2:18-29  18. Little children, it is the last hour and as you heard that a counterfeit messiah (or messianic opponent) is come, in fact now many counterfeit messiahs (or messianic opponents) are present, whence we do know that it is the last hour. 19. From us they went out, but they were not from us, for if they were from us, they would be remaining with us — but in order that they might become apparent, because they all are not from us. 20. And you possess anointing from the Holy One and you all know. 21. I did not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it and because every falsehood is not from the truth.
22. Who is the deceiver, but only the one who keeps denying by saying that Jesus is not the Messiah. This person is the counterfeit messiah (or messianic opponent), the one who keeps denying the Father and the Son. 23. Everyone who keeps denying the Son, also does not have the Father. The one who keeps confessing the Son also has the Father. 24. You, what you heard from the beginning, let this remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning should remain in you, you actually are remaining in the Son and in the Father. 25. And this is the promise that he promised us, the life eternal.
26. These things I wrote to you concerning those who were leading you astray. 27. In fact you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you and you do not have need that someone should teach you, but as his anointing is teaching you about all things and is true and is not deceitful, even according as it taught you, keep remaining in it (τὸ χρῖσμα; or in him).
28. And now, my little offspring, remain in him, so that if he should become visible, we might possess boldness and might not experience shame because of him at his presence. 29. If you should know that he is just, you know that also everyone who is doing justice are born from him.

18Παιδία, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν, καὶ καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, ὅθεν γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν. 19ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν – ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν. 20καὶ ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ οἴδατε πάντες. 21οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀλλ’ ὅτι οἴδατε αὐτὴν καὶ ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν.
22Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν. 23πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. 24ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω. ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ ὃ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ μενεῖτε. 25καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον.
26Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς. 27καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ μένει ἐν ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ψεῦδος, καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ.
28Καὶ νῦν, τεκνία, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, σχῶμεν παρρησίαν καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 29ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται.

Verse 18:  The vocative diminutive παιδία (see 2:14) may signal a new section, whose closure may be marked by the corresponding vocative diminutive τεκνία in v. 28. J places the predicate noun phrase ἐσχάτη ὥρα before the verb in the focal point of the clause. It suggests that these believers live in the last period of human history.

A second main clause is connected to the first by the conjunction καί. It may have a resultative nuance, indicating logically what follows because it is “the last hour.” It begins with a subordinate clause of comparison marked by καθώς. Its verb ἠκούσατε indicates something of which the audience is aware because of a past action. This information is signaled by the subordinate conjunction ὅτι, marking a content clause of indirect speech that functions as the main verb’s direct object.

The noun ἀντίχριστος only occurs in 1 and 2 Jn in the NT. According to TLG this is its first attestation in Greek literature. Whether it is a neologism created by the writer or a term current in the new Christian movement cannot be determined. What exactly the force of the prefix ἀντι- might be is debated. It could have the sense of a replacement, probably counterfeit messiah, or it could mean opposition to the true messiah. Most English versions just transliterate it. Whether we should identify this term with Paul’s phrase ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (2 Th 2:3) is unclear. This quoted statement has a prophetic tone to it. When and how this figure “comes” or “arrives” is not explained. What might its anarthrous form suggest? Does it describe a general category of person or a specific figure?

The second καί probably is ascensive (now in fact), and the writer employs it in combination with νῦν to emphasize that the preceding prophecy is being implemented, but perhaps in a manner the audience did not anticipate. Instead of a single ἀντίχριστος there are πολλοί and “they are present” or “have been produced” (γεγόνασιν). The perfect active indicative form of γίνομαι indicates that they currently are present or produced. Sometimes this verb is rendered “have appeared,” but I think, if J is referencing people previously associated with his audience, then I think he may be indicating their actions show that they currently are present, i.e., “have happened.”

J concludes his announcement with another subordinate clause. J employs ὅθεν, a relative adverb meaning “from which fact,” to modify the verb γινώσκομεν. It points to a source that in some way generates the action described in the clause. The writer assumes (first person plural verb form) that his audience is aware that ἀντίχριστοι are present and this should confirm for them “that it is the last hour.” He concludes by repeating the initial clause in the form of a content clause marked by ὅτι that functions as the object of γινώσκομεν.

