1 John 2:29

The heading of the second division of the Epistle: "God is righteous; therefore, every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him." Love is the grand feature and principle of "righteousness" selected for discussion, 1Jo. 2:29-3:3.

If ye know . . . ye know--distinct Greek verbs: "if ye are aware (are in possession of the knowledge) . . . ye discern or apprehend also that," &c. Ye are already aware that God ("He" includes both "the Father," of whom the believer is born (end of this verse, and Jo1 3:1), and "the Son," Jo1 2:1, Jo1 2:23) is righteous, ye must necessarily, thereby, perceive also the consequence of that truth, namely, "that everyone that doeth righteousness (and he alone; literally, the righteousness such as the righteous God approves) is born of Him." The righteous produceth the righteous. We are never said to be born again of Christ, but of God, with whom Christ is one. HOLLAZ in ALFORD defines the righteousness of God, "It is the divine energy by whose power God wills and does all things which are conformable to His eternal law, prescribes suitable laws to His creatures, fulfils His promises to men, rewards the good, and punishes the ungodly."

doeth--"For the graces (virtues) are practical, and have their being in being produced (in being exercised); for when they have ceased to act, or are only about to act, they have not even being" [Å“CUMENIUS]. "God is righteous, and therefore the source of righteousness; when then a man doeth righteousness, we know that the source of his righteousness is God, that consequently he has acquired by new birth from God that righteousness which he had not by nature. We argue from his doing righteousness, to his being born of God. The error of Pelagians is to conclude that doing righteousness is a condition of becoming a child of God" [ALFORD most truly]. Compare Luk 7:47, Luk 7:50 : Her much love evinced that her sins were already forgiven; not, were the condition of her sins being forgiven.

Next: 1 John Chapter 3

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

[3. Second Half. God is Love (1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_5:12.)

(1) RIGHTEOUSNESS THE CRITERION OF DIVINE BIRTH (1Jn_2:29).

(2) THE DIVINE BIRTH THE OUTCOME OF GOD’S LOVE (1Jn_3:1-3).

(3) ITS CONSEQUENCE ON HUMAN CONDUCT (1Jn_2:4-10).

(4) BROTHERLY LOVE THE NECESSARY FLOWER OF THE DIVINE BIRTH (1Jn_2:10-18).

(5) THE GLORIOUS RESULTS OF GOD’S LOVE IN SONSHIP (1Jn_2:19-24).

(a) Assurance (1Jn_2:19-21).

(b) Grant of requests (1Jn_2:22).

(c) Presence of God (1Jn_2:24).

(d) Gift of the Spirit (1Jn_2:24).

(6) NECESSITY OF TRYING THE SPIRITS (1Jn_4:1-6).

(7) THE PERFECT LOVE THE SUREST TEST (1Jn_2:7-21).

(8) FAITH THE TEST OF LOVE (1Jn_5:1-12).

(a) The power of faith (1Jn_2:1-5).

(b) The witness of faith (1Jn_2:6-10).

(c) The content of faith (1Jn_2:11-12).]

(1) RIGHTEOUSNESS THE CRITERION OF THE DIVINE BIRTH (1Jn_2:29).—In passing on to think of God in His character of Love rather than of Light (this, with several interludes, is the leading thought up to 1Jn_5:12), St. John is led, by the earnest exhortation of 1Jn_2:28 (with which he closes the former subject), to pause for a moment on the idea of righteousness, which, as it was the main object of the earlier dispensation, so is the final cause of Christianity. This suggests to his mind the new idea, “The righteous are born of God.” Wherever there was a spark of true righteousness, there was a birth from God.

(29) He is righteous.—St. John looks at the Father and the Son as so essentially one, that from his use of the pronoun merely it would not be clear which Person he meant. Here “born of Him,” shows that he thinks of the Father, or of the Deity in its oneness; not specially of Christ.

Ye know.—Rather, ye perceive. A divine germ, sent by the will of God, has come into the life, and, just as the body and spirit grow in the womb, so the new man is gradually formed in the soul, not to be perfected till the future life.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:12. The Children of God and the Children of the Devil

29. If ye know that he is righteous] This probably does not mean Christ, although the preceding verse refers entirely to Him. ‘To be born of Christ’, though containing “nothing abhorrent from our Christian ideas”, is not a Scriptural expression; whereas ‘to be born of God’ is not only a common thought in Scripture, but is specially common in this Epistle and occurs in the very next verse. And clearly ‘He’ and ‘Him’ must be interpreted alike: it destroys the argument (justus justum gignit, as Bengel puts it) to interpret ‘He is righteous’ of Christ and ‘born of Him’ of God. Moreover, this explanation gets rid of one abrupt change by substituting another still more abrupt. That ‘He, Him, His’ in 1Jn_2:28 means Christ, and ‘He, Him’ in 1Jn_2:29 means God, is some confirmation of the view that a new division of the letter begins with 1Jn_2:29. That ‘God is righteous’ see 1Jn_1:9 and Joh_17:25. But S. John is so full of the truth that Christ and the Father are one, and that Christ is God revealed to man, that he makes the transition from one to the other almost imperceptibly. Had his readers asked him of one of these ambiguous passages, ‘Are you speaking of Christ or of God’? he would perhaps have replied, ‘Does it matter’?

ye know] Or, know ye; but this is less probable, though the Vulgate has scitote, and Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish, all take it as imperative. ‘Ye know’ is more in harmony with 1Jn_2:20-21. It is remarkable how frequently in S. John’s writings we are in doubt as to whether a verb is imperative or indicative (1Jn_2:27, Joh_5:39; Joh_12:19; Joh_14:1; Joh_15:18). Even in 1Jn_2:28, though there is scarcely a doubt, it is possible to take ‘abide’ as an indicative. After, ‘ye know that every one’ we must supply ‘also’; ye know that every one also.

There is a change of verb from ‘if ye know’ (ἐὰν εἰδῆτε) to ‘ye know that’ (γινώσκετε ὅτι). The former means ‘to have intuitive knowledge’ or simply ‘to be aware of the fact’ (1Jn_2:11; 1Jn_2:20-21): the latter means ‘to come to know, learn by experience, recognise, perceive’ (1Jn_2:3-5; 1Jn_2:13-14; 1Jn_2:18). ‘If ye are aware that God is righteous, ye cannot fail to perceive that &c.’ Comp. ‘What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt understand (get to know) hereafter’ (Joh_13:7); ‘Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou perceivest that I love Thee’ (Joh_21:17): and the converse change: ‘If ye had learned to know Me, ye would know My Father also’ (Joh_14:7; comp. Joh_8:55).

which doeth righteousness] Perhaps we should translate, that doeth His righteousness. It is literally, that doeth the righteousness; but in Greek the definite article is often equivalent to our possessive pronoun. Or ‘the righteousness’ may mean ‘the righteousness which is truly such’: comp. ‘to do the truth’ (1Jn_1:6). The present tense expresses habitual action.

is born of him] Literally, hath been begotten from Him. Only he who habitually does righteousness is a true son of the God who is righteous; just as only he who habitually walks in the light has true fellowship with the God who is light (1Jn_1:6-7). In a similar spirit S. Paul says, ‘Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness’ (2Ti_2:19). Other signs of Divine birth are love of the brethren (1Jn_4:7) and faith in Jesus as the Christ (1Jn_5:1).

1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_5:12. God is Love

There seems to be no serious break in the Epistle from this point onwards until we reach the concluding verses which form a sort of summary (1Jn_5:13-21). The key-word ‘love’ is distributed, and not very unevenly, over the whole, from 1Jn_3:1 to 1Jn_5:3. Subdivisions, however, exist and will be pointed out as they occur. The next two subdivisions may be marked thus; The Children of God and the Children of the Devil (1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:12); Love and Hate (1Jn_3:13-24). The two, as we shall find, are closely linked together, and might be placed under one heading, thus; The Righteousness of the Children of God in their relation to the Hate of the World.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

III. PRINCIPAL PART THE SECIND

1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_5:12

HE THAT IS BORN AGAIN (OUT) OF (THE BEING OF) GOD THE RIGHTEOUS (1Jn_2:29) IS A MIRACLE OF HIS LOVE NOW AND HEREAFTER (1Jn_2:1-3), IS BOUND BY HIS WILL (1Jn_2:4-10 A), ESPECIALLY TO PRACTISE BROTHERLY LOVE (1Jn_2:10-18), IS BLESSED BEFORE HIM AND IN HIM (1Jn_2:19-24), TRYING LIKE GOD THE FALSE SPIRITS (I1Joh_2:1-6), HE ENJOYS THE LOVE OF GOD AND EXHIBITS BROTHERLY LOVE (1Jn_2:7-21), HE TRIUMPHS OVER THE WORLD AND IS SURE OF ETERNAL LIFE (1Jn_2:1-12).

1. The leading thought: He that is born again of God the Righteous doeth righteousness. 1Jn_2:29

29If ye know that he is righteous, ye know60 that61 every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.62

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The subject of δίκαιος is not specified. It has to be ascertained either from the connection with the preceding verses, or from the verse itself. On this point Sander very justly lays down the Canon: “If δίκαιος designates Christ, ἐξ αὐτοῦ refers to Him. But if the latter is impossible, that is, if ἐξ αὐτοῦ must be referred to God, δίκαιος also must designate God.” There is no formal connection of this verse with the preceding verses containing reference to Christ; it is the beginning of a new section. Hence this verse, standing alone, must be explained by itself, and the question of the subject has to be determined from an examination of the verse itself. Hence there is no warrant for an outward occasion of a reference to Christ, especially since the oneness of the Father and the Son, of God and Christ, is everpresent to the mind of John, so that he frequently and easily passes from the one to the other without a special indication of such transition. Nor can we gather from the word δίκαιος whether the reference is to Christ or to God, for it is applied to God in 1Jn_1:9 and to Christ in 1Jn_2:1. But ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται decides the point. The idea of γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ Χριστοῦ or τέκνα Χριστοῦ notwithstanding Spener’s reference to Isa_9:6; Isa_53:10; Psa_22:31; Psa_110:3; Mat_9:2; Joh_13:33; Heb_2:17 occurs nowhere. But γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ occurs 1Jn_3:9; 1Jn_5:18 cf. 1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_2:4; 1Jn_4:7; and τέκνα θεοῦ in the very next verse 1Jn_3:1 consequently: he is born of (out of) God. “Justus justum gignit” (Bengel). We have therefore the valid conclusion: God is righteous, he that is born of (out of) God doeth righteousness. [Like begets like.—M.]. Hence Christ is neither the subject of δίκαιος and ἐξ αὐτοῦ (a Lapide, Bengel, Rickli, Frommann, al.), nor Christ the subject of δίκαιος and God the subject of ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Storr, Lücke, Heubner al.); but God is the subject of δίκαιος and ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Neander, Köstlin, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther, al.).

