36 - 1Jn 3:2
Ἀγαπητοὶ, νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα· οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστι· The fellowship with God, which is based upon the γεννήθῆναιἐξαὐτοῦ [“to be born of him”] or the τέκνονΘεοῦεἶναι [“to be a child of God”], is the prominent idea of the section before us: the tokens of this divine sonship, which are no other than the ποιεῖντὴνδικαιοσύνην [“to practice righteousness”], are not to be more carefully exhibited. Great as the love of God is which approves itself in the gift of our sonship (1Jn 3:1), in that gift it has not reached its highest goal: it will make us partakers of something higher still. What that higher prerogative is the second verse shows. The apostle begins by an emphasized repetition of the present gift, νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν [“now we are children of God”]. The verse before had spoken of the κληθῆναιτέκναΘεοῦ [“called children of God”], this verse speaks of the εἶναι [“to be”]; for in 1Jn 3:1 the apostle’s aim was not only to bring out our filial relationship to God, but at the same time the position which in virtue of it we attain as to other children of God in His kingdom; but here this aspect of the matter recedes, and our absolute relationship to God and to Him alone comes again to the front.
It is usual to expound the thought of the verse thus: we are already indeed internally the children of God, though not yet such in the fullest sense of the word; hereafter this internal habitus will also be externally manifested (ἐὰνφανερωθῇ [“if it may be made known”]), and then will this sonship be revealed, through the contemplation of God, through the ὅμοιοναὐτῷεἶναι [“to be like him”], in all its glory and fulness. The distinction between the now and the then would accordingly in that case be only quantitative and not qualitative; not a difference in the thing, but in the degree of it; only the difference between the germinal beginning and the developed consummation. But this analysis seems to us by no means in harmony with the phraseology of the verse. For when we read νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα [“now we are children of God and it is not yet made known what we will be”], there is a difference certainly and obviously established as to the predicative definition of the sonship: the declaration of what we shall be one day is placed in contrast with what we now are, that is, with the τέκναΘεοῦεἶναι [“to be children of God”]. If we seize the exact sense of the words, it can be only this, that we shall be hereafter something different as children of God from what we now are. If it had been the apostle’s design to express the thought given above as the alternative, to wit, that the sonship now begun would hereafter be consummated, we should expect οὔπωἐφανερώθητίἐσμεν [“not yet been made known what we are”] instead of οὔπωἐφανερώθητίἐσόμεθα [“not yet made known what we will be”],—that is, what we essentially are now already is simply not yet come to its full expansion and development (οὔπωἐφανερώθη [“not yet made known”]). Moreover, we should in this case look for τέκνα Θεοῦ [“children of God”] in the beginning of the sentence, emphasized thus as the idea common to the present and the future, τέκνα Θεοῦ ἤδη νῦν ἐσμενκ.τ.λ. [“now we are already children of God, etc.”]. But, as the words now run, the τέκνα [“children”] is in antithesis with what follows: now the children of God, hereafter something different. Of course, this antithesis is not an absolute one. By the φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”] the future development is also exhibited as a consummation of the present estate; only that this development leads to something beyond the τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”]. Thus, then, an unbiased consideration of the whole verse arrives at this idea: we have now the mighty gift of sonship to God, but hereafter it will be shown what we shall be; in any case, something more than this. The crisis at which this new development will enter is indeed, strictly speaking, not declared; for we do not read ὅταν [“when”], but ἐὰνφανερωθῇ [“if it may be made known”]; but, inasmuch as this φανερωθῇ [“may be made known”] does substantially look back to the φανερωθήναι [“to be made known”] of 1Jn 2:28, it is manifest that the apostle is thinking of the development commencing with the judgment, that is, of eternity. But I this does not by any means decide that the φανερωθῇ [“may be made known”] has the same subject as in 1Jn 2:28, Christ namely; rather it is more obvious to take τίἐσόμεθα [“what we will be”] as the subject: when it will come to the light of day to what consummate and final development we are called.
But, though the matter and meaning of our full development does not actually lie before our thought in revelation, yet it is already well known to us (οἴδαμεν [“we see”]). What it is we find announced in the two sentences, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα [“we will be like him”] and ὀψόμεθααὐτὸνκαθώςἐστι [“we will see him just as he is”]. The stricter apprehension of what this means depends primarily on the view we take of the ὅτι [“that”] which introduces the second clause. It either gives the reason of the first, exhibiting the likeness as the result of the seeing, or it gives the reason of the οἴδαμεν [“we see”]. But since in the latter case it must, taken exactly, have meant that we know that we shall see Him; and further, since the ὄπτεσθαιαὐτὸν [“to see him”] as a reason for our ὅμοιοναὐτῷεἶναι [“to be like him”] is, as we shall see, a decidedly biblical idea, we shall adhere to the first view, and accordingly proceed from the second clause as the presupposition on which the first depends.