Verse 19:  J picks up the verb used in v. 18b (ἔρχεται) and uses a compound form of this verb to state that ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί “went out” (ἐξῆλθαν) and the location/people group they left is defined in the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐξ ἡμῶν. The first person plural pronoun is significant. Having made this claim, J now adds a caveat marked by the corrective particle ἀλλ’. He wants to make it quite clear that “they were not from us,” even though they left from our community. J is correcting an implied assumption about the purpose of their exit. The distinction he is making is made clear in the explanatory clause marked by γάρ. It introduces a contrary to fact condition (second class condition), that assumes the irrealis (indicated by ἄν in the apodosis) of what is expressed, i.e., it never happened or was never the case. This is his third use of the phrase ἐξ ἡμῶν. In the apodosis he employs a perfect active verb tense (μεμενήκεισαν) to indicate what their state would have been, if they were not ἀντίχριστοι. μεθ’ ἡμῶν indicates accompaniment. Note his continued use of first person plural pronouns.

He continues with another adversative clause marked by ἀλλ’ 2°. In my opinion it marks a second contrast with the initial clause ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν and this clause is implied following ἀλλ’ 2°. The subordinate ἵνα clause explains the purpose behind their departure, presumably a purpose orchestrated by God. In some sense J shares this information to correct a misunderstanding of the purpose of their exit. The translation of the aorist passive subjunctive verb φανερωθῶσιν is tricky. It is intransitive and passive, perhaps with the sense “in order that they be made known/apparent.” In other words, their departure is intended to reveal that they are not part of God’s people. If this is the case, then ὅτι probably marks a causal clause. I think that πάντες modifies the subject embedded in the verb εἰσίν and results in the sense “they all are not from us.”

Verse 20:  J gives a third declaration in v. 20. καί 1° could be conjunctive or ascensive. I lean toward the ascensive usage because I think the writer is explaining how his audience is assisted to discern the matters described in vv. 18-19. The explicit pronoun ὑμεῖς, a shift to second person plural, gives prominence to the subject of ἔχετε. χρῖσμα is the object and has no definition, apart from the prepositional phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου. This is the only occasion when Jn employs the adjective ἅγιος. It probably has a substantival function and may refer to one of the persons of the Trinity. The only other context in the NT where χρῖσμα occurs is 1 Jn 2:27, but again the referent is ambiguous. χρῖσμα is something believers received in the past and it is associated with αὐτοῦ whose antecedent is unclear. As a result of this ‘anointing’, these believers have knowledge (see the commentary at 2:27). Parallels with John 14 where Jesus prophecies that believers will receive the Spirit, the Spirit will remain in them, and the Spirit will teach them everything lead many commentators to equate the “anointing” with the gift of the Spirit. The result of this anointing is “received knowledge” that every believer possesses (πάντες).

Verse 21:  J feels the need to assure his audience that his document does not imply that he thinks they lack knowledge about these matters. Rather he wants to make sure that they are aware of the deceptive practices current in their context. He begins with the negative aorist verb phrase οὐκ ἔγραψα. It is possible, given the past tense, that he is referring to an earlier document (see vv. 14 and 26). ὑμῖν is the indirect object. All three ὅτι conjunctions could mark indirect discourse, explaining what he wrote previously. Alternatively, they could mark a series of causal clauses. Or, they might express a variety of meanings (e.g., the first two might be causal and the last might mark indirect discourse). Or, perhaps the last clause is an indirect discourse clause coordinated with αὐτήν functioning as an object of οἴδατε 2°. πᾶν ψεῦδος includes “every falsehood,” probably inclusive of what the ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί were communicating. This series of ὄτι clauses in v. 21b probably expresses the same truth J writes in v. 26 warning περὶ τῶν πλανώντων.

Verse 22:  NA28 accents τίς as a form of the interrogative pronoun and punctuates the first main clause as a question. The occurrence of πᾶν ψεῦδος in v. 21 (repeated in v. 27) prepares the way for ὁ ψεύστης used in v. 22. This linkage suggests that vv. 22-25 carry forward the discourse begun in v. 18.

