Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2:29 - 2:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 b–22.
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 John’s 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 righteousness—but 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 òÈùÒÈä öÀãÈ÷Èä ; 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.