1Jn_2:29. If ye know that He is righteous.—Besides what has been said on δίκαιος at 1Jn_1:9; 1Jn_2:1, we have further to add that if God is ἅγιος as to His Essence, He is δίκαιος as to His doing, and just because He is ἀγάπη (1Jn_4:16), His energizing Will aims at the revelation of His holiness in laws at once agreeable to the holiness of His Being and adjusted to the nature and destination of His creatures, for whose benefit they are enacted, showing how His words are to be kept and His promises to be fulfilled, and how those who obey Him are to be rewarded and those who disobey him are to be punished. Legislation, denunciation and promise, punishment and reward, redemption and the forgiveness of sins are the acts and exhibitions of His δικαιοσύνη, which is the energy of His holy love directed outwardly, or the energy of His love conjoined with His holiness. Accordingly there is no righteousness whatever outside of God, or separate from God and His energizing, so that He is not only the prototype and original, but also the primordial source of all human righteousness. This is an important object of Christian knowledge, which, whilst it may indubitably be presupposed in the case of all Christians, is not always and readily found in the desired strength and purity in individual Christians. Hence ἐὰν εἰδῆτε. The Apostle appeals to the consciousness of the Church, desiring not to teach anything new but to render their knowledge vital and fruitful. [Hollaz: “Justitia Dei est attributum divinum ἐνεργητικόν, vi cujus Deus omnia quæ æternæ suæ legi sunt conformia, vult et agit; creaturis convenientes leges præscribit, promissa facta hominibus implet, bonos remuneratur et impios punit.” M.].

Know ye.—Since it is grammatically correct (Kühner II., p. 550) that such a supposition may be followed either by the Imperative or the Indicative of a chief tense, especially of the Future, the prominent use of the Indicative Future, which is very nearly related to the Imperative, renders it highly probable that our γινώσκετε is the Imperative. Now since we read at 1Jn_5:15 (referred to by de Wette and Düsterdieck) ἐὰν οἴδαμεν—οἴδαμεν, but in the verse immediately succeeding 1Jn_3:1, ἴδετε (to which Huther calls attention), the latter consideration decidedly out-weighs the former and constrains us to take γινώσκετε in the Imperative. To this must still be added the sense of the verb and the verse. The verb γινώσκειν denotes an activity ever deepening, quickening and enlarging, the knowing (εἰδέναι) grows thus into experimental knowing (γινώσκειν). The truth is the object of all knowing, and the Christian shall be led into all truth, that is, he is to know thoroughly, to pass on from one point which he knows and whereof he has cognition, to another [and a deeper knowing and insight—M.], even by the aid of the Holy Spirit. If ye know that He is righteous, ye know not yet, but are to know that—. Hence we must not construe here in the Indicative (Beza, Bengel, Düsterdieck, Ewald, Neander and al.) but in the Imperative (Vulgate, Grotius, de Wette, Lücke, Ebrard, Huther and al.).

That also every one who doeth righteousness has been born (out) of Him.—Καὶ indicates the relation of appurtenance and congruity of the second to the first thought. It does not belong, however, to γινώσκετε, as if only expressing a logical relation (Düsterdieck): if ye know—then ye know also (Neander); but it belongs to the subject, πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, and sets forth the relation of the two truths: God is righteous, and every one who doeth righteousness, is born of God. We have here to do with a real relation.—Ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is he that has the δικαιοσύνη within himself and causes it to be operative in his walk, his works, his words, his conduct and thinking, in his judgment, attitude, bearing and appearance, to come forth and become perceptible in himself. Doing is here not a merely outward and isolated act but an activity continuous and connected, having as much respect to the inward as to the outward, the energy of something possessed inwardly, of a gift received, of a communicated nature and life. Ποιῶν is emphatic; righteousness must be done, and not only lauded, confessed, preached, known, felt and believed. It may be done as yet imperfectly, in weakness, under repeated interruptions, but every Christian must and does do righteousness, πᾶς “omnis et solus” (Bengel). Nor is it enough to do only some parts of this righteousness, respect must be had to the whole τὴν δικαιοσύνην. As to the nature of this δικαιοσύνη we have to think of the righteousness which comes from God, passes before Him, is His and His work. It is, therefore, a righteousness, Divine as to its kind, an effluence of God’s primordial righteousness, from God Himself. It manifests itself in obedience to the Divine commandments, in shunning sin, in striving after holiness, in love of the brethren, in the life and growth of faith; and although much be wanting in its full exhibition and its perfection lie far remote, still this is the righteousness here referred to. Compare ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν 1Jn_1:6 and עָשָׂה צְדָקָה Gen_18:19; Isa_56:1; Ps. 14:15.—This points to a powerful and specific cause and condition, without which ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is impossible and inconceivable: ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται The Present ποιῶν, and the Perfect γεγέννηται denote the sequence; the first in order of existence is: to be born of (out of) God, the second, which is the effect and result of the former, is: to do the righteousness. Precisely this order was necessarily implied in the exposition of the substance of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην.—As with regard to δίκαιος the turns δικαιοσύνη and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην have to be taken in a full and living sense, so likewise the phrase ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννᾶσθαι. The reference is consequently to a beginning life, a birth, a coming into existence (becoming) of something which did not or does not yet exist; not only a change or an improvement, but something altogether new—and that out of God. The sense of the preposition ἐξ also, has doubtless to be held fast; out of Him, that is out of God’s Self-own Holy Essence. “Nasci ex Deo est naturam Dei acquirere” (Luther) or “constituitur in quadam participatione supernaturali esse divini” (de Lyra), having received a new being or nature out of God (Spener), perfectly analogous to γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, 2Pe_1:4.—Cf. Joh_3:3; Joh_3:5-6; Joh_1:12-13; Tit_3:6; Eph_4:23-24; Rom_12:2; 1Pe_1:3; 1Pe_1:23. There is a Divine seed (1Jn_3:9) in those who are born out of God; they have not become God, deified or absorbed in God or God absorbed in them, but only partakers of the Divine nature, germ-like, like new-born babes, so that a beginning has been made, but only a beginning, although the beginning of a life, Divine, coming from and leading to God, whose perfection is not wrought magically or by enchantment at one stroke, but is subject to the law of Divinely appointed growth. This birth out of God is a translation of man from death to life (1Jn_3:14), brings him to the Light of the world and gives him eternal life (1Jn_5:11; 1Jn_5:20), and effects the blessed result that God is in us and we in Him (1Jn_4:15), as the children of God (1Jn_3:1-2; 1Jn_3:9-10), out of God (1Jn_3:10). But this is brought about by means of an ethical life-process (1Jn_3:9; 1Jn_5:1). We become the children of God. But nothing is said here on this point, or on the mediation of Christ and faith in Him. We have therefore to set aside all expositions, which weaken the thought, like those of Socinus (“Dei similem esse”) and Rosenmüller (“Amari a Deo” and “beneficiis ab eo ornari,” or introduce a foreign element, like that of Hilgenfeld (a destiny and necessity of nature represented in gnostico-dualistic manner), and those which misapprehend or reverse the right order in making the doing of righteousness the condition of our adoption (Socinus, Episcopius, Semler, al.); the false relation also of doing righteousness to standing in the judgment (a Lapide, Emser, Estius) has to be excluded as irrelevant.—Lücke (2d ed.) says “properly one ought to have expected οτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐξ αὐτοῦ ποιεῖ τὴν δικαιοσύνην;” this is not correct although the thought is correct per se. John makes the perceptible and cognizable ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην a sure token of the hidden life of the inner man, which began with the birth out of God, of the adoption, of the life out of which death cannot destroy and which can glory against the judgment. The relation between γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is exactly like that between κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ θεοῦ and περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί in 1Jn_1:6.

Connection with the preceding, and development in the sequel.—The rich and independent thought is the introduction to or the text of the next part. Its fundamental tone is δίκαιός ἐστι, parallel to φῶς ἐστι, which is a further confirmation of the presumption that God is the subject. It is impossible to restrict the notion δίκαιος by the side of the inference which is here drawn from it, to justitia judicialis. Hence we must not seek or find an internal reciprocal relationship between the judgment, (to which 1Jn_2:28 is supposed to refer, but of which nothing is said, the reference being simply to Christ’s Advent), and righteousness; we need not think of the judicial function of the Divine righteousness nor of our being able to stand before the righteous Judge only through doing righteousness. But John in concluding the first part with the strong consolation which on the ground of the walk in light, adverts with hopeful promise to the blessed destination of Christians, passes from the παῤῥησία in the Advent to the thought of the Sonship, of the hope, the glory and heritage of the children of God. This is the connection with what goes before. The next main part of the Epistle is analytically divided by the development of this idea of a glorious birth out of God.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. God’s attribute of righteousness is not only energetically active, but also communicative.

2. The import of regeneration should be laid hold of by its indispensable consequence; viz.: ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, and even its nature defined as a beginning of a new, Divine life.

3. The vital power and root of a truly valid righteousness in our being and walking, lie not in man as he is, but only in God, and out of God only in man as he has become a Christian.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Determine [find out experimentally,—M.] what thou knowest.—Not only every gift of God is good and perfect, but both all the good, and all perfection are the gifts of Him, the Righteous one.—God gives and man—not only has but becomes [comes into existence.—M.].—God rules over thee and has His work in thee, that thou mayest become and remain His child.—Whatever is Divine prompts and impels the ethical, by which the Divine may be identified.—The cause of regeneration is the righteous God, and an ethical status is its mark and sign.

Spener:—No man has by nature the power to do right or to work righteousness, but it comes only from his regeneration, from Christ, who makes us strong by regeneration and His dwelling in us.

Lange:—The Gospel is careful with the law to connect the righteousness of faith with the righteousness of life and therein lies a true mark of a sincere evangelical preacher and a sincere evangelical hearer.

Starke:—Believers are assured by their doing right, that, they have become the children of God by grace, that consequently they may joyfully appear before the judgment seat of God knowing that no Father will suffer his children to be put to confusion of face, and in this faith and undoubting hope they may joyfully take leave of this world.

Besser:—The Apostle’s rejoicing over the present power of the children of God over sin is, as it were, a ladder on which he ascends to the glory that is still reserved for them; and the hope of this future glory impels him once more to charge his little children to use with all diligence the Christian virtue already accorded to them, uninfluenced by the seducers who pretended to be able to see the Lord without holiness.

[Ezek. Hopkins:—Those who do God’s commandments, have a right of heirship and inheritance unto eternal life. For they are born of God and therefore heaven is their patrimony, their paternal estate: for the Apostle saith “Every one that doeth righteousness is born of God,” and if they are born of God then according to St. Paul’s argument Rom_8:17 : “If children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ,” who is the “heir of all things.” The trial of thy legitimacy, whether thou art a true and genuine son of God will lie upon thy obedience to His commands, for “in this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil; whosoever is born of God does not commit sin … and whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” 1Jn_3:9-10. Now if by our obedience and dutifulness, it appears, that we are indeed the children of God, our Father will certainly give us a child’s portion; and that is no less than a kingdom. So saith our Saviour Luk_12:32; “Fear not, little flock: for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”—M.].

Footnotes:

[60] [1Jn_2:29. German: “If ye know that He is righteous, know ye.” The Imperative is found in the margin of E. V., Wicl. Tynd. Cranm. Rhemish, Syriac, Latin (except Pagn. Beza), German, Dutch, Italian and French versions, and adopted by the authorities cited below in Exeget. and Crit.—M.]

[61] καὶ after ὅτι and before πᾶς is the reading of A. C. Sin., many cursives and versions. “Cujus addendi nulla causa erat; ex Johannis vero usu est.” (Tischendorf, who omits it in his 7th edition). [If καὶ is genuine it serves “to mark the congruity of the inference and the premise,” as Ebrard observes.—M.]

