1 John 2:28-29 (Who Is the Intended Referent?)

One of my interlocutors says:

Dear Edgar,

I have always felt comfortable taking both 1 John 2:28 and 2:29 of Christ. The work of the Father and the Son are a unity (2:22-24); so there is no difficulty for me in moving to the Father in 3:1.

I replied:

"1 John 2:25b-The antecedent of AUTOS is TWi PATRI (Note that this antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12, 20).

2:27-AUTOU refers to the Father."

Addendum: 1 John 2:28-AUTWi in 2:28 is not so clear: John appears to be switching referents here, and S.M. Baugh implies that AUTOS in this passage applies to the Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John's discourse revolves around the Father. But his use of the Greek term PAROUSIA seems to indicate Christ Jesus is under discussion.

1 John 2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but seems to reference God the Father (EX AUTOU GEGENNHTAI).

Smalley writes:

We conclude that while the context and theology of v 29 suggest strongly that the subject of the first part of the sentence is Jesus, and that God is in mind throughout the second half, there is perhaps a measure of deliberate ambivalence in both instances. The Johannine emphasis on the completeness of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus (cf. John 1:18) means that the writer of 1 John could describe both the Son and the Father not only as “righteous,” but also as the author of regeneration (cf. Westcott, 83).

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4818-4821). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Smalley and D.E. Hiebert both cite Westcott as one scholar, who thinks the pronouns of vv. 28-29 refer to Christ. However, Hiebert observes:

This identification is less certain if verse 29 is accepted as beginning a new division. An obvious difficulty with this identification is that the New Testament nowhere explicitly speaks of believers as "born of Christ." In this letter they are referred to as "born of God" (3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4), and in John 3:8 as "born of the Spirit," but nowhere as "born of Christ." In 1 John 3:1-2 believers are expressly called "children of God." Bultmann suggested that there is a sudden change in the meaning of the pronoun in this verse, from Jesus to God.3 Marshall holds that the statement "He is righteous" refers to Christ but that the words "born of Him" refer to God the Father. "It was probably so self-evident to him and his readers that spiritual birth was from the Father that he was not conscious of gliding from one antecedent for autou? [check] (Christ, 2:28-29a) to another (God, 2:29b)."4 But such a shift of meaning in the pronominal designation within one sentence is not obvious. More probable is the view that both pronouns refer to God the Father. But this uncertainty as to the intended identity of his pronouns is characteristic of John. As Westcott remarks, "The true solution of the difficulty seems to be that when St John thinks of God in relation to men he never thinks of Him apart from Christ (comp. c. v. 20). And again he never thinks of Christ in His human nature without adding the thought of His divine nature."5

Trinitarians must always try to connect the Father and Son in some type of metaphysical unity. I disagree with Westcott's overall approach to the issue, but John's first epistle does contain many tricky pronominal references.