Now, however, raises the question who is to be understood by the pronoun αὐτὸν [“him”], whether God or Christ. It cannot be denied that, taking the preceding sentence into account, the more obvious subject is ὁΘεός; [“God”]; it is further in favour of referring the pronoun to the Father, that in 1Jn 3:3 the Son is defined by ἐκεῖνος [“he”]; for, if the Son is throughout spoken of, why this change of the pronoun, why the ἐκεῖνος [“he”], which obviously seems to refer to a more distant subject? But, as it respects the first reason, we have just now seen that in 1Jn 2:29 the Father is without any further intimation spoken of after the Son had been decidedly the subject in 1Jn 2:28; while it was there obvious enough that the reader should understand the Son to be the subject because St. John points him to the ἡμέρακρίσεως [“day of judgment”], on which, according to scriptural teaching generally, as in particular that of 1Jn 2:28, the Son is the active person. As to the second reason, the entering of ἐκεῖνος [“he”] into the third verse, we may appeal to 1Jn 3:7, where ἐκεῖνος [“he”] stands although in what precedes the Lord had been more than once spoken of as αὐτὸς [“he”]. But yet more stringent is the appeal to Joh 5:39: ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφὰς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν, καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ. [“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, but it is these that testify about me”]. Here the change of the pronouns in the same verse obviously did not arise out of a change in the subject, but ἐκεῖνος [“he”] is substituted only for stronger emphasis on the same subject: “these very same are they which testify of Me.” Precisely so is it here: “He that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as the same He is pure.” But all this only proves the possibility that the pronouns of the second and third verses collectively may be referred to Christ; it is shown to be necessary, however, by the expression itself, ὀψόμεθααὐτὸνκαθώςἐστι [“we will see him just as he is”]. It is everywhere the scriptural doctrine that the Father can in no sense whatever be seen. That does not follow so much from the Johannaean utterance, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται [“no one has ever seen God” cf. 1Jn 4:12],—for, although He is not seen here below, He might, nevertheless, in some sense be seen in eternity,—but it is absolutely required by the Pauline saying, Ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπος οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται . . . φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον [“not one person has seen or is able to see” . . . “the one who dwells in unapproachable light” cf. 1Ti 6:16]. It is true that in some passages of the New Testament—not to speak of figurative expressions in the Old—a seeing or beholding of God is spoken of. But Mat 5:8 can hardly be reckoned among these; on the one hand, because the seven benedictions revolve so directly in Old Testament terms that we must needs understand them after the meaning rather of the Old Testament than of the New, as, for instance, in the verse immediately following the one referred to the idea of the υἱοὶΘεοῦ [“sons of God”] is altogether a different one from that which is exhibited, as we have seen, in our Epistle; on the other hand, because, as promise and requirement must stand in a close relation, the preceding καθαροὶτῇκαρδίᾳ [“those pure in heart”] seems clearly to indicate the sphere in which the seeing is to be enjoyed, that is, in the heart. The meaning of the words is thus no other than that of Psa 17:15תְּמוּנָתֶֽךָאֶשְׂבְּעָ֥ה’פָנֶ֑יךָ’אֶחֱזֶ֣ה’אֲוִי בְּ֭צֶדֶק’[“As for me, I will behold your face in righteousness; I will be satisfied when I awake”] form of God which David would contemplate is His manifestation of Himself; and thus the first hemistich also, as similarly Mat 8:15, understands by the seeing of God the immediate fellowship of the heart with Him. As it respects Rev 22:4, the visions of this book also are extremely analogous with the Old Testament style of representation, and it is hazardous to derive any dogmas immediately from its figures; while, in addition to this, we have there the πρόσωποντοῦΘεοῦ [“face of God”], and this of itself points us to the sphere of transcendent divine manifestations. The doctrine of Scripture on this point comes most clearly out of Joh 14:7. There it is expressly said that the disciples have seen the Father because they see the Son: this is the only way in which a vision of God is practicable. From the beginning of days down to the most distant aeons the Logos is the only revealer of the Father; and no one enters into any union with the Father save through His mediation. That general signification, according to which the ὄπτεσθαι [“to see”] may certainly be predicated also of God, cannot be applied in our present passage: here there is no allusion to any spiritual beholding. For this takes place even on earth, and could not therefore be appropriately assigned to futurity. Moreover, in that case, the consequence deduced would not hold good; for, although in that spiritual sense we may indeed already see God, we are by no means on that account ὅμοιοιαὐτῷ[“like him”]. The reference to God is also excluded by the καθώςἐστι [“just as he is”]: this addition can mean to indicate nothing less than an absolutely adequate knowledge of God; but how is it possible that man, the creature, should ever reach by contemplation the interior and perfect fulness of the Creator? But, if we are reduced on such a supposition to accept the beholding of God in a limited sense, the consequence deduced from it, the ὅμοιοναὐτῷεἶναι [“to be like him”], must in like manner be limited; and the full and weighty expressions of the apostle must become altogether indefinite and nebulous. Only in one way can we know God, that is, through knowing Christ; and Him we may know because He has become like ns. The same inference we draw from the expression ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα [“we will be like him”]. Is it the style of Scripture to say that we shall be like unto God? Concerning Christ it affirms not only the ὅμοιονεἶναι [“to be like”], but also the εἶναιἴσαΘεῷ [“to be like God”] (Php 2:6); but is this said also of us? One we are to become like, the Lord Jesus; therefore it is said in Php 3:21 that our earthly body is to be glorified into the likeness (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι σύμμορφον [“made into conformity”]) of His glorified body, and that we should grow up εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [“into the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ” cf. Eph 4:13]. But nothing of this kind could be said of God, nor is anything of this kind ever said. Finally, then, as after all our discussion there is a phraseological possibility of referring the pronoun to Christ, while all scriptural analogy most decidedly favours our doing so, we must follow this guidance; and we shall find that fuller investigation of the details will furnish further justification of our doing so.