The main clause employs the equative verb and defines the subject, the arthrous ὁ ψεύστης, as this individual referred to as τίς (A = B). In equative clauses marked with an interrogative pronoun, the pronoun is the predicate nominative (Wallace, 32). The question probably has the sense in English “who fits the category of liar?” εἰ μή probably marks an exceptive clause, primarily because there is no explicit verb in the clause. The sense is “but only…” (see Louw-Nida, 1.795 §89.131). The present middle substantival participle ὁ ἀρνόυμενος describes someone who “denies that something is true; refuses to pay attention, disregards, renounces” (BDAG, 132-33). J employs this verb only in 2:22-23. The middle voice probably has a volitional or cognitive nuance, indicating the internal involvement of the subject in the action. Verbs that express a negative idea sometimes have the negativity reinforced by an explicit negative adverb. This is probably the case here, with οὐκ ἔστιν in the ὅτι clause of indirect discourse (functioning as the object of ἀρνούμενος). The liar denies the claim of Jesus to be Messiah. Although ὁ Χριστός is arthrous, it is not the subject, because the clause has a proper noun and this takes precedence as subject in such cases. This is another equative clause. The article probably has a monadic function, indicating that Jesus is the one and only Messiah, and thus he has an exclusive status.

οὗτος is the subject of ἐστιν 3°, another equative clause, but it functions as the main clause of the second sentence in this verse. Who is the antecedent to οὗτος? Is it ὁ ψεύστης or ὁ ἀρνούμενος? For ὁ ἀντίχριστος, the predicate nominative, see the commentary at v. 18. In the hierarchy of possible subjects in an equative clause, a demonstrative pronoun has priority over other nouns. The article with ἀντίχριστος may be anaphoric, reaching back to v. 18. How should we read ἀντίχριστος? Presumably, as in v. 18 it is not referring to an eschatological figure. Rather J seems to use it to describe human beings who “oppose the Messiah,” i.e., a “Christ-resistor.” Numerous nouns and adjectives that are ἀντι- compounds incorporate the idea of opposition and the main noun included in the compound is identified as who or what is being opposed. The concept of denying that Jesus is the Messiah is understandable in this context. But what does it mean for a person “to be denying the father and the son?” Perhaps it refers to the relationship that Jesus claims with God the Father as the Son of God. τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν form a compound direct object modifying the present middle participle ἀρνούμενος.

Verse 23:  J continues with a series of statements that have no initial particles that define their interconnection, until vv. 25-27. The statements are juxtaposed and we have to discern their inter-logic from their respective contents. J continues with another use of the substantival participle πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος as subject of the verb in the first clause. πᾶς indicates that no one who belongs to this category of ὁ ἀρνούμενοις is excluded. τὸν υἱόν is the object of ἀρνούμενος (“everyone who is denying the son….”). This is contrasted with the substantival participle ὁ ὁμολογῶν (see the commentary at 1:9) that serves as subject of the second clause. It also is modified by the object τὸν υἱόν. J constructs the clauses in tight parallelism, using virtually the same predicate in both, namely, οὐδὲ/καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. The negative correlative οὔδε reinforces the negative idea expressed in ἀρνούμενος (“everyone who denies the son also does not have the father”). In each clause J creates the chiasm: participle – object – conjunction — object — main verb. The second clause has the sense “the one who confesses/affirms the son also possesses/has the father” (see a similar idea expressed in 4:15).

Verse 24:  The preposing of various elements in this sentence is quite unusual. First, the subject of the relative clause ὑμεῖς is moved out of the clause, stated explicitly, and placed before the clause. Secondly, the relative clause, the subject of the imperative μενέτω is placed before the verb in first position in the sentence. Third, the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν ὑμῖν occurs before the verb μενέτω that it qualifies. This places considerable weight on the final term in the sentence, the imperative.

Within the relative clause, the relative pronoun ὅ, a neuter accusative singular form, functions as the direct object of ἠκούσατε. Exactly what the antecedent of this pronoun might be is left undefined. Consider a similar clause in 1:1. J will repeat the same relative clause in the second part of the verse, namely the protasis of the conditional clause. He uses the temporal adverbial prepositional phrase ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς to indicate the consistency of the communication “from the beginning.” Presumably this beginning describes the time when the audience first heard the gospel. For a message “to remain/continue in someone” suggests retention, as well as perhaps loyalty to its content, namely the affirmation that Jesus is the Messiah. The force of the third person singular present active imperative μενέτω probably is “let it be remaining/continuing.” The English rendering might also be rendered as “What you heard…should be remaining/continuing in you.”

