The difference in gender (here masculine τὸν and there neuter ὃν) seems to be against the pointing to 1 John 1:1. I think it’s referring here to a person rather than to a concept, which is the justification for the masculine.
I agree, though, that it’s functioning both as a substantive (“the one [that is] from the beginning”) and also as a pointer (specifically, “that one [that is] from the beginning”). It’s functioning to point at someone, surely a reference to Jesus being “from the beginning”.
Why not? I think the audience was intended to know who was meant. It might be a reference to “God” in general – the eternal one, him who is from the beginning.
Why not? I think the audience was intended to know who was meant. It might be a reference to “God” in general – the eternal one, him who is from the beginning.
It seems as if the Gospel of John was an attempt to define the Deity of Christ while the 1st Epistle sought to define the Humanity of Christ. If there is a personification here, which I believe there is, it has to do with the Messiah.