Now when St. John declares that Christians “know” that they shall see the Lord, the question immediately rises as to the ground of that knowledge. First of all, we must go back to the sayings of our Lord Himself; and we find in the high-priestly prayer, Joh 17:24, a thought altogether similar: πάτερ, οὓς δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ, κᾀκεῖνοι ὦσι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα θεωρῶσι τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἐμὴν ἣν ἔδωκάς μοι [“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am, so that they may see my glory which you have given me”]. From these words was derived and formed the Christian hope of seeing the Lord as He is in His glory. It is precisely this which the expression says, ὀψόμεθααὐτὸνκαθώςἐστιν [“we will see him just as he is”]. A beholding of the glorified Redeemer as He is (καθώςἐστιν [“just as he is”]), is, in fact, on earth impossible; it is altogether outside of the ability of the human spirit to form a conception of the Son of man as He is now, since He has been received again into the fellowship of Deity, the man Jesus with the attributes of the Godhead; yea, even His glorified body we cannot conceive of. For all this we have no faculty nor ability to contemplate now. Καθώςἦν[“just as I was”], as He once walked on the face of this earth the Son of man, the apostles had seen Him; thus have we also seen Him, at least in spiritual contemplation, since the apostles have set Him before our eyes as if He were visibly amongst us crucified; καθώςἐστιν [“just as he is”], in the glory which He had before the foundation of the world, and which He has again now restored, no one has ever yet seen Him, nor can any one see Him. If, then, the καθώςἐστιν [“just as he is”] of our passage corresponds to the phrase τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι [“the glory which you have given to me”] (Joh 17:22); if, further, the δόξα θεοῦ [“glory of God”] of 1Jn 1:6 has been understood of His ἐνφωτὶεἶναι [“being in the light”],—then must the seeing of the Lord as He is be no other than the seeing Him as He is φῶς [“light”]. Assuredly, the expression Θεὸςφῶς [“God is light”], 1Jn 1:5, applied primarily to the Father; not only, however, is it a firmly settled point that what the Father hath the Son hath likewise, but also it is expressly said that the Logos is to τὸφῶς τῶνἀνθρώπων [“the light of men” cf. Joh 1:4], and in 1Jn 2:9 the expressions ἐνφωτὶεἶναι [“being in the light”], τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει [“the true light is already shining”], are referred to the Son. The idea of light is so entirely the fundamental idea of the Epistle before us, that in this passage we may translate ὄπτεσθαι αὐτὸνκαθώςἐστι [“to see him just as he is”] by beholding the light of the Redeemer’s glory. God dwells in an inaccessible light; but though we cannot find direct access, indirect access we can find to His presence. Our verse lays down the means of this: we may hereafter see the Lord in His glory, as the ἀπαύγασματοῦφωτός [“radiance of the light”]. And thus the apostle’s assertion, that through this beholding of the Lord (ὅτι [“that”]) we may be made like Him, comes to its clear meaning. Here again we may refer to Mat 6:22: the eye is not only the organ by means of which we see the light as an external thing; it is, at the same time, the medium through which our whole body becomes light,—that is, the medium through which the light outside of us is translated into our own eye. Thus, he who seeth the Lord in His glory as light, becomes thereby a light himself; what is beheld becomes his own immediate possession; he becomes like his Lord. The ὅμοιος [“likeness”] must not be pressed too far, nor must it be softened away: of the former we are in danger when we think of anything like absolute equality, which the word says nothing about; of the latter we are in danger when we think only of holiness in general. This holiness, the turning away from all sin, should, according to the tenor of what follows, be found even upon earth; that is a prerogative which we already have as τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”]; but when it shall be manifested τίἐσόμεθα [“what we will be”], there will be something beyond that privilege, even the glorification of our whole being after the analogy of the being of our glorified Lord. It is an altogether wrong and inadequate idea that limits the blessedness of heaven to sinlessness. Through sin our whole nature has become different; and therefore the heavenly life, the ὅμοιονεἶναι αὐτῷ [“to be like him”], will be something beyond the mere ceasing from sin. Sinless our Lord was upon earth; yet, notwithstanding that, His present existence is altogether different from that which He had upon