[62] German: retaining καὶ: “that also every one that doeth the righteousness hath been born of Him.”—M.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 2:29. Ἐὰν εἰδῆτε, if ye know) From the mention of the future manifestation of the Son and the sons of God, he derives a new discussion on sin and righteousness.—δίκαιός ἐστι) Jesus Christ is Righteous: 1Jn 2:1; 1Jn 3:5-6.—γινώσκετε) ye acknowledge.—πᾶς) every one, and he alone.—γεγέννηται, is born) The righteous produces the righteous.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn_2:29. With this verse the third section begins, which continues to chap. 1Jn_3:22, and consists of two groups: (1) 1Jn_2:29 to 1Jn_3:10 a, and (2) 1Jn_3:10 b22.

After the apostle has warned them against the love of the κόσμος, and against the false teachers (who are ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου), he shows the obligation of Christians to δικαιοσύνη, in which they reveal themselves as τέκνα Θεοῦ, in contrast to the τέκνα διαβόλου.

1Jn_2:29. The apostle now goes on to indicate how it is consistent with the nature of Christians, as those that are born of God, to do righteousness.

ἐὰν εἰδῆτε] Here also the apostle directs himself to his readers own consciousness, as he does not want to teach them anything new, but only to state what they already know for their more earnest consideration.

ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι. The present ἐστι is not used, either here or in 1Jn_3:5, 1Jn_4:17, for ἦν (Storr). It is doubtful whether the subject is Christ (a Lapide, Lorinus, Bengel, Rickli, Frommann, Myrberg, 1st ed. of this Comm., etc.) or God (Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Gerlach, Köstlin, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, and others). In favour of the former is the fact that previously, not only in 1Jn_2:25 by αὐτός, and 1Jn_2:27 by ἐν αὐτῷ, but also in 1Jn_2:28 by φανερωθῇ, ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, and ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Christ is clearly meant; for the latter, that in the following ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, the pronoun refers back to the subject of δίκαιός ἐστι, and the idea γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ Χριστοῦ never appears in the writing, and, moreover, John, in what follows, calls Christians τέκνα Θεοῦ, and in 1Jn_2:9 makes use of the expression γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. 1Jn_4:7, 1Jn_5:1; 1Jn_5:4; 1Jn_5:18). From the predicate δίκαιος nothing can be inferred, as this attribute is assigned by John both to God (1Jn_1:9) and Christ (1Jn_2:1). As, with Johns peculiar blending of the Father and the Son (or of God and Christ), it would not be easy to explain how he can pass from the one to the other without specially indicating it, it appears more safe, in accordance with the constant mode of conception and expression in the Epistle, to supply as the subject of δίκαιός ἐστι God, than Christ. It is inappropriate, with Storr, Lücke, and others, to refer δίκαιος to Christ, and ἐξ αὐτοῦ, on the other hand, to God, because the thought of the apostle would thereby lose its peculiar force (Bengel: justus justum gignit).[186]

The statement that God is δίκαιος corresponds with the statement that He is φῶς (chap. 1Jn_1:5); it does not follow from 1Jn_2:28 that by δίκαιος here the justitia judicialis is to be understood; Erdmann: quum ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ad δίκαιός ἐστι referendum sit, hoc justitiam Dei sensu judiciali significare nequit, sed absolutam ejus sanctitatem.

γινώσκετε] is here not to be regarded as the indicative (Beza, Bengel, Semler, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, and others), but, as its position between μένετε (1Jn_2:27) and ἴδετε (chap. 1Jn_3:1) shows, as the imperative: then know, i.e. observe and reflect, with Vulgate, Grotius, Russmeyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Lücke, Erdmeyer, Ebrard, Braune, and others.

ὅτι πᾶς … γεγέννηται] The same relationship in which, according to chap. 1Jn_1:6, κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ Θεοῦ and περιπατεῖν ἐκ τῷ φωτί stand to one another, exists between γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην (so also Braune), inasmuch as the latter is the practical proof of the former, so that every one who practises righteousnessbut no one else (Bengel: omnis et solus)is born of God. That when Episcopius describes the nasci ex Deo, not as the condition, but as the result of the exercitii justitiae, he perverts the thought of the apostle, needs no proof. The right interpretation in Bengel, Neander, Besser, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Brückner, Braune, Weiss.[187] By ΤῊΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΝ it is plainly righteousness, in the full extent of the idea, that is described; with the expression ΠΟΙΕῖΝ ΤῊΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΝ, compare the synonymous idea ΠΟΙΕῖΝ ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ (chap. 1Jn_1:6); similarly in Hebrew עָשָׂה צְדָקָה; Gen_18:19; Isa_56:1; Psa_14:1-5; in the N. T. comp. Mat_6:1. On ΠΟΙΕῖΝ an emphasis is placed which must not be overlooked; comp. chap. 1Jn_3:18; for now is the truth of the experience and of the word first proved in deed.

In ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγ. we must retain ἐξ in its proper meaning; explanations which weaken it, such as that of Socinus: dei similem esse, or of Rosenmüller: amari a deo, are of course to be rejected (Braune); the relation of the perfect γεγέννηται to the present ποιῶν is to be observed.[188]

[186] Sander would leave the question undecided; still he correctly states the alternative: If δίκαιος must be referred to Christ, so also must ἐξ αὐτοῦ. But if the latter cannot be, if ἐξ αὐτοῦ can only be referred to God, then δίκαιος must also be referred to God.

[187] The thought that only he who is born of God can practise righteousness, is not exactly expressed here by John, but it is suggested in the preceding πᾶ;. When Lücke in his 2d ed. says: We might have properly expected ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ποιεῖ τὴν δικαιοσύνην; but John would appear to have the purpose of exciting in his readers the consciousness of sonship to God in Christ, therefore he states the reversed relation,this is erroneous, since it is rather ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην that has the chief emphasis; in his 1st ed. Lücke correctly stated the thought of the apostle.

[188] The definition of Weiss: The being born of God is the act by which the known nature of God, and therewith God Himself, who indeed is received into our entire spiritual life as the object of that intuitive knowledge, operates determiningly, mouldingly, regeneratingly, upon our spiritual and moral being, is in various aspects unsuitable; for (1) it is not so much the act of God as rather the activity of man, his knowledge, which is represented as causing the being born of God; (2) it is erroneous to describe the birth as producing, since the birth is the result of the generating activity; (3) it is no doubt true that the birth is brought about by knowledge, for it is only by producing in man the knowledge of His nature that God produces in him the new birth; but, on the other hand, it is just as true that the knowledge of God is conditioned by the being born of God: only he who is born of God knows God; there are two grades of the knowledge to be distinguished, namely, the knowledge as condition, and the knowledge as result, of being born of God.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Jn 2:29 . In view of the preceding verse δίκαιος must refer to Christ ( cf. 1Jn 2:1 ), and it is equally certain that ἐξ αὐτοῦ refers to the Father, since “begotten of Christ” ( cf. Tennyson’s “our fair father Christ”) is not a Scriptural idea. The abrupt transition evinces St. John’s sense of the oneness of the Father and the Son ( cf. 1Jn 2:24 ; Joh 10:30 ). γινώσκετε , scitote (Vulg.), rather cognoscite (Calv.), “get to know,” “recognise” (see note on 1Jn 2:3 ); perceive the blessed inference, appropriate your birthright. It enfeebles the sentence to take the verb as indicat.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29. For εἰδῆτε ([549][550][551], Vulgate) [552][553][554] and some Versions read ἴδητε. Before πᾶς insert καὶ with [555][556][557], Peschito, Thebaic, and Vulgate against [558][559][560]. [561] and some Versions omit both καὶ and πᾶς.

[549] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[550] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[551] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1Jn 1:1 to 1Jn 4:2; 3Jn 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[552] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

[553] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[554] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[555] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[556] 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. All three Epistles.

[557] 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Part of the First and Third Epistles; 1Jn 1:1 to 1Jn 4:2; 3Jn 1:3-14. Of the whole N.T. the only Books entirely missing are 2 John and 2 Thessalonians.

[558] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[559] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[560] 9th century. All three Epistles.

[561] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

In nearly all these cases [562] preserves the original text. The combination [563][564] in no instance yields a doubtful reading.

[562] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

[563] 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at Petersburg. All three Epistles.

[564] 4th century. Brought to Rome about 1460. It is entered in the earliest catalogue of the Vatican Library, 1475. All three Epistles.

1Jn 2:29 to 1Jn 3:12. THE CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL

29. ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν. This probably does not mean Christ, although the preceding verse refers entirely to Him. ‘To be born of Christ,’ though containing “nothing abhorrent from our Christian ideas,” is not a Scriptural expression; whereas ‘to be born of God’ is not only a common thought in Scripture, but is specially common in this Epistle and occurs in the very next verse. And clearly ‘He’ and ‘Him’ must be interpreted alike: it destroys the argument (ὁ δίκαιος δικαίους γεννᾷ, justus justum gignit, as Oecumenius and Bengel put it) to interpret ‘He is righteous’ of Christ and ‘born of Him’ of God. Moreover, this explanation gets rid of one abrupt change by substituting another still more abrupt. That ‘He, Him, His’ in 1Jn 2:28 means Christ, and ‘He, Him’ in 1Jn 2:29 means God, is some confirmation of the view that a new division of the letter begins with 1Jn 2:29. That ‘God is righteous’ see 1Jn 1:9 and Joh 17:25. But S. John is so full of the truth that Christ and the Father are one, and that Christ is God revealed to man, that he makes the transition from one to the other almost imperceptibly. Bede interprets both δίκαιός ἐστιν and ἐξ αὐτοῦ of Christ.

γινώσκετε. Once more we are in doubt as to indicative or imperative: see on 1Jn 2:27. The Vulgate has scitote, and hence Wiclif and the Rhemish, as also Tyndale and Cranmer, have the imperative. But the indicative is more in harmony with 1Jn 2:20-21: Ye know that everyone also, i.e. not only Christ, but every righteous believer, is a son of God. Beza has nostis, which the Genevan mistranslates ‘ye have known’. Note the change from εἰδῆτε to γινώσκετε, the one expressing the knowledge that is intuitive or simply possessed, the other that which is acquired by experience: ‘If ye are aware that God is righteous, ye must recognise, &c.’ Contrast 1Jn 2:11; 1Jn 2:20-21 with 1Jn 2:3-5; 1Jn 2:13-14; 1Jn 2:18. Comp. ὃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ σὺ οὐκ οἶδας ἄρτι, γνώσῃ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα (Joh 13:7): πάντα σὺ οἶδας σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε (Joh 21:17): and conversely, εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ἤδειτε (Joh 14:7).

