange in the case of St. John, in whose consciousness the two are so profoundly intertwined, that he very seldom thinks it necessary to mention either, or distinguish them otherwise than by a pronoun. And this transition need not favour the notion of a new part of the Epistle beginning with 1Jn 2:29; for in 1Jn 4:21 we find in the same way that after the Father has been spoken of throughout several verses, suddenly the Son is mentioned, and obviously mentioned, by the simple pronoun αὐτός [“he”], and no more. Thus the plain meaning of the verse is: As the nature of God is righteousness, so must this same righteousness be the token of sonship in relation to Him; the children must bear their Father’s stamp upon them. But it is hard to determine the kind of link which the verse has with what precedes. At the first glance there is as little internal connection with the preceding thought as there is grammatical bond. Nevertheless there must be connection, even on the supposition that our verse begins the new part; for the ἐὰνεἰδῆτε [“if you know”] would certainly be much too naked for the commencement of a different theme: we should expect at least a τεκνία [“littlechildren”] or παιδία [“children”] in a new address. And there is certainly a natural presumption in favour of the idea that the apostle was moved to set out on this fresh topic by something just before said.

There are two thoughts which appear here as new, the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] and the γεγεννήσθαιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ [“to have been born of God”]. Now, when we observe that in the first section of the third chapter it is said, 1Jn 3:6, πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει [“everyone who abides in him does not continue to sin”], and in 1Jn 3:9 the same thought is expressed by πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ [“everyone who is born of God does not continue to practice sin”]; when we further mark that in 1Jn 3:24 the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”] is in the same way connected with the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ [“keeps his commandments”] as the γεγεννήσθαιἐξ αὐτοῦ [“having been born of him”] is here connected with the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”],—we shall no longer discern in the γεγεννήσθαιἐξ αὐτοῦ [“having been born of him”] of our verse a new idea, but only the resumption of the μένεινἐντῷ Θεῷ [“abide in God”] often dealt with in the previous section, and mentioned in it finally at 1Jn 2:28. That the expression here used is substituted for that one has its reason, apart from what later development will show, in this, that here the divine essential righteousness (ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι [“that he is righteous”]) comes into consideration as the source of our ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”]; but that this relation of causality is made prominent as our being born of God rather than as our abiding in Him. Thus there is at once presented a point of view from which the connection of the present verse with the preceding becomes plain. This connection becomes still plainer when we more closely examine and appreciate the relation which is here established between the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] and the γεγεννήσθαιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ [“to have been born of God”]. Manifestly the emphasis rests upon the latter. It is not the apostle’s purpose to say that whosoever is born of God must therefore of necessity work righteousness, although in itself such a proposition would be perfectly justified; but he draws the inverted conclusion, namely, that he who doeth righteousness is also born of God, because God’s nature, the δίκαιόνεἶναι [“to be righteous”], has become his nature also. Thus this new sonship is not the basis or supposition from which St. John proceeds in order to found on it the exhortation to righteousness; but the δικαιοσύνη [“righteousness”], as already present, is the presupposition from which he deduces the reality of their sonship. The question is here to lay down a mark of the regeneration of the soul. Now, if we bear in mind that the γεγεννήσθαιἐκτοῦΘεοῦ [“to have been born of God”] is simply a resumption in another form of the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”], being related to this as the planting of the tree is to its flower, we shall perceive that here we have also a mark given us of the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”]. And why is this given? In the preceding passage the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] in the day of judgment was made dependent on the μένεινἐντῷ Θεῷ [“abide in God”]; here it is said further how it is this παῤῥησία [“boldness”] comes into effect,—that is, it operates thus, that he who continueth in God, and therefore is born of God, becomes firmly assured of this his fellowship with God through his ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”]. The synthesis of the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”] and the παῤῥησία [“boldness”]—that is, their close relation, which the former verse merely asserted—is here expressly indicated through the mediating link between them, which is the newly introduced idea of ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”]. The idea of the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] presupposes not only the abiding in God, but the conscious assurance of it: this, however, is produced by the doing of righteousness. Strictly speaking, indeed, our abiding in God and the abiding of God in us are in their unity something entirely internal, perceptible only to the feeling or the consciousness; therefore it is, like every feeling, something subjective which is itself and as such no pledge of its own objective reality. This additional guarantee or assurance it receives through such a confirmation in act: we are to know others by their fruits, and by our own fruits we are to know ourselves. He who finds this ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] in his life has in sustaining this sure test for his knowledge of himself (γινώσκετε [“you know”] is in the indicative), the guarantee of his being born from above, and therewith also the παῤῥησία [“boldness”], which the apostle bound up with fellowship with God.

