Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:20 - 2:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_2:20-21. Testimony that the believers, to whom the apostle writes, know the truth.
καὶ ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε ] The apostle writes this neither as a captatio benevolentiae (Lange), nor as a justification of the brevity of his writing on the foregoing subject (a Lapide), nor for the purpose of quieting his readers, “who at the appearance of so many Antichrists might possibly be alarmed for the safety of their own faith” (Lücke), but in order to make the warning contained in his words in reference to the antichristian lie the more forcible; see on 1Jn_2:12.
Most commentators take καί here as particula adversativa (so even de Wette; more cautiously Lücke: “the logical relationship of this verse to 1Jn_2:19 is that of an antithesis, therefore καί becomes logically adversative”); the incorrectness of this view is recognised indeed by Düsterdieck and Ebrard, yet they maintain the antithetical reference of this verse to the preceding one; and of course in itself there is nothing against the supposition of a connection of adversative ideas by the simple copula; but that an adversative relationship occurs here is very much to be doubted, for the apostle did not now need to say to his readers that they, as such as have the χρῖσμα , were in opposition to the antichrists, and, besides, in the sequel that idea is not further followed up.[165] It is more suitable to the context to connect the first part of this verse closely with the second, and in this two-claused sentence to find the presupposition stated for what is said in the following verse (so also Brückner).
ΧΡῖΣΜΑ appears in the N. T. only here and in 1Jn_2:27; according to Greek usus loquendi, it is the anointing oil; as in the O. T., for example Exo_29:7; Exo_30:31. “In the O. T. the holy anointing oil is constantly the type of the Holy Spirit, both where anointing appears as a figurative action (besides the passages quoted, in 1Sa_10:1 ff; 1Sa_16:13-14) as well as where it appears in figurative language (Psa_45:8; Isa_61:1). But that which in the O. T. is presented in type and shadow, in the N. T. has appeared in truth and substance” (Besser); χρῖσμα is therefore a symbolical expression for the Holy Spirit, as χρίειν , moreover, is frequently used of the gift of the Holy Spirit; comp. Act_4:27; Act_10:38; 2Co_1:21. With this most of the commentators agree, only that ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is usually incorrectly explained as the act: “unctio, anointing,” and this is then taken as a description of the Holy Spirit; so by Augustin, and even by de Wette, Ewald, Sander, and Erdmann. It is erroneous to understand ΧΡῖΣΜΑ of the “true tradition about Christ, vividly transmitted, proceeding from the apostles” (Köstlin, p. 243), or of the working of the Holy Spirit (Didymus: charitas, quae diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum; Socinus: divinum beneficium cognoscendi ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus; Emanuel Sa: christianismus), or of the act in which the Spirit is given to Christians, thus of baptism (Ewald) or of confirmation. Oecumenius wrongly finds here ( ἘΛΆΒΕΤΕ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΒΑΠΤΊΣΜΑΤΟς ΤῸ ΧΡῖΣΜΑ ΤῸ ἹΕΡΌΝ , ΚΑῚ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ ΤῸ ΕἸς ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ ὉΔΗΓΟῦΝ ὙΜᾶς ΘΕῖΟΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ) an allusion to the old custom of anointing the candidate for baptism; this custom does not belong to the apostolic age, but was probably first introduced by this passage, as Bengel has observed.[166] It is, on the whole, less likely that John was here thinking of the communication of the Spirit by means of baptism, as is usually supposed, than that he was thinking of that by means of the preaching of the gospel (Düsterdieck), as in the whole context there is nothing to suggest the former.[167] That John uses just the word χρῖσμα is not without meaning; as in the O. T. not only kings, but also priests and (sometimes) prophets were anointed, he reminds believers thereby “of their high honour, calling, office, and glory” (Sander).[168] If it be the case that there is also an allusion in it to the name of the Antichrist (Bengel, Düsterdieck), then the apostle wanted to bring out that believers in possession of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ are enabled fully to know the antichristian ψεῦδος in its contradiction to the ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ ; see 1Jn_2:21.