The second complex sentence is a third class condition, expressing the possibility that “this message might/should remain/continue in you,” and if it does, then their relationship with God will continue. The order to the various elements in the protasis is somewhat different from what J uses in the first sentence. The subject clause follows the verb and the locative adverbial phrase ἐν ὑμῖν comes first in the clause. Likewise, in the relative clause ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς now precedes the verb and is in the focal point of its clause. The result is that the word order in the protasis matches the word order in the relative clause.

The apodosis begins with an ascensive καί, giving some additional prominence to the explicit subject ὑμεῖς. As in the first two clauses, J places the compound adverbial prepositional clauses before the verb, in the focal point of the clause. By making ὑμεῖς the subject, he creates a laddered proposition of cause-effect, namely if A remains/continues in B, then B remains/continues in C. μενεῖτε is a second person plural future active indicative (you will remain/continue). The repeated use of the preposition ἐν with both υἱῷ and πατρί indicates that both are viewed as possessing similar status. However, by naming both is J indicating that “remaining/continuing in the son” and “remaining/continuing in the father” are spiritual realities that can in some sense be distinguished? As in v. 23a where both divine persons are denied or affirmed, the message of the gospel requires an appropriate relationship to or understanding of both in order to have fellowship with the deity and with one another. Denying the son and affirming the father does not generate the desired relationship with the deity.

Verse 25:  Those for whom the two propositions stated in v. 24b are true receive the promise of eternal life, according to v. 25. Is καί conjunctive or ascensive here? Either case could be argued. The main clause is an equative clause in which the subject αὕτη, the feminine nominative singular demonstrative pronoun, is being identified as ἡ ἐπαγγελία, a corresponding feminine singular noun, but the ultimate referent for the pronoun is the noun phrase τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. The noun functions as a predicate nominative, because the demonstrative pronoun refers to the known entity and therefore is the subject (Wallace, 31-32). The future tense of the previous verb μενεῖτε may convey the idea of promise or expectation.

The antecedent of the relative pronoun ἥν is the previous ἡ ἐπαγγελία. The pronoun is the direct object in its clause. The subject is explicit, namely αὐτός, being the intensive usage of the pronoun. Is the antecedent υἱός or πατήρ, or does it matter? It seems that J has introduced some ambiguity at this point. The noun ἐπαγγελία and its cognate verb ἐπαγγέλλω only occur together in 1 Jn in this verse. The repetition creates emphasis. However, they are cognate with the compound verb ἀπαγγέλλω that J employs in 1:2-3. The middle voice of the aorist tense form probably conveys some sense of positive engagement by the subject with the object. Note the switch to the first person plural dative pronoun. The nominal phrase τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον is appositional to the relative pronoun ἥν, because it also is accusative. The adjective αἰώνιον is in the second attributive position and receives as much emphasis as the noun and may also have a bit of a climactic nuance (see 1:2).

Verse 26:  In v. 21 J used ἔγραψα and spoke about πᾶν ψεῦδος. He seems to address similar themes in v. 26. This might suggest that vv. 26-27 function as a conclusion to 2:18-27. Once again, he fronts the direct object ταῦτα. When he does this so frequently, does this pattern lose its rhetorical punch? ὑμῖν is the indirect object and the περί phrase identifies the topic of his written message. J uses the verb πλανάω three times (1:8; 3:7) and it describes activity that “causes someone to go astray, be misled” (BDAG, 821). See 1 Peter 2:25. Perhaps it is related to the term σκάνδαλον used in v. 10. The substantival present active participle describes people involved in a continuing activity (“concerning those who were leading you astray”). Presumably these people are ἀντίχριστοι. This statement is one of the clearest indicators of the reason for J’s document – to counter false teaching.

Verse 27:  He picks up the concept of τὸ χρῖσμα (v. 20). As in v. 24 so here we discern significant preposing of various elements before the relative clause and the main verb. These include the explicit subject of the relative clause, namely ὑμεῖς, as well as the subject of the main verb μένει, namely τὸ χρῖσμα. The result is that the subject of the relative clause comes first, then the subject of the main clause. For the sense of τὸ χρῖσμα see the discussion at v. 20. The relative pronoun ὅ functions as the object of λαμβάνω (see 3:22; 5:9).  The aorist tense indicates a past completed action. However, J does not say when this event happened. The source of τὸ χρῖσμα is ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, but is the antecedent of the pronoun αὐτοῦ Jesus or the Father or the Spirit – or does it matter?  The main verb μένει affirms that this anointing continues/remains in those he is addressing.