ὁ ποιῶν. ‘That habitually doeth:’ not the fact of having done a righteous act here and there, but the habit of righteousness, proves sonship. Morality in the highest sense can come of no lower source than God. τὴν δικαιοσύνην. The article possibly means His righteousness, or the righteousness that is rightly known as such; but it is safer to omit it in translation. The omission of the article before abstract nouns is the rule; but the exceptions are very numerous, and among the exceptions are the many cases in which the article is used for a possessive pronoun. Winer, 148. Again, “the Article is rightly prefixed to words by which a system of action, familiar to the mind as such, is intended to be signified” (Green, Grammar of the N.T. p. 17). It is difficult to decide between these two explanations, but the latter seems better. Comp. ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγἐννηται. Of Him hath he been begotten and His child he remains: ἐξ αὐτοῦ first for emphasis. Just as only he who habitually walks in the light has true fellowship with the God who is light (1Jn 1:6-7), so only he who habitually does righteousness is a true son of the God who is righteous. Thus the writer to Diognetus says that the Christian is Λόγῳ προσφιλεῖ γεννηθείς, while the Son is πάντοτε νέος ἐν ἁγίων καρδίαις γεννώμενος (xi.). Other signs of the Divine birth are love of the brethren (1Jn 4:7) and faith in Jesus as the Christ (1Jn 5:1). Righteousness begins in faith and ends in love.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:29-5:5.] The second great division of the Epistle: the doing of righteousness, the sign of new birth from God: the opposite, the sign of not being of God. This main subject, enunciated in verse 29, is carried onward throughout, and more especially with reference to brotherly love, which is the great and obvious example of likeness to God, and its absence the most decisive proof of alienation from Him. The various subdivisions see, as the exegesis proceeds.

2:29-3:3.] Connected with the principle enounced 2:29, is its obvious application to ourselves, as children of God. Hoping as we do to be entirely like Christ at His appearing, each one of us, in pursuance of this hope, is even now approximating to this perfect likeness by purifying himself even as He is pure.

29.] If ye know (appeal to their recognition of the divine character as that which he describes it) that He is righteous (of whom is this said? If of Christ, as seems most natural after αὐτοῦ.… αὐτοῦ preceding, we find a difficulty in ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται below, seeing that we are never said to be born anew of Christ, but always of God (through Christ), ch. 3:1, 9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18 &c. If on the other hand they are said of God, it seems strange that after a change of reference from the preceding αὐτοῦ, another subject should be expressed in ch. 3:1 by the words ὁ πατήρ. In consequence of these difficulties, some, as Storr, Lücke, al., have referred δίκαιός ἐστιν to Christ, and ἐξ αὐτοῦ to God; which cannot well be. It would be possible, doubtless, to understand the whole of Christ, without change of subject from ver. 28; and to leave the γεγέννηται ἐξ αὐτοῦ as we find it. If it occurs no where else in reference to Christ, there is in it nothing abhorrent from our Christian ideas. And in St. John’s sense of the intimate union between the Father and Son, he who is born of the Father might be said to be born of the Son also. Another reason for this might be the easily occurring reference, in δίκαιός ἐστιν, to Ἰησοῦν χριστὸν δίκαιον, ver. 1. This view is taken by Bengel, Corn.-a-lap., Lorinus, al. But after all, the other, which is that of most ancient expositors, of Baumg.-Crus., De Wette, Neander, Düsterdieck, al., must, I apprehend, be adopted. The analogy of the passage, as shewn in ch. 3:1, 2, 9, 10, fixes the ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται to birth from God: and the absence of a new expressed subject in δίκαιός ἐστιν must be accounted for by remembering that this verse, as ch. 1:5, is the opening, and general statement, of a new section of the Epistle. And the essential unity of the Father and the Son comes in on this side also: so that the judgment alluded to ver. 28, which shall be executed by the Son, being judgment committed to Him by the Father, brings to mind the justice and righteousness in which that judgment is founded.

The whole subject of the righteousness of God is fully treated by Düsterd. in his note here. The definition which seems to him to express it most fully, is that of Hollaz, one of the best of the old Lutheran dogmatists (died 1713),—in his Examen theologicum,—“Justitia Dei est attributum divinum ἐνεργητικόν, vi cujus Deus omnia qnæ æternæ suæ legi sunt conformia, vult et agit; creaturis convenientes leges præscribit, promissa facta hominibus implet, bonos remuneratur et impios punit”): ye know (many, as vulg., which Aug., Bede, and the R.-C. expositors follow, also Luth., Calv., Socin., Episcop., Grot., Carpzov., Lücke, Sander, al., take γινώσκετε as imperative. But the whole tone of the Epistle is against this: which is one not of authoritative revelation of truth, but of inferring ethical truth from previously known theosophic facts. And with such a tone it is much more consonant to say, “If ye know the one, ye know—that knowledge sets forth and assumes—the other:” than to say, “If ye know the one, know the other.” Not to insist, that γινώσκειν is more the apprehension, εἴδητε the possession, of knowledge; if ye are already aware, … ye thereby know …) that also every one who doeth righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην, the righteousness which is implied in δίκαιος above: if it were not too strong, we might almost say, “that righteousness:” the art. shewing that there is no other. πᾶς, “omnis, et solus,” says Bengel: every one, and no one else. The proposition will bear converting: not logically, but theologically, ποιῶν, for (see Hollaz’s definition above) all righteousness is energetic: it springs out of holiness, truth, love: πρακτικαὶ γὰρ αἱ ἀρεταί, καὶ ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι ἔχουσι τὸ εἶναι· παυσάμεναι γὰρ ἢ μέλλουσαι οὐδὲ τὸ εἶναι ἔχουσι. Œc. on ch. 3:3), is born (= hath been begotten) of Him (God: see above: ὁ δίκαιος γὰρ δικαίους γεννᾷ.

The inference here must be carefully kept to the Apostle’s words and obvious sense. And those require that we should understand it thus: God is righteous. This is our axiom, from which we set out. And if so, then the source of righteousness. When therefore a man doeth righteousness, γινώσκομεν, we apprehend, we collect, from our previous knowledge of these truths, that the source of his righteousness is God: that in consequence he has acquired by new birth from God, that righteousness which he had not by nature. We argue from his ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην to his γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ. And the right apprehension of this is the more important, because the whole mass of Socinian and Pelagian Commentators have reversed the members of the argument, and made it conclude that ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is the condition, on our part, of becoming a child of God. So Socinus, Episcopius, Grot., Hammond, Semler, Rosenmüller, al. And the R.-C. expositors, while they avoid this error, making the good works spoken of to be, as Lyra, “opera justitiæ infusæ, quæ datur cum gratia, per quam homo constituitur in quadam participatione supernaturali esse divini,” yet go equally wrong, in understanding γεγέννηται not as the statement of a past and abiding fact, but as the ground of a confidence as to the future: “habebit omnimodam fiduciam, quia judici suo justo similis, imo ex ipso natus est, hoc est, ipsius filius et hæres est.” Corn.-a-lap.).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A passing over to the treatise following, which tendeth to the same purpose, but yet is more ample, and handleth the same matter after another order: for before he taught us to go up from the effects to the cause, and in this that followeth, he goeth down from the causes to the effects. And this is the sum of the argument: God is the fountain of all righteousness: and therefore they that give themselves to righteousness, are known to be born of him, because they resemble God the Father.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 29. If ye know that he is righteous] That God is a holy God, ye know also, that every one who doeth righteousness-who lives a holy life, following the commandments of God, is born of him, BEGOTTEN of him-is made a partaker of the Divine nature, without which he could neither have a holy heart, nor live a holy life.

This verse properly belongs to the following chapter, and should not be separated from it. The subject is the same, and does not stand in any strict relation to that with which the 28th verse concludes.

THE titles bestowed on Christians in the New Testament have been misunderstood by many. What belongs, strictly speaking, to the PURE and HOLY, is often applied to those who, though bound by their PROFESSION to be such, were very far from it. This has been strongly denied by writers who should have known better. Dr. Taylor has handled this point well in his Key to the Apostolic Writings, from which I have given a copious extract in my preface to the Epistle to the Romans, from the conviction that the subject had been most dangerously misapprehended; and that several of the worst heresies which disgrace religion had sprung from this misapprehension. With some, Dr. Taylor's being an Arian was sufficient to invalidate any testimony he might offer; but it is no discovery of Dr. Taylor; it is what every attentive, unprejudiced reader finds on reading the Old Testament in connection with the New. Perhaps the testimony of a judicious Calvinist may be better received, not that this truth needs the testimony of either, because it everywhere speaks for itself, but because those who have too little grace, sense, and candour to search for themselves, may be pleased that Dr. Macknight saves them the trouble.

After having remarked that the words born of him, εξαυτου γεγεννηται, should be translated hath been BEGOTTEN of him, which is the literal signification of the word, from γενναω, genero, gigno, I beget, (BORN of God being nowhere found in the Scripture,) he goes on to say:-

"To understand the import of the high titles which in the New Testament are given to the disciples of Christ, viz.: the begotten of God, as here; children of God, as in the next chapter; heirs of God, Ro 8:17; elect of God-adopted of God-saints-a royal priesthood-a holy nation-a peculiar people, 1Pet 2:9; the following observations may be of use.

"1. These high titles were anciently given to the Israelites as a nation, because they were separated from mankind to be God's visible Church, for the purpose of preserving the knowledge and worship of him in the world, as the only true God.

"This appears from God's own words, Ex 19:3-6, c.: Tell the children of Israel Ye have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. De 14:1-2, c.: Ye are the children of the Lord your God-for thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God. In particular, the title of God's Son, even his first-born, was given to the whole Israelitish nation by God himself, Ex 4:22, chiefly because they were the descendants of Isaac, who was supernaturally begotten by Abraham, through the power which accompanied the promise, Ge 18:10: Lo, Sarah shall have a son. So St. Paul informs us, Ro 9:7: Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children (namely of God;) but in Isaac shall a seed be to thee-the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted for the seed. The apostle's meaning is, that Ishmael and his posterity, whom Abraham procreated by his own natural strength, being children of the flesh, were not children of God; that is, they were not made the visible Church and people of God. But Isaac and his descendants, whom Abraham procreated through the strength which accompanied the promise, being more properly procreated by GOD than by Abraham, were the children of God, i.e. were made the visible Church and people of God, because, by their supernatural generation and title to inherit Canaan, they were a fit image to represent the catholic invisible Church of God, consisting of believers of all ages and nations, who, being regenerated by the Spirit of God, are the true children of God, and heirs of the heavenly country of which Canaan was a type.

"2. As the promise, Lo, Sarah shall have a son, which was given to Abraham when he was a hundred years old, and Sarah was ninety, implied that that son was to be supernaturally procreated; so the promise given to Abraham, Ge 17:5, A father of many nations have I constituted thee, implied that the many nations of believers who, by this promise, were given to Abraham for a seed, were to be generated by the operation of the Spirit of God, producing in them faith and obedience, similar to those for which Abraham was constituted the father of all believers. This higher generation, by which believers have the moral image of God communicated to them, is well described, Joh 1:12: As many as received him, to them gave he power to be called the sons of God, even to them who believe on his name; οιεγεννηθησαν, who were BEGOTTEN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. That is: Men become the true sons of God, not by their being naturally descended from this or that father, nor by their being called the sons of God by men like themselves, but by God's bestowing on them that high appellation on account of their faith and holiness," (which were produced in them by their regeneration through the Spirit of God.)

"3. If the Israelites, of whom the ancient visible Church and people of God were composed, were all called the sons of God because Isaac, from whom they were descended, was supernaturally begotten by the power of God; certainly the believers of all ages and nations, of whom the visible Church is composed, may with much greater propriety be called the sons of God, since they are begotten of God, and possess his moral nature.