earth. And now we have arrived at the point from which we may clearly discern what is the distinction between the τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”] and the τί [“what”], of which it is said that such we shall be. That the consummation of believers here dealt with is to be something different from the sonship, has been hitherto maintained and proved by appeal to the expressions here used. But now we shall vindicate the correctness of this assertion by substantial reasons taken from the nature of the case. Here on earth the Saviour was a Son of God in the fullest and highest sense. Indeed, He was also very much more: even here already He was the Son of God, equal to God in power. But was He equal also in honour? The dignity, the divine form, He had laid aside, and with respect to this He was while upon earth, in virtue of His own spontaneous decision, not ὅμοιος τῷ Θεῷ [“likeness of God”]. To that He was restored in its fullest and deepest sense only by the ascension. So shall it be with us. We also are now τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”]; but that does not constitute us like the Lord any more than He Himself was in an absolute measure like God while in His humiliation, where the μορφῇθεοῦ [“form of God”] was lacking to Him. But this we shall be, the apostle’s promise tells us. And what means the expression which the New Testament Scripture elsewhere uses to describe this consummated likeness? ἈδελφοὶΧριστοῦ [“brothers of Christ”]. Our Lord gives His disciples this name once after the resurrection (Joh 20:17); for through what it signifies the likeness is rendered possible; that is the very foundation of it, as the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly shows (Heb 2:11). But, on the other hand, the feeling of every one of our hearts tells us that, while we even now may assume to be the children of God, we cannot arrogate the dignity of brotherhood with Christ. He is not ashamed to call us brethren (Heb 2:17); but we must not be bold enough to adopt the name. The brotherhood, which consists in perfect likeness to the Lord we shall reach only at the end of the days when we shall see Him as He is.
Now comes out clearly the reason of that peculiarity in St. John’s phraseology to which we have referred,—to wit, that he uses the phrase τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”], but never adopts St. Paul’s word υἱοὶΘεοῦ [“sons of God”]. The former is a relative and transitory designation; the latter is one that never ceases. One remains a υἱός [“son”] all through his life; He even who is exalted to the right hand of God is a υἱόςτοῦΘεοῦ [“son of God”]; but it would be impossible to call Him any longer a τέκνον [“child”], for in this idea there is always the element of subordination or of a development not yet fulfilled. On earth human parents may, indeed, still term an adult child τέκνον [“child”]; but that is only because, in relation to their offspring, they are conscious of being in authority, or of standing in a higher position. If St. Paul uses, in addition to the expressions τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”], that of υἱοὶΘεοῦ [“sons of God”], it is simply because he condenses all that we have or ever shall have into this latter term, without reflecting specifically on the beginning of the development as the definition τέκνα [“children”] would suggest it. On the other hand, St. John uses only this latter expression, because he never leaves out of sight this element of the commencing development. St. Paul uses child and son promiscuously; St. John does not, for to him child always denotes the idea of immaturity or of being under age. For the present, therefore, he knows only the oneυἱόςΘεοῦ [“son of God”], Him who is our common Master; all the rest of us are τέκναΘεοῦ [“children of God”]. But thus it shall not be always. He thinks of a stage when we shall be in full possession of equality with Christ; and he expresses his idea of this by the ὅμοιονεἶναι αὐτῷ [“to be like him”], that is, Χριστῷ [“Christ”]. The filial relation, viewed as τέκνα εἶναι [“to be children”], is therefore not yet identical with the ὅμοιονεἶναιΧριστῷ [“to be like Christ”]; it is rather the germ and the principle out of which the latter grows into full formation, like the moth from the pupa-chrysalis. And it is this which makes the term φανεροῦσθαι [“to make known”] so admirably expressive: nothing new will then be imparted; it will be only the full evolution or expansion into the light of the germs already deposited. That our view of the filial relation in St. John’s words is the right one, receives, as we think, strong support from the circumstance that the Apocalypse, which points throughout to this φανερωσις [“manifestation”], altogether omits the word we now consider.