J continues with a second declarative, main clause, linked to the first by the conjunctive καί. Logically it seems to mark the consequence of the action described in the previous clause. The verb phrase χρείαν ἔχετε means “to have a need” and often is completed by an infinitive describing the nature of the need. However, in this case the negatived main verb indicates that they do not need ‘something’. It is occasionally completed with an indirect imperative marked by ἵνα (see Jn 2:25; 16:30). J agrees that they have no need that “someone should teach you.” What is the content of this teaching? Is J saying that these false teachers cannot add anything about the person and mission of the Messiah to what τὸ χρῖσμα has already taught them?

ἀλλ’ follows the negative οὐ and indicates a corrective idea, namely that what the audience needs instead is μένετε ἐν αυτῷ. The repeated co-relative clauses marked by ὡς…καθώς create some challenges. In my opinion καὶ καθώς is resumptive of the clause of comparison marked by ὡς. J employs the verb διδάσκω three times in this verse and in each case it is implied that χρῖσμα is the subject. It is unclear who the referent of αὐτοῦ might be. The present tense form διδάσκει implies a continuing activity. J recognizes that this instruction continues as he is writing them. The topics of this teaching are described by the adverbial prepositional phrase περὶ πάντων. He stresses the comprehensiveness of this instruction. The next two clauses introduced by the repeated conjunction καί affirm that this is true teaching. The adjective ἀληθές is a neuter nominative singular form, probably referencing τὸ χρῖσμα. The third clause repeats the content of the second, but in a contrastive format. ψεῦδος is a neuter nominative singular noun functioning as a predicate nominative. A similar contrast occurs in v. 21.

καί 5° is probably resumptive with the sense “and so.” This time the verb in the subordinate clause is an aorist indicative, referencing a past completed activity. Just as this anointing “remains/continues in you” (v. 27a), so now believers in his audience remain in it (χρῖσμα), if αὐτῷ is a neuter, dative singular form. J urges a reciprocal integration of the believer and the anointing, with resultant knowledge of the message and continued loyalty to the message. Alternatively, αὐτῷ could equally refer to “the son” (v. 24), because generally believers “remain/continue in him.” Those designated as ἀντίχριστοι do not remain in this teaching.

Verses 28-29:  Vv. 28-29 seem to function as another segue passage, shifting to exhortation based upon hope in the Messiah’s παρουσία. The combination of the conjunction καί and temporal adverb νῦν probably signals a bit of climax in the argument. The vocative diminutive τεκνία also may serve to signal a new topic. J used παιδία in v. 18.

The main clause is an imperative, repeating the same construction used in the main clause of v. 27c. μένετε continues to have the sense of “sustaining a relationship” with perhaps a hint of loyalty involved. It was unclear whether the antecedent of ἐν αυτῷ in v. 27c was Jesus or τὸ χρῖσμα or perhaps even the Spirit. Similarly in v. 28 the antecedent of the same phrase could be debated. If there is a tight relationship between vv. 27 + 28, then this would argue for the antecedent to be the same in both instances. Probably, given the information that follows, Jesus Messiah is the intended referent. While “what you heard” remains/continues “in you” (v. 24 and v. 27a), you also “remain/continue in the son and in the father” (v. 24). So the injunction in v. 28a seems to have the same sense.

J explains the purpose of this relational loyalty to the Messiah in the subordinate ἵνα clause. It contains a complex clause and also two clauses compounded together. It begins with a third class condition (ἐάν + aorist passive subjunctive). The same construction occurs in 3:2. The verb φανερωθῇ can mean “become visible, appear” and probably refers to the second coming (see a similar usage in 1 Pet 1:20; 5:4). However, in 1:2 and 3:8 J uses it to refer to the first advent. Whether we should read the aorist verb form as a true passive (“be made visible”) or as a middle voice (“makes himself visible”) is not made clear. The condition is not doubting the reality of the second appearance of the Messiah, but J is uncertain when it would occur. For this reason, translators often render ἐάν as when. Some manuscripts in fact read οταν.