"4. Thus it appears that the high titles above mentioned, namely, the sons of God, the children of God, the elect of God, the adoption of sons, the election, saints, holy nation, royal priesthood, peculiar people, were anciently given to the Israelites AS A NATION, merely on account of their being the visible Church and people of God, without any regard to the personal character of the individuals of whom that nation was composed. It appears, also, that under the Gospel the same high titles were bestowed on whole Churches, merely on account of their profession of Christianity, without any regard to the personal character of the individuals who composed these Churches. But these high titles, with some others of greater importance, such as the begotten of God, the heirs of God, the adoption, were given in an appropriated sense to individuals likewise, on account of their faith and holiness. When given to whole Churches, these titles imported nothing more than that the society to which they were given was a Church of Christ, (i.e. professed Christianity,) and that the individuals of which that society was composed were entitled to all the privileges belonging to the visible Church of God. But when appropriated to individuals, these titles implied that the persons to whom they were given were really partakers of the nature of God; and that they were the objects of his paternal love, and heirs of his glory.

"Wherefore, in reading the Scriptures, by attending to the different foundations of these titles, and by considering whether they are applied to Churches or individuals, we shall easily understand their true import. Thus, when St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says, 1Th 1:4, Knowing, brethren, beloved of God, your election, he could not mean their election to eternal life, since many of them were living disorderly, 2Th 3:11, but their election to be the visible Church of God under the Gospel; whereas, when John, in the verse before us, says, Every one who doeth righteousness hath been begotten of God, by restricting the title to a specific character he teaches us that the persons of whom he speaks are the sons of God in the highest sense, and heirs of eternal glory." How forcible are right words! See also the introduction to the Epistle to the Romans.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

29. If ye know that he is righteous He again passes on to exhortations, so that he mingles these continually with doctrine throughout the Epistle; but he proves by many arguments that faith is necessarily connected with a holy and pure life. The first argument is, that we are spiritually begotten after the likeness of Christ; it hence follows, that no one is born of Christ but he who lives righteously. It is at the same time uncertain whether he means Christ or God, when he says that they who are born of him do righteousness. It is a mode of speaking certainly used in Scripture, that we are born of God in Christ; but there is nothing inconsistent in the other, that they are born of Christ, who are renewed by his Spirit.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

If ye know that he is righteous,.... That is, Christ, who is righteous as God in his nature and in his works; and as man in his obedience, life, and conversation; and as Mediator, in faithfully discharging the work he undertook; and is the author of an everlasting righteousness, which is imputed by God, revealed in the Gospel, and received by faith; all which they knew, for this is not said as doubting, but rather as taking it for granted that they did know it; "if", or "seeing ye know", &c. then it follows;

ye know, or "know ye"; ye may assure yourselves,

that everyone that doeth righteousness; not merely works of righteousness, especially in order to justify him before God; for such an one is so far from being born of God, or born again, that he is manifestly in a state of nature, and of opposition to, and enmity against God; he is not subject to him, he does not submit to the righteousness of God, but goes about to establish his own and betrays his ignorance and want grace; but it intends such an one who with the heart believes unto righteousness, and lays hold by faith, and lives upon the righteousness of Christ for justification; and who performs, good, works in faith, and from a principle of love, not to obtain a justifying righteousness, but because he is justified by the righteousness of Christ: and: such an one

is born of him; either of God, or rather, of Christ; being regenerated by his Spirit, having his, grace implanted in him, as appears by his faith in his righteousness and by his works of righteousness, as fruits of faith; and having his image stamped on him, and he himself formed in him, and so made like unto him; by all which it is evident he is one of his spiritual seed and offspring. The Syriac version reads, "is of him"; belongs to him, is one of his; and this makes way for what is said of adoption in the following chapter and which should begin here.

Next: 1 John Chapter 3

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

Ver. 29. Is born of him] And exactly resembles him, as a child doth his father. See 1Pe 1:17. {See Trapp on "Mat 5:9"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If ye know that he is righteous - This is not said as if there could be any doubt on the subject, but merely to call their attention to it as a well-known truth, and to state what followed from it. Everyone who has any true acquaintance with God, must have the fullest conviction that he is a righteous Being. But, if this be so, John says, then it must follow that only those who are truly righteous can regard themselves as begotten of Him.

Ye know - Margin, “know ye.” The Greek will bear either construction, and either would make good sense. Assuming that God is righteous, it would be proper to state, as in the text, that it followed from this that they must know that only those who are righteous can be regarded as begotten of Him; or, assuming this to be true, it was proper to exhort them to be righteous, as in the margin. Whichever interpretation is adopted, the great truth is taught, that only those who are truly righteous can regard themselves as the children of God.

That everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him - Or rather, is begotten of Him; is truly a child of God. This truth is everywhere taught in the Bible, and is worthy of being often repeated. No one who is not, in the proper sense of the term, a righteous man, can have any wellfounded pretensions to being regarded as a child of God. If this be so, then it is not difficult to determine whether we are the children of God.

(1)If we are unjust, false, dishonest, we cannot be His children.

(2)If we are indulging in any known sin, we cannot be.

(3)If we are not truly righteous, all visions and rapture, all zeal and ardor, though in the cause of religion, all that we may pride ourselves on in being fervent in prayer, or eloquent in preaching, is vain.

(4)If we are righteous, in the true and proper sense, doing that which is right toward God and toward people, to ourselves, to our families, to our neighbors, to the world at large, to the Saviour who died for us, then we are true Christians; and then, no matter how soon he may appear, or how solemn and overwhelming the scenes that shall close the world, we shall not be ashamed or confounded, for we shall hail him as our Saviour, and rejoice that the time has come that we may go and dwell with him forever.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Lest he should be thought only solicitous to preserve among them the right notions of the Christian docrine, as if that alone would suffice them for their salvation and blessedness, (which was the conceit of the Gnostics, touching their own notions, that the entertaining of them would save men, whatsoever men they were, or howsoever they lived), he subjoins this serious monition:

If ye know, & c., intimating, that whatsoever they had of the knowledge of God would avail them nothing, if, whereas

he is righteous, they were not transformed by it into his likeness, and enabled thereby to

do righteousness, which alone would evidence their Divine birth, since God hath no children destitute of his image, or who resemble him not.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

29. He—The Holy One of 1Jn_2:20, God the Father.

Born of him—Is, by the chrism of the Holy One, so conformed to his image as to become his son, the younger brother of Christ. This verse properly belongs to the next chapter.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This verse forms a bridge between the two main divisions of the Epistle. The coming of Christ suggests the righteousness of Christ; for it is as the righteous Judge that he is coming, and those who would not be ashamed to meet him at his coming must be righteous also. Once more (verse 27) we are in doubt between indicative and imperative: ginwskete, in spite of the preceding menete and following i]dete, is probably indicative. To know that God (not Christ; comp. 1Jn_1:9; Joh_17:25) is righteous is to perceive that every doer of his thn righteousness is a son of God (not of Christ; we are nowhere in Scripture said to be born of Christ). To partake of that righteousness which is God"s nature is proof of birth from him. With poiein thnhn, compare poiein than (1Jn_1:6; Joh_3:21) Righteousness must be shown in conduct; mere desire to be righteous will not suffice. And the conduct must be habitual oJ poiwn not oJ poihsav; a single act of righteousness will not suffice. Note to come to know (by experience) that who the change from eijdhte to ginwskete.To ever habitually acts righteously is God" know (intuitively) that God is righteous is offspring.

Re-born!

This verse marks a transition. It is not, indeed, absolutely disconnected from the preceding ones, but yet it rather prepares the way for what is about to follow. One phrase therein contained of him is much used by the Apostle John; as Bishop Alexander remarks (in "Speaker"s Commentary," in loc. ), "it is one of the loops which connect this Epistle with the Fourth Gospel;" and it is also grandly developed in its meaning and bearing in the remaining chapters of this Epistle. Another feature of the verse is its recognition of different orders of knowledge, as indicated by the use of the two verbs eijdhte and ginwskete the one marking knowledge direct and absolute; the other, a knowledge gained by observation and inference. The latter verb may be either indicative or imperative. We may read, "If ye know ye perceive," or, "If ye know perceive ye." We adopt the latter, understanding the apostle to point it out as a duty to exercise rightly the spiritual faculties, and, so doing, to draw the conclusion, when they see a man practicing righteousness habitually, that that man has received his love of righteousness front the Righteous One. The ejan here by no means marks an uncertainty as to whether Christ is righteous, but merely indicates concerning the two facts named in the text that, wherever a man knows the first, he ought to be equally assured of the second. Our text, therefore, suggests

I HERE IS A FACT PUT BEFORE US DIRECTLY IN THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION. There is a Righteous One. (cf verse 1; Act_3:14; 1Pe_3:18) Inasmuch, moreover, as he, the Son, is" the Image of the invisible God," then in the righteousness of the Son we see imaged that also of the Father. And thus we come to know it as the supreme declaration of revealed truth that righteousness is on the throne of the universe. The philosophy of today declares, "Amid the mysteries which become the more mysterious the more they are thought about, there will remain the one absolute certainty that he the man of science is ever in presence of an infinite and eternal energy from which all things proceed." To this "absolute certainty" of the man of science, revelation adds that that infinite and eternal energy is light without a speck of darkness (chapter 1:4); love which changeth not; righteousness without a flaw. We know this.

II HERE IS A SECOND FACT GATHERED INDIRECTLY FROM CHRISTIAN OBSERVATION. It is this: Supposing a man to be continuously living a righteous life, we can gather from thence that he is drawing his life from the Righteous One. Note: It is not a casual or occasional good deed which will manifest this. But the continuity of righteousness always, everywhere, under all circumstances, and in spite of all temptations, oJ poiwn. Given, then, this man, what are the inferences which we ought with certainty to draw? See him; his course is no uncertain, fickle one; be is in love with righteousness, and with nothing but righteousness; towards God his most devout, reverent love goes forth; towards man he is uniformly true and kind. As for himself; the soul regulates the body, the spirit governs the soul, and God governs all. Tell us what he ought to be and do at any moment, and we can tell you what he will be and do at that moment. Tell us where he ought to be at any instant, and we will tell you where at that instant you may be sure to find him. His path is as the light, brighter and brighter to the perfect day. Now, when we see such a man, what do we with certainty know about him?

1. We know that he is alive. "Alive unto God." lie is a spiritual man. He has passed from death unto life.

2. We know that such a life is from God. It is divinely originated and sustained. A stream can rise no higher than its source. Only a spiritual Being could originate such a spiritual life. The Divine Spirit has quickened the human. (Eph_1:1-6)

3. We know that such a life is begotten, of the Divine nature. The physical world is God"s handiwork. The social and moral worlds are called into being by his power. The order of the cosmos proclaims wisdom and skill. But not hero is there aught which is begotten of God, or which is the outcome of his very nature. Music, beauty, fragrance, are all of God: but they are not born of God. But here, here in this man whose whole nature is renewed to righteousness, there is one whom God has made in his own image and in the image of his Son.

4. We know that such a life is a very special product. It is one which is a peculiar manifestation of God. You may learn what an architect is as an architect by seeing the buildings he has designed. But you may learn more of what he was as a man from one of his children than of all the products of his designing genius. So here, and. much more so. When the Spirit of God creates and sustains a nature in holiness, such a nature is, in its way, a manifestation of himself.