Thus a close consideration of 1Jn 2:29 shows, what appeared plain enough on 1Jn 2:28 itself, that the new part begins with 1Jn 2:28, the idea of which is supplemented and made specific by what follows. Further, there is thus afforded to us a clear view of the relation of the part of the epistle now closed to that which now begins. In both the apostle keeps in view the end he proposed in the introduction, that of helping towards advancing fellowship with God and fellowship with the brethren; but the method differs in the two. In the first part this fellowship comes into consideration as an internal habit; in the second it is rather its confirmation in works. From the very beginning we have accustomed ourselves to understand the περιπατεῖνἐντῷ φωτί [“walk in the light”] in the first chapter of more than the mere external actions of man in the narrower sense; of the sphere, rather, in which his whole life and being are rooted. The ἁμαρτίαι [“sins”] and the ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”] are by no means limited to actual sins of commission; they include all sins whether in thought, or in word or in work. Similarly, in the second chapter the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς [“to keep commandments”] is not to be restricted to the ποιεῖν [“do”] in the external sense, but, as the ideas ἀγαπᾶν [“love”] and μισεῖν [“hate”] immediately following show, pre-eminently to the inner mind. And then in the third section of the first part the nature of it is traced to the ἐπιθυμία [“lustful passion”] and ἀλαζονεία [“boastfulness”]: therefore it is not so much in the outward expressions of a quality as in the quality itself. That in 1Jn 1:6 we read once of ποιεῖντὴνἀλήθειαν [“doing the truth”], and similarly in 1Jn 2:17 once of ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ [“doing the will of God”], are exceptions which have no power to alter the definitely marked character of the section in each case; in fact, it is not the inner mind as opposed to the external confirmation which is the subject, but the habitus of the Christians generally, which includes the approval of its reality in works. Out of this habitus generally is now in the second part the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] taken and brought forward prominently and laid down as the token of that habitus: on its reality, as we have seen, the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] of Christians, as its final consummation, depended. In details, we may observe at the outset and in advance, the course of the whole of the second part is very similar to that of the first. First, the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] is viewed in reference to God, then in reference to the brethren; finally, from their combination the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] is deduced, and thus once more we have supernumerary confirmation in the tenor of this part, that its theme is to be found in 1Jn 2:28; for the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] spoken of there is dilated on after the full illustration of the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”], which is introduced in 1Jn 2:29; in harmony, therefore, with our analysis, according to which the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] is the middle term between what the μένεινἐναὐτῷ [“abide in him”] treated of in the preceding and the παῤῥησία [“boldness”].

Finally, in this way we are extricated, as easily as satisfactorily, from a difficulty which we designedly left behind in 1Jn 2:27. There the χρίσμα [“anointing”] is introduced as an absolutely right guide, never erring and always to be depended upon, which the church therefore might follow most implicitly. We have seen in the proper place that the anointing oil, by which the church is withdrawn from the world, is the Holy Ghost; and it is of course self-understood that the Spirit cannot deceive. But here comes in the question as to how this χρίσμα [“anointing”] may be known as such, as to what its tests are,—that is to say, if instruction through the apostolical word is represented as superfluous, then the door seems to be opened for all fanaticism, which is always so ready to appeal to the internal voice of the Spirit, either esteeming the apostolical word less or altogether despising it. The answer to the question here proposed is given in the new part of the Epistle: only there is the χρίσμα [“anointing”], the new birth, present with its abiding in God, where the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] is found. Doing is the evidence of all evidences; and such a doing as harmonizes or corresponds with the divine δίκαιόν εἶναι [“to be righteous”].

Now it is precisely this relation between the governing ideas which we now have to do with that brings out the exquisitely careful steps by which the Epistle goes onward. The first part leads up to its climax by developing its ideas to the point at which, by an internal necessity, they must issue, unless they are to remain both one-sided and untrue. That the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] is the conclusive evidence of any man’s personal Christianity, the only undeceiving mark by which the Christian may test himself, is in perfect agreement with the Pauline view; in 2Ti 2:19 it is said concerning the sure foundation of God, that is, according to the context, the Christian community: ἔχει τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην, Ἔγνω Κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ [“having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,’ and, ‘Everyone who names the name of Christ is to abstain from unrighteousness’]. In this passage also there is, by the side of the divine knowledge which is not within man’s apprehension, the turning away from ἀδικία [“unrighteousness”], that is, positively, the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”]; and this latter is the only possible ground of our own personal knowledge concerning our belonging to the οἰκίαΘεοῦ [“household of God”]. Not unlike this is the passage, Rom 10:10. There it is said that while it is faith that justifies, confession saves (σωθῆναι [“save”]). Internally, the right relation to God is attained through believing; but in order to the full enjoyment of the righteousness of faith, and the realization of its purpose, there must be the outward righteousness of the life: St. Paul, however, here speaks of its expression in word, while St. John makes the work prominent. The divine sonship spoken of here is imparted before any doing of man can claim or approve it; but man’s good work demonstrates its reality, and only thus is the full assurance of sonship attained.

After having found our position by means of a careful examination of 1Jn 2:28-29, let us take a parting glance at the details. St, John begins with καὶ νῦν μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ [“and now, abide in him”], joining on to the preceding context. The καὶνῦν [“and now”] is always appropriated to this use,—namely, that of introducing something new on the basis of a previous discussion; such is its service in the only passage of St. John’s Gospel where it occurs, Joh 17:5. The new thought that enters is the παῤῥησία [“boldness”] in the judgment, which thought is mediated and introduced by the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”]. The principle of this mediation between them is that God Himself is righteous, and righteousness is therefore an essential attribute of one who is born ἐξ αὐτοῦ [“of him”],—that is, of God’s own very nature. From the connection it follows that the righteousness of God does not here refer to His judicial righteousness: as if it were, Ye know that the judgment will be a righteous one, therefore so act that ye may stand in such a day as that. The ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] does not correspond to the judicial righteousness of God, but to His righteous character and holiness. Δίκαιός [“righteous”] here has the same meaning as in 1Jn 2:2 and Joh 17:25 (compare on 1Jn 1:9). This principle, that God is essentially righteous, is to the Christian undoubted and fundamental, οἴδατε [“you know”]; and that we on our side have in the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”] the assurance that we are born of Him, is the logical deduction that naturally follows, γινώσκετε [“you know”]. A thing, however, which is to be represented as necessary is nut expressed by the imperative, but by the indicative; consequently we must understand γινώσκετε [“you know”] as indicative here.