ἜΧΕΤΕ ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ ] For ἜΧΕΤΕ , in 1Jn_2:27, ἘΛΆΒΕΤΕ is put; the possession rests upon a reception, and this, indeed, ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ ; Ὁ ἍΓΙΟς is—following the correct interpretation of ΧΡῖΣΜΑ —not the Holy Spirit (Didymus, Lorinus, Semler), but either God (Rickli, Besser, Neander: “ ἀπό indicates the source;” which, however, is not always the case),—comp. Joh_14:16; 1Co_6:19 : ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς , ΟὟ ἜΧΕΤΕ ἈΠῸ ΘΕΟῦ ,—or more probably, as most commentators think, Christ; comp. Joh_15:26 : ὁ παράκλητος , ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός ; and Joh_6:69, where Christ (according to the overwhelming authorities) is called Ὁ ἍΓΙΟς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ; in favour of which is the fact that John, in 1Jn_2:29, calls Christ ΔΊΚΑΙΟς , and in chap. 1Jn_3:3, ἍΓΝΟς (comp. also Act_3:14; Rev_3:7).
That the bestower of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is called by John Ὁ ἍΓΙΟς (whether it be God or Christ) arises from this, that the anointing with the Spirit is an act of making holy, i.e. of separation from the world; but he only can make holy who himself is holy.
καὶ οἴδατε πάντα ] Bengel, according to the sense, explains ΚΑΊ correctly by: et inde; the possession of the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ is the reason of the ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ΠΆΝΤΑ .
ΠΆΝΤΑ is not masculine (Syrus: omnes; Bede: discernitis inter probos et improbos), but neuter. Calvin rightly says: omnia, non universaliter capi, sed ad praesentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet; still it must not be restricted merely to those things (quae sunt) necessaria agnoscendis antichristis et cavendis illorum insidiis (Bengel), but it embraces along with these ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ in general (1Jn_2:21); comp. Joh_14:26; Joh_16:13 : ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ . In the possession of the whole truth Christians are also enabled to distinguish lies and truth.[169]
[165] By this, however, it is not meant that the apostle, when he turns to his readers with ὑμεῖς , does not contrast them at all with the antichrists, but only that he does not do it in this sense, that he wishes thereby to emphasize a contrast between them. Had the apostle intended this, he would certainly not have used καί , for in such antitheses καί is only suitable when the predicates exactly correspond with one another (e.g. they have τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου , and ye have τὸ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ); but even then usually δέ is used (comp. Mat_5:21-22, and many other passages), or no particle at all (comp. Joh_3:31, etc.).
[166] As Bengel thinks that this whole section is addressed to the children, he says: Eam unctionem spiritualem habent τὰ παιδία pueruli; namque cum baptismo, quem susceperunt, conjunctum, erat donum Spiritus s., cujus significandi causa ex hoc ipso loco deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo corpora baptizatorum ungerentur.—How in modern times this passage is misused as a proof of the post-apostolic origin of the Epistle, see the Introduction, sec. 3.
[167] As quite arbitrary interpretations, we may further mention here that of Semler and that of J. J. Hess (Flatt’s and Susskind’s Magaz. vol. xiv.); the former, on the false assumption that the Epistle is addressed especially to the presbyters also, explains χρῖσμα by: legitima auctoritas docendi, and adds: χρῖσμα est idem ac χάρισμα illud, cujus auctor spiritus s., qui per apostolos impertitur doctoribus; and the latter understands by it the instruction which the Churches of Asia Minor received about Antichrist through the Apocalypse.
[168] Neander: “That which in the Old Covenant was connected only with individuals to whom in some way the guidance of God’s people was entrusted, with individuals who thereby were singled out from the mass of the rest of the people, this under the New Covenant is connected with the people of God in general.… There are therefore no longer among the people of God any such distinctions as there were in the Old Covenant between kings, prophets, priests, and people.… They are one kingly priestly race, whose nobility and high destination all share; all are prophets by virtue of that common enlightenment by the Holy Spirit.”
[169] The genuinely Catholic interpretation of Estius is worthy of notice: habetis episcopos et presbyteros, quorum cura ae studio vestrae ecelesiae satis instructao sunt in iis, quae pertinent ad doctrinae christianae veritatem.