5. We know that such a life sustains a peculiar relation to God. Being "born" of him, the man is in God"s family one of his sons. Not in the general sense alone, in which we all are the offspring of God, but in a higher sense; he is a member of "the household of God of one family in heaven and on earth. Of what in privilege and prospect accrues to those "born of God" we shall speak further as we follow the apostle in his thought. Here we take our stand and say," When we know that a man resembles God in nature," we are sure that he is a child of God by the second birth, even of the Holy Ghost.

III TO RECOGNIZE ONE WHO RESEMBLES GOD, AS HAVING BEEN BORN OF HIM, IS A SACRED DUTY. "Know ye" (margin, Revised Version) is most in harmony with the context. But whether John means that we d know it, or that we ought to know it, either way the practical force is the same. For:

1. In the band of holy God-moved men we see the very highestmanifestation of God"s nature which earth affords.

2. In these we see the home of God"s delight. He dwells with his own, andcommunes with them. They have fellowship with the Father. 3, In these we see those of mankind who are ripening for a higher destiny, and whose radiant faces shine in the light of a nobler state.

3. This conclusion is not to be denied to any because they "follow not us,"nor because they do not belong to this or that Church. Wherever there is a God-like man, there is a Heaven-born one.

4. This conclusion is not to be drawn where there is no holiness of heart and life, however high the rank, or sound the creed, or rigid the Churchmanship, or constant the reception of sacraments. Without holiness "no man shall see the Lord."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Everyone - And none else. Who practiceth righteousness - From a believing, loving heart. Is born of him - For all his children are like himself.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Our apostle concludes the chapter with an exhortation to holiness and righteousness; assuring them, that if they be sensible (as they must necessarily be) that God is righteous, essentially and infinitely holy and righteous; they may and ought to know also, that whosoever is born of him and doth receive a new nature from him, doth certainly endeavour to live unto him, and to walk before him as his child in a way of obedience, and to expect favour and protection from him as from a Father.

Learn hence, That all that sincerely live a righteous life towards God and man, are certainly born of God; and such as are born of God do certainly live that righteous life; then, and only then, may we know that we are indeed God’s children, when the image of our heavenly Father is instamped upon us, and the disposition of his children wrought in us; when there is a happy conformity in our natures to the holiness of God’s nature, and in our lives to the righteousness of his law; when he beholds his own face in the glass of our souls, and loves us for his own image instamped and impressed upon us.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 6

REGENERATION INDUCES SANCTIFICATION ANTICIPATORY OF TRANSFIGURATION

29. “If you know that He is righteous you know that every one who doeth righteousness has been born of Him.” This verse sweeps Antichristianity, i.e., salvation by human works, forever from the field. True religion is the work of God; and false, that of men. You see from this verse that is utterly impossible for an unregenerated person to do righteousness. You must receive righteousness from the Holy Ghost before you can possibly do it.

1. “Behold what wondrous divine love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we may be called the children of God, and we are.” This world is wiser than we think. They generally call things what they are. It is a significant fact that the people who believe and profess entire sanctification by a second work of grace after regeneration, are alone in all the world this day called “holy” by the people of the world. Others claim to be holy, and to have received it in conversion. But the world does not so recognize them, nor call them holy.

2. John had witnessed our Savior’s transfiguration and beheld His glory on the mount. He here assures us that when our Lord shall appear His saints who fill the above description, i.e., emptied of sin and endued with the holy unction, so they will not “shrink with embarrassment in His presence,” shall all be transfigured like our Lord when he saw Him on the mount and when He ascended up to heaven.

3. “Every one having this hope on Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.” Certainly all the truly regenerate entertain the hope of seeing Jesus in His glory. John makes no compromise with a bogus Christianity, but assures us that all true Christians do press forward into entire sanctification, i.e., “purify themselves, even as Christ is pure.” This is certainly a high standard of Christian purity. Holiness is original in God and imparted to us, so that we actually have the holiness of our Savior. Hence we see that the popular churchism which fights the doctrine of purity can not be God’s regeneration, but it is Satan’s counterfeit. Every time Christian takes the purity of Christ as his standard, and presses unto it at every conceivable sacrifice. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

4. John gives two clear definitions of sin, i.e., a “transgression of the law,” which is actual sin, and must be removed by pardon, and “unrighteousness,” which is inbred sin, and must be expurgated by the cleansing blood.

5. The great mission for which Christ came into the world was to take away sin.

6. “Every one abiding in Him sinneth not; every one sinning doth not see Him nor know Him.” This verse forever refutes the nonsensical heresy of Satan’s preachers, who stand in the pulpit and preach a sinning religion to the people. If you are not in Christ, you are in Satan. No one can possibly abide in Christ and commit a known and willing sin. Criminals find dark places in which to perpetrate their crimes. Here it says positively that no one who sees or knows God commits any sin. All sin belongs to Satan’s darkness. It is never committed in the light of the Divine Presence.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29. If ye know that he is righteous. A life of righteousness shows that we have the life of Christ, and hence is proof that we have been born of him.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

29. Doing righteousness, the sure sign of the new birth.

29. In thought this verse is closely connected with the preceding. The ground of the appeal to “abide in Him” was their expectation of the speedy return of their Lord in glory, and their desire to be able to meet Him with confidence and joy, and not to have to shrink away abashed from His presence. This naturally raises the thought of the conditions which would make such a meeting possible. Those only who are His own can look forward with unclouded confidence, and His own are those who share His qualities, especially those which characterize the Judge, righteousness and justice. The doing of justice is the sure sign, and the only sign, that they are “born of Him.” And so the meditation passes over to the next subject on which the writer wishes to dwell, the being born of God.εὰν εἰδῆτε] The intuitive knowledge of what God, or Christ, is, makes it possible for those who possess it to learn by the experience of life (γινώσκειν) what are the true signs of being “born of Him.” To act in accordance with those qualities which correspond to His nature is the only certain sign of true fellowship with God, which is the result of the Divine begetting.

ἐάν] A protasis introduced by ἐάν, c. subj., does not necessarily present the fact as uncertain. If the condition is fulfilled, the results follow. No hint is given as to the probability of fulfilment.

δίκαιός ἐστιν] It is very difficult to determine whether the subject of this word is God or Christ. On the one hand, a change of reference between vv. 28 and 29 would be very awkward, if not impossible; and it is really certain that ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, and αὐτοῦ in ver. 28 must refer to Christ. No other explanation of ἐὰν φανερωθῇ and παρουσία is natural, or even possible. And these considerations almost compel us to refer δίκαιος to Christ. On the other hand, a change of reference in the verse itself is still more difficult, at any rate at first sight; and Johannine usage is almost decisive in favour of referring ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγένηται to God. To be “born of God” is a favourite phrase of the writer’s (cf. Joh 1:13), especially in this Epistle (3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 18), whereas he never uses the expression “to be born of Christ.” He does, however, speak of being born of the Spirit; and the language of the Prologue to the Gospel, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι (Joh 1:12), the subject of ἔδωκεν being the Logos, suggests a sense in which being “born of God” might also be regarded as being “born of Christ,” who is always thought of as being and giving the life of God which comes to men.

It is more satisfactory to avoid any solution of the difficulty which might seem to presuppose a confusion of thought between God and Christ in the mind of the writer. Our inability to determine his exact meaning was probably not shared either by the writer or his readers, whose minds were full of the truth that Christ is God revealed to man.If, therefore, a change of reference is impossible, the whole verse is best referred, as in Bede, to Christ. The conception “born of Christ” is not antagonistic to the Johannine lines of thought, though the expression is not found elsewhere. We must, however, remember that abrupt changes of subject were natural to Hebrew thought and expression which are almost impossible in Western language. Their occurrence in the O.T. is too frequent to need illustration. And it is quite possible that the expression ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι may have become stereotyped for the writer and his circle, who would immediately interpret it as meaning “born of God.” To a mind steeped as the writer’s was in the thoughts of God and Christ, αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος had perhaps become almost proper names; the context or the special phrase used would make it perfectly clear to the writer, and to his readers as well, what was meant.

πᾶς… γεγέννηται] The doing of righteousness is the sign of the birth from God and its effect,—an effect which nothing else can produce, and so a certain sign. The more logical order would have been, “He that is born of God doeth righteousness.”

ειδητε א B C al. mu. vg. arm. Aug. syrutr sah.] ιδητε A K L P al. pler. cat. cop. aeth.: οιδατε Ib δ507 (104) Ia δ157 Ic 551.

om. και B Κ L al. pler. cat. am. harl. tol. cop. syrp arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. Amb.

την] om. Ib 365. 472 (214) Ic 364.

γεγεννηται] γεγενηται Ρ 31. 69*. 177* ascr al. mult. syr.: + και υπ αυτου οραται ο δε ποιων την αμαρτιαν ουκετι οραται υπ αυτουIc 325 (2).

ADDITIONAL NOTE

Though the name Antichrist occurs first in this Epistle in extant literature, the Epistle itself throws no light on its meaning. The conception cannot be explained from the N.T., or even from the Bible alone. The researches of Bousset and others have demonstrated the existence of a more or less definite Antichrist legend, independent of the N.T., and common to Jewish and Christian apocalyptic expectation, of which use is made in several N.T. writings. The legend cannot be explained on historical lines; it received modifications from time to time in consequence of definite historical events, and the experiences of Jews and Christians at different periods. But it always had an independent existence. Historical events modified the expectations for the future which find expression in its terms, but they did not create it. Its origin is probably to be traced to the wide-spread myth of a primeval monster, consisting of, or inhabiting, the waters and the darkness, which was subdued by the God of creation, but not destroyed, and which would again raise its power against the God of heaven in a final conflict before the end of all things. This tradition, especially in its Babylonian form of the cleaving of Tiâmat, the Sea-monster, by Marduk the son of Ea, who divided its carcase into two and formed the sea and the heavens, was well known among the Hebrews, and has left its traces in several passages of the O.T. It may be quoted as given by Gunkel from the cuneiform inscriptions (Schöpfung und Chaos, p. 21). “In the beginning, before heaven and earth were named, when as yet the ‘Urvater’ Apsû, and the ‘Urmutter’ Tiâmat, mingled their waters, when none of the gods had been created, no name named, no fate determined, then first the gods came into being. They were named Luḥmu and Laḥamu, Asnar and Kisar, and last Anu. (The next sentences are destroyed, but to judge from what follows they must have contained the account of the origin of the gods of the Upper World and of the Deep.) Then the myth relates how Tiâmat, the mother of the gods, together with all the Powers of the Deep, rebelled against the Upper Gods. The only extant part of this is a conversation between Apsû and Tiâmat, describing their plan against the gods. Apparently the origin of light was described in connection with this rebellion.