J provides a compound apodosis, expressing a positive and negative declaration, with the subject being first person plural. The noun παρρησία occurs four times in 1 Jn and always in association with the verb ἔχω (2:28; 3:21; 4:17; 5:14). When it describes speech, it has the sense “frankness.” It also can express the idea of doing something openly or publicly. In then describes a person who acts in the presence of superiors in a frank and outspoken manner and thus boldly or confidently. This is how Luke and Paul tend to use it. J employs it this way in his document to describe the confidence that believers will have when they are in God’s presence at the judgment or in Jesus’ presence when he returns a second time.

In the second clause of the apodosis J arguess that believers will not experience the reaction that unbelieving humans will have at the judgment or at the second coming, namely shame (αἰσχυνθῶμεν). This is the only occurrence of this verb in 1 Jn, but it is found in 1 Pet 4:16 and several times in Paul’s letters. Here it has the sense of “be dishonoured, be disgraced” before someone. The adverbial prepositional phrase ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ perhaps defines the cause of the shame. Or perhaps it has the sense of source, namely “we should be shamed by him.” Other scholars emphasize the idea of separation and removal, i.e., “we should be disgraced [sent away] from him.” I think probably it is truly passive in this context. J ends this second apodosis with a temporal prepositional phrase indicating at what point this disgrace might occur. This is the only occurrence of the noun παρουσία in 1 Jn, but it occurs numerous times in Paul’s writings to describe Jesus’ second coming (e.g., 1 Th 2:19; 2 Th 2:1; 1 Cor 15:23) in the sense of “arriving, coming,” but it can also refer to the anticipated presence or arrival of a human being. αὐτοῦ probably is a subjective genitive. Note the possible alliteration between παρρησίαν…παρουσίᾳ.

Verse 29:  J continues with another complex third class conditional clause. The logic implies that if A should become the case, then B will become the case, but the probability of this happening has some contingency. Perhaps it relates to whether or not they really know this fact, because of the previous references to teaching. Both clauses begin with verbs of knowing, namely εἰδῆτε…γινώσκετε – aorist subjunctive followed by present indicative. The aorist subjunctive tense form indicates a completed action or process. J has employed the present tense form οἴδατε three times in 2:20-21, affirming what his audience already knows. As he continues to the end of his document, he shifts between second and first person plural forms. Apart from the use in 2:20a, οἴδατε is always accompanied by a ὅτι clause, that sometimes has a causal flavour (e.g., 2:21), but usually it marks a content clause of indirect discourse. In contrast γινώσκω usually takes a nominal direct object, but occasionally is modified by a ὅτι-marked content clause (e.g., 2:5, 18, 29; 3:19, 24; 4:13). It is difficult to discern a semantic distinction between these two verbs.

The object of εἰδῆτε is the content clause ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, functioning as direct object. The subject of ἐστιν presumably is the referent of the third person singular pronouns used in v. 28. ἐστιν has a characterizing function. δίκαιος is a predicate adjective. J has described this characteristic of Jesus already in 1:9; 2:1 and will again in 3:7b. The “justness” of Jesus generates a just status in the lives of his followers and for this reason they have no reason for shame when he appears. He will act justly in their case at the final judgment.

The ὅτι content clause in the apodosis links πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην with Jesus ὁ δίκαιος. The substantival present active participle describes a current, incomplete activity that is concurrent with the status expressed by the perfect passive tense form of the main verb. πᾶς functions inclusively in this setting (“everyone who….”). J employs this nominal phrase three times in his document (3:7, 10). δικαιοσύνη means “justice, upright behaviour.” When coupled with ποιέω it can mean “to practice justice” or “to administer justice.” The initial καί is ascensive. J employs a perfect passive verb γεγέννηται to affirm that the status or condition of such a person is “birth from him [Jesus].” J uses this tense form of γεννάω eight times (2:29; 3:9(2x); 4:7; 5:1(3x), 4:18a). Usually ὁ θεός is the subject of this verb, the ‘parent.’ J once more places everything in the ὅτι clause in front of the verb. The result is that the two verbs γινώσκετε…γεγέννηται bracket the clause. Possible J intends another word-play with these two verbs.