Next follows the description of the war between Tiâmat and the gods. On the one side Ansar appears as leader. Anu, Ea, and his son Marduk are also mentioned. Luḥmu and Laḥamu appear in the background. On the other side is Tiâmat, who has gained over some of the “gods” to her side. She created eleven fearful monsters, and placed the god Kingu as leader over them, whom she took for her husband, and laid on his breast the “amulet.” Against this host Ansar sent forth first Anu, then Ea; but Anu withdrew, and Ea was frightened and turned back. Finally, he betook himself to Marduk, Ea’s son, one of the youngest of the gods. Marduk declares that he is prepared to go forth against Apsû and Tiâmat, but he will only consent to be the avenger of the gods if they in full assembly ratify his authority as equal with their own. The assembly is called, and the destiny of Marduk is determined. His power shall be without equal, and his dominion shall be universal. His word shall have the magic power of calling things into being and causing them to disappear. And as a sign of this a cloak is placed in their midst, which at Marduk’s word disappears and appears again. The story next tells of Marduk’s arming. His weapons are bow and quiver, a sickle-shaped sword, and a weapon which he receives from the gods as a present, apparently the thunderbolt, represented as a trident. He has also a net, the present of Anu, and all the winds accompany him as confederates. Armed for the fight, he goes forth on his chariot drawn by terrible animals.

As he approaches Kingu, and the gods, his helpers, who accompany him, Marduk challenges Tiâmat to the combat, “Come hither, I and thou will fight.” When they fought the wise among the gods caught Tiâmat in the net. Through her opened jaws he sent the hurricane, and filled her belly with fearful winds. Then with the crescent sword he cut through her body. He cast her corpse away and stood upon it. Then Marduk overcame the gods, her helpers; he broke their weapons, and cast them into the net. So, too, he made fast the eleven creatures. Kingu met the same fate. Marduk tore from him the “amulet,” and placed it on his own breast. Then he turned to Tiâmat again. He split her head, and caused the north wind to carry her blood to hidden places. The gods, his fathers, offer presents to the victor.

Then was the Lord appeased. He divided the body of Tiâmat into two parts. Of the one part he made the vault of heaven, and placed before it bars and watchers, that the waters should not

stream forth. He placed the vault of heaven over against the primeval ocean, and built the heavens as a palace, corresponding to the primeval ocean, conceived of as a palace. Then Marduk created the stars, the sun and the moon, and the other planets; he placed the stars of the zodiac, and determined the course of the stars and the twelve months. The following tablets are lost; there is extant only a small fragment which deals with the creation of animals, in which these classes of land animals are distinguished, cattle, wild animals, and reptiles. The myth closes with a hymn in honour of Marduk, to whom are given names which celebrate his power as Lord of all, “as sheep may he tend the gods, all of them.”

There are many traces of this or similar myths to be found in the O.T., though the number of them may have been exaggerated by Gunkel. The most important are perhaps Isa 51:9 f.; Psa 89:10 ff.; Job 26:12 f., Job 26:9:13; Isa 30:7 (especially if the pointing הַמָּשְׁבָּת be adopted); Psa 40:5, 74:12-19; Isa 27:1; Job 40:25, 41:26; Eze 29:3-6a, Eze 32:2-8. These passages suggest that such myths were popular in Israel, and used by prophets and other writers to illustrate and emphasize their warnings and teaching. The points of similarity between the Hebrew and Babylonian myths on which Gunkel lays stress are the following (p. 112 ff.). Originally the “all” was water. The primeval ocean was personified as a fearful monster. The Babylonian Tiâmat corresponds to the Hebrew תהום, which is always used anarthrously as a proper name. The common Hebrew name for the monster Rahab may have its parallel in Babylonian myth, but this is not proved. Both myths represent the monster as a dragon, and with many heads. Other similar beings are mentioned, the “helpers” of the dragon, among whom one is prominent. In Babylonian myths, Kingu is associated with Tiâmat; in Hebrew we find Rahab and Tannin, Leviathan and Tannin, Leviathan and Behemoth, Rahab and Nahas Bariah. In Henoch (ch. 60.), Behemoth and Leviathan are represented as male and female, as are Kingu and Tiâmat in the Babylonian story.

These powers of the deep are in the Babylonian legend opposed to the gods of the Upper World, among whom Marduk is predominant. Even in the Hebrew story the appearance of other gods seems occasionally to be referred to (Job 41:25, 38:7; Psa 89:7).

The monsters rebel against the Upper Gods, and claim the sovereignty of the World for themselves. In the Hebrew story the special trait of the opponents of Jahve is their overruling and rebellious pride.

Before Marduk’s victory, other gods had attempted the fight. There is perhaps a similar reference in Job 41:11, Job 41:25.

Then Marduk appears. His arming is described. He comes on a chariot with horses, armed with sword and net, or with the terrible weapons of the thunder god.

Before the fight there are shrieks of abuse or reproach. In the fight itself the victory is gained by wisdom rather than by strength. The “net” has its part to play. The helpers of the monster are overthrown, they bow beneath him. In the Babylonian story he “puts them to shame”; cf. Psa 89:10; Job 9:13.

The corpse of the monster is not buried. This is several times referred to in Hebrew. Out of it the God makes the world. In some forms of the Hebrew story the fruitfulness of land that before was waste is derived from the blood and the flesh of the dragon (Gunkel, p. 111). The Babylonian myth relates that Tiâmat was divided in twain—into the upper and lower waters. In Psa 74:13 we hear of the dividing of the sea, paralleled with the breaking of the heads of the dragons, and in Job 26:13 of the bars of heaven (LXX, κλεῖθρα οὐρανοῦ δεδοίκασιν αὐτόν). At any rate, in both stories the victory over the monster is followed by the creation of the world.

Whatever exact parallels may be drawn between the Babylonian myths and allusions to similar stories which may be found, or reasonably supposed to exist, in passages in the O.T., there can be little doubt that Hebrew mythology knew of some such fight between the God of their race and the primeval monster of the deep. One particular form in which the myth seems to have been known is of special interest in connection with the legend of Antichrist. In at least one version the Dragon or monster was represented as not destroyed, but overcome. According to Isa 30:7, it is “brought to rest.”1 When God captured him, he “spake soft words,” and became His servant for ever (Job 41:3, Job 41:4). God “played” with him (Job 41:5; Psa 104:26). He lay at the bottom of the deep, but he must obey God (Amo 9:3). He could still be dangerous, so God set watchers over him (Job 7:12). He is put to sleep, but he still could be “waked” (Job 3:8, Job 41:10). Bars were placed to prevent his breaking forth (? Job 26:13 LXX).Thus the starting-point of the legend is probably to be found in the stories of the combat between God and the primeval monster, which was overcome and bound, but not killed; and which should once more break forth and rebel against God, to be overthrown in a final victory before the end of all things. But it took more definite shape in forms which reflected the experiences of the people at the hands of their enemies. Many of the passages which speak of the quelling of the sea describe also the subduing of the peoples who set themselves against God. In consequence of the sufferings of the people at the hands of their enemies, the doctrine was developed that Israel was indeed the chosen of God, but that for their sins they had been given over to the heathen powers; and this led to the expectation of a great final struggle with the World-Powers before the perfecting of the kingdom. This is clearly seen in Ezk. (38:2, 39:1, 6) in the prophecy of Gog, the prince of Magog, and the gathering of the Northern nations, regarded as types of the World-Power from which the final outburst against the people of the Lord should come. Zec. 12-14. describes the final oppression of the people by the hostile powers. All nations are gathered against Jerusalem (14:2), and the Lord appears on the Mount of Olives to save His people.

The attempt of Antiochus iv. (Epiphanes—God manifest in human form) of Syria to suppress Judaism and to Hellenize the nation, naturally led to further development of the idea. The World-Power is no longer an instrument for punishment in Jahve’s hands, but His opponent, who goes forth to destroy the centre of His kingdom. Whether the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως of Daniel is to be interpreted as the “smoke of the heathen sacrifice in the Temple, ascending from the altar erected there to Zeus in Dec. 168” or not, the author of the book certainly describes the past and present history of God’s kingdom in relation to the World-Powers in the light of the events of that period, and points forward to a speedy rescue, and the completion of God’s work for His people.The World-Power is presented first (ch. 2.) as a colossal image of gold, silver, brass, and iron, which is finally shattered by the stone broken off from the mountains without human intervention, and later under the imagery of the four beasts coming up from the sea. The opposition of the world—as presented in the four successive empires, the Chaldaean, Median, Persian, and Greek—is to culminate in the “horn” on the fourth beast’s head, with “eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things,”—a clear reference to Antiochus Epiphanes. If the book was written at a time when the Maccabean successes had already driven out the idolatrous Zeus-worship from the Temple, the writer might easily expect a great victory and extension of the power of the opponent before the Divine intervention, when the judgment begins, the World-Power is overthrown, and dominion given to the “Saints,” i.e. the members of the Jewish Church preserved through the great tribulation and cleansed by it. In Dan 7:13 we read that one like unto a son of man was brought before the Ancient of days, and dominion was given unto him, and a kingdom, that all people should serve him. As the idea of a personal Messiah became more prominent, the expectation of a single personal opponent was developed. But on this point (of a personal Messiah) Jewish apocalyptic varied frequently during the next two centuries.

In Num 24:17 the “Star” which shall come forth out of Jacob … and break down all the sons of tumult must be noticed, and the Septuagint translation of ver. 7 is significant:

ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ,

καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν·

καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γὼγ βασιλεία (εαυτου A F),

καὶ αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ.

α´ σ´ θ´ have ὑπὲρ Γώγ, which is still clearer. The Hebrew מאגג was read as מגוֹג. The Septuagint translation seems to have been coloured by the expectations of Messiah and Antichrist.

The Third Book of the Sibyllines (iii. 652), which is generally attributed to the Maccabean period, speaks of the advent of a King who shall make war to cease:

καὶ τότʼ ἀπʼ ἠελίοιο θεὸς πέμψει βασιλῆα,

ὃς πᾶσαν γαῖαν παύσει πολέμοιο κακοῖο,

οὓς μὲν ἄρα κτείνας, οἷς δʼ ὅρκια πιστὰ τελέσσας.

But the storm is to burst from many points, and is directed against God’s people and house, not against the Messiah. And there is no single opponent. Gog and Magog are the names of lands:

Cf. 319, αἰαῖ σοί, χώρα Γὼγ ἠδὲ Μαγὼγ μέσον οὖσα

Αἰθιόπων ποταμῶν.

According to Sieffert, Palestinian pre-Christian literature has no personal anti-Messiah.In the Book of Enoch xc. 16 it is predicted that other parts of the Macedonian Empire, under the leadership of Greeks, will gather themselves together against the people. “All the eagles and vultures and ravens and kites assembled together and brought with them all the sheep of the field (apostate Jews), and they all came together and helped each other to break that horn of the ram. 19. And I saw till a great sword was given to the sheep, and the sheep proceeded against all the beasts of the field to slay them; and all the beasts and the birds of heaven fled before their face”; but in xc. 56 ff. the appearance of Messiah is first described after the close of the wars. Cf. 37, “And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns; and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him, and made petition to him all the time.”

In the Psalms of Solomon (b.c. 90), Messiah Himself destroys the foes by the word of His mouth.

Cf. 17:27, ὀλοθρεῦσαι ἔθνη παράνομα ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ (cf. Isa 11:4), and generally the whole passage 23-36.

In the Fourth Book of Ezra, chs. 12., 13., to which a Flavian date is assigned, and in which the fourth beast of Daniel is clearly identified with Rome, the heathen peoples are overcome by the Messiah, who comes out of the sea. Cf. 13:5, “Lo, there was gathered together a multitude of men, out of number, from the four winds of heaven, to make war against the man that came out of the sea.”

In the Apocalypse of Baruch (xl. 1, 2), statements in this passage are taken over to describe the destruction of the last godless king. “The last leader of that time will be left alive, when the multitude of his hosts will be put to the sword and be bound; and they will take him up to Mt. Sion, and My Messiah will convict him of all his impieties, and will gather and set before him all the works of his hosts. And afterwards he will put him to death.”

Thus in the Jewish literature which is unaffected by Christian modifications the development of the idea of Antichrist cannot be very clearly traced; but the idea is to be found there, gaining or losing ground in accordance with the perpetually shifting character of Messianic expectations.It is easier to trace the development of the subject in Christian literature. The idea of the growth of self-seeking till it culminates in self-deification finds its natural sphere in Christian thought. And speculations about the spread of opposition to God and His Messiah are stripped of their national and political clothing and spiritualized. In the eschatological discourses of the Synoptic Gospels it is difficult to distinguish between original saying and subsequent interpolation and comment, even if we reject the view that they have their origin in a Jewish Apocalypse the contents of which have been put into the mouth of Jesus. But they are at least good evidence of eschatological views held by Christians at a comparatively early date. In Mt. 24. ff. there is no doctrine of a personal Antichrist. The βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως of Daniel, whatever be the exact meaning assigned to it by the speaker or by later interpretation, is connected with the approaching tribulations of the last days and the national sufferings of the Jews. The Son of Man, a title which seems to be definitely Messianic, at least in the Similitudes of Enoch, is represented as about to come on the clouds of heaven (cf. Dan_7.). But the hostile peoples are still conceived of as God’s instruments to punish. The “kingdom,” however, is separated from the national fate of Israel. The “Son of man” is opposed, not as in Daniel by world-rulers who destroy the Jewish theocracy, but by false prophets and false Messiahs (Mat 24:5). Popular “Messianism” is rejected by Jesus in the history of the Temptation (4:1 ff.) and in the rebuke to Peter (16:23). He condemns the selfish aspirations of national zealots (cf. Joh 6:15, Joh 10:8, Joh 5:43), though He can train the enthusiasm of such men to the better work of heralding the kingdom (Mat 10:4).These views were taken up into the Apostolic preaching, and form the basis of what S. Paul taught at Thessalonica. He combines them with several traits clearly borrowed from Jewish popular expectation. The doctrine of one single opponent, in whom all that is antichristian culminates, is clearly seen in his conception of the Man of Sin. Whether the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is genuine in its present form or not, there can be little doubt that the picture drawn in the 2nd chapter is mainly Pauline. Its exact agreement with the circumstances of his time is remarkable: or, at any rate, a perfectly natural interpretation of all that is said there can be found if it is explained on these lines. The coming of Christ cannot be till the apostasy is fully developed, and the opposition to the Christ is consummated in the appearance of the Man of Sin, the Son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God, and is worshipped, and sets up his throne in God’s Temple. Apparently this “Man of Sin” is to be an apostate Jew. The mystery of lawlessness, which is already working, is clearly the Jewish opposition to the work of Christianity, of which S. Paul had been the victim in every place where he had proclaimed the Christ since his conversion, and which had been specially virulent at Thessalonica (Act 17:5; cf. 1Th 2:15, 1Th 2:16). Throughout his career, S. Paul found in Jewish opposition the worst hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. It would reach its climax in the appearance of Antichrist. At present its working was restrained by the power of the Roman Empire (τὸ κατέχον), concentrated as it was in the person of a single ruler (ὁ κατέχων). Till a far later period of his life, he always found support and protection in the authorities of the Empire of which he was a citizen. It was an essential part of his conception of the last things that “So long as Rome lasts, lasts the World.” This much is certain, whether or not we choose to see in ὁ κατέχων an allusion to the name of Claudius (qui claudit). But he was conscious of the weakness as well as the strength of the Roman position. And he expected its downfall, and the overthrow of all authority and law, during the time of stress which was to precede the “unveiling” of the Christ. The freaks of Caligula had brought this home to all thinking men. And in his picture of the Man of Sin, S. Paul borrows traits from the episode of Caligula’s attempt to set up his statue, in the guise of Zeus, in the Jewish Temple. Thus the opposition of Judaism, which had lost its opportunity when it crucified the Messiah, is the main factor in the war against the Christ. But heathen opposition had to be encountered as well, and in particular it had proved a serious obstacle at Thessalonica (1Th 2:14); and this will account for any heathen traits in the picture of the opponent.

It may be worth noticing in this connection that the thought of Jewish opposition and unbelief may help to explain a difficult section of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (6:14-7:1). If S. Paul is there thinking first of the evil effect of Jewish companionship, though heathen contamination is not altogether excluded (ver. 16), the want of connection between the passage and the sections which precede and follow is less pronounced. And in later Jewish literature Beliar is the name for Antichrist, whether he is conceived of as apostate Jew (Ascension of Isaiah) or Roman Emperor (Sibylline Oracles, iii. 63, ἐκ δὲ σεβαστηνῶν ἥξει Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν, unless, indeed, the passage indicates a Samaritan origin of Antichrist). It is at least probable that when S. Paul wrote this section of 2 Corinthians, he still thought of Antichrist as the person in whom Jewish opposition to the faith should find its consummation.

But, however this may be, it is at least clear that the passage about the Man of Sin in 2 Thess. is most naturally interpreted, if we suppose that S. Paul is developing a popular legend in the light of Christ’s teaching about the last things, his own experiences at the hands of his countrymen, the episodes of the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus and the attempt of Caligula to set up his statue within its precincts. Recent experiences and historical incidents have added new traits to a well-known popular conception. And both the legend and the events are needed to explain the picture.

The use of the Antichrist legend is equally clear in the Apocalypse. Gunkel has clearly shown the impossibility of interpreting the 12th chapter on purely historical lines. And many of the details recall most vividly the legend of the Sea monster, which shall once more raise war against the Lord’s anointed. It is very probable that a Jewish Apocalypse which itself borrowed traits from older mythological traditions to describe the birth of Messiah, born in heaven, caught up to the throne of God and hidden in the wilderness till the appointed time, has been incorporated by the seer, and adapted to the circumstances of Christ and the Church, the borrowed details in many cases being quite unsuitable to their new application, in order to comfort his readers with the thought that their sufferings are really but a stage in the working out of God’s purpose for their final triumph. That which is woe for the earth, is matter of rejoicing in heaven, when the Dragon is cast down, and the first stage in the process of his destruction is accomplished. The hostility of the Dragon to the Messiah, the consequent war between Michael and the Dragon and their respective hosts, the identification of the Dragon with the old serpent, the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, and the Water cast out as a river to destroy the Woman, are all reminiscences of popular myths of which traces have been found throughout the O.T. and elsewhere in the New.

In ch. 13:1 the beast coming up out of the sea points the same way, though here the adaptation of the myth to the circumstances of Roman history are clear, whether the solution of the riddle of 13:18 is to be found in the older guess of נרון קסר, and the sufferings of the Neronic persecution, or Deissmann’s suggestion of Καισαρ θεος and the Emperor-worship of the time of Domitian, is preferred.

Perhaps the clearest use of the Antichrist legend is to be found in 13:11, where the “two horns like unto a lamb” of the beast that came up out of the earth, emphasize his attempt to deceive by pretending to be the Messiah.

The 17th chapter, which offers the clearest indications of the identification of the beast with Rome, now regarded by Christians as the great enemy, and no longer the restraining and protecting power which S. Paul found in the Empire, shows how the mythical figure gains new attributes in consequence of new experiences, but does not throw much light on the older myth. But the gathering together of the nations, Gog and Magog, for the war in 20:7, 8, recalls the earlier feature of the legend.

In the Epistles of S. John there is no real use of the legend itself at all. They contribute nothing but the name to our knowledge of it. The writer refers to a popular legend which had formed the basis of Apostolic teaching, as in earlier times the prophets and psalmists had made use of similar mythological ideas to enforce the lessons which they had to teach. But the process of spiritualization is complete. The writer finds in the false teaching which is growing apace the fulfilment of the popular expectation of the coming of the great antagonist who is to lead the last and final opposition of the powers of the world to the kingdom of the Christ. Whether this opposition is soon to culminate in the work of a single opponent he leaves uncertain. It is not a matter which interests him. The mystery of lawlessness is already working in those who are inspired by the spirits who do not confess Jesus Christ come in flesh. In this the “word” Antichrist cometh is fulfilled. The writer’s business is with the reality to which the legend points; with the legend itself he has but little to do.

It is unnecessary here to trace the further developments of the Antichrist legend in later Jewish and Christian expectation. They show a more or less definite, but continually shifting, popular tradition which took its start in the old myth of the Sea-monster overcome, but only confined and not destroyed, by the power of God, which should once more break its bonds, and make a last attack on the powers of light before the final establishment of the Messianic kingdom.

B. 2:28-4:6

Second presentation of the two theses, ethical and Christological, the two being discussed separately, but with express reference to their connection.

I. 2:28-3:24

The doing of righteousness, especially genuine brotherly love, the true sign of the Birth from God. Corresponding exhortation.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29. ἐὰν εἰδῆτε... γινώσκετε... st scttis .. scitote (Vig. Taps. scitis)... V. If ye know.,.perceive, observe, notice....

᾿ Knowledge which is absolute (εἰδῆτε)

becomes the basis of knowledge which is realised in observation (γινώσκετε). Comp. John ii. 24 note. The distinction is lost in the Latin and can hardly be preserved in an English version,

The second verb (γινώσκετε) may be either indicative or imperative. Both renderings are found in early Latin authorities, In favour of the imperative it is urged that it stands between two imperatives (μένετε, and iii, 1 ἴδετε, On the other hand it is said that v. 29 contains a general reason for the command in Ὁ. 28. ‘Abide in Him in fruitful well-doing, for the first article of your faith teaches you that right action is the sign of a divine birth.’

A decision is difficult; but upon the whole the general structure of oz. 28 f. favours the imperative. It seems to be more in accordance with the context that St John should here

charge his readers to apply practi-

argument does not seem to be conclusive. Christians are said equally to ‘abide in God’ and to ‘abide in Christ’ (v.27). They are also said to be ‘born of the Spirit’ (John iii. 6, 8). The word of Christ is in them as a quickening power (comp. 1 Pet. i. 23; James i. 18). There is then nothing against the tenour of Scripture in saying that Christians are ‘born of

oneé...hath been begotten of Him. The ᾿ presence of righteous action is the sure sign of the reality of the divine birth. We are often tempted, according to our imperfect standards of judgment, to exclude some (comp. 2. 23 πᾶς ὁ apy. note), but the divine law admits no exception. It must be farther observed that righteousness is not the condition but the consequence of Sonship. God is the one source of righteousness. Apart from God in Christ there is no righteousness. It follows therefore that the presence of active righteousness is the sign of the divine Sonship, and the sign of that abiding power of Sonship which brings final confidence. Other tests of Sonship are offered in the Epistle: ‘love’ (iv. 7) and belief ‘that Jesus is the

est V., te begotten of Him. Comp. c. iii. 9 note. The phrase occurs here first in the Epistle. The order emphasises the fact that such a one has God for his Father, and not that he has a new life. Compare iii. 9 6; iv. 7; v.1; Johni 13.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.