Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - 1 John 5:7 - 5:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn 5:7. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς-ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ και ὁ λόγος (ὁ Υἱὸς) καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσιν, Because there are three who bear witness on earth-in heaven, the Father, and the Word (the Son), and the Spirit: and these three are one) I have long ago explained the form employed in the margin of my edition, and blamed by some one, although the whole dissertation in the Apparatus itself was prepared for a true vindication of the passage. Now, since this most brilliant passage has again and again come under my consideration, I will first enter into a gleaning of criticisms, and will bring forward some chief points[15] from my Apparatus, according to the order of the subjects there discussed; by which critics may, if they please, be invited to a more full discussion of the matters of which we have there spoken, as the truth shall require: but the last of those subjects will lead us to a much more pleasing contemplation, that of interpretation.
[15] These, indeed (although regularly inserted in the second Edition of the Appar. Crit. by Burk), I did not think fit to omit in this remarkable passage, as I did in the case of the other critical annotations. My doing so will, I am confident, he pardoned, or even welcomed, by those readers who are not possessed of the App. Crit.-E. B.
The only Greek MSS., in any form, which support the words from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, to μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, are-1. The Cod. Montfortianus at Dublin, palpably copied from the modern Latin Vulgate [as the fact, that the articles before πατὴρ, λόγος, and πνεῦμα are clumsily omitted, shows], and brought forward as an authority to compel Erasmus to insert the words: Erasmus terms it Codex Britannicus. 2. Cod. Ravianus of Berlin, a transcript from the Complutensian Polyglot, imitating even its misprints. 3. A MS. at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand. 4. Cod. Ottobonianus 298, in the Vatican, a Greek and Latin MS. of the 15th century, in which the Greek is a mere accompaniment of the Latin, and is quite peculiar (ex. gr. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). The words were first edited in Greek by the Complut. Editors, 1514, A.D.; and then by Erasmus, not until his third Ed., 1522, A.D. And so, through Stephens and the Elzevirs, the Rec. Text has adopted them. All the old Versions, as well as Greek MSS., reject them. The oldest copy of the Latin Vulg. containing them is Wizanburgensis, 99, of the 8th century: also the codex in the monastery of H. Trinity of Cava, near Naples, of the 8th century: also Cod, Toletanus: also Cod. Demidovianus of the 12th century. But Cod. Amiatinfus and the oldest MSS. of the Vulg. omit them. All the Greek Fathers omit them.
A Schorium, quoted in Matthæi, seems to me to account for the origin of the words, which probably did not arise from fraud: οἱ τρεῖς δὲ εἶπεν ἀρσενικῶς, ὅτι σύμβολα ταῦτα τῆς τριάδος, “He uses τρεῖς in the Masculine, because these things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are symbols of the Trinity.” This also is plainly the reference of Cyprian, 196, “De Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto Scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.” There is plainly in the genuine words, which use τρεῖς in the masc., though the antecedents to which it refers are neuter, some mystery or symbol; and that the Trinity was the truth meant, seems not an unnatural inference. The more recent Latin Vulg. embodied in the text what was probably a marginal comment, made not without reason.-E.
I. Many persons confine their critical investigations within the limits of this one passage; or at any rate wish to commence them with this passage. They act as though any one should begin the study of Geometry with squaring the circle. Such persons scarcely find ground on which to stand; but he who has penetrated through other intricacies, will be able to find a way here also, and to set at rest the minds of others, as far as they are teachable. Here it is only by changing the course that the harbour is gained: the present passage requires a peculiar method of treatment.
II. Not a few of those, who rightly and religiously defend this very expression, are too eager in seeking out and employing supports even of such a kind as have no strength. That has occurred to a distinguished man, Leonard Twells, whose miscellaneous production Wolf has translated from English into Latin, and with a few corrections, has put forth on this passage, pp. 300-313. I read and attentively considered Twells before the publication of my Apparatus: Wherefore, when I proceeded with more of self-distrust than he did, I did not do so without good reason, and I would have the reader imagine that there is matter for deliberation. I am not aware that anything new needs particularly to be supplied: I will mention a few points, which bear upon the subject.
III. As the Complutensian editors, on the authority of Latin manuscripts, omitted in ch. 2 the former part of 1Jn 5:14, and in ch. 5 the last clause of 1Jn 5:8, although they found them in Greek manuscripts, so they restored this very seventh verse, although not contained in the Greek manuscripts; thus they allowed themselves singular liberty in this Epistle. The undisguised confession of Stunica, respecting the Latin manuscripts here employed, is of more weight than all suspicion respecting two Greek Vatican manuscripts, one of which did not contain the passage, while the other suggested it to Stunica himself, or his colleagues. That the Spanish editors here followed the Vatican copy, Erasmus does not plainly assert, as Twells understands him; he only says, if I am not mistaken. If Amelotus afterwards read the sentence in the Vatican Manuscript, we must see that it does not in this instance Latinize.[16]
[16] That is, Bengel suspects that the Greek of the Vatican MS., if indeed it contains, as Amelotus says, this passage as to the three heavenly witnesses, must be interpolated from the Latin MSS., and not from original Greek MSS.
IV. Erasmus obtained from Britain, by the instrumentality of some one or other, a leaf. He himself distrusted it: he related the causes of his distrust, which were not unreasonable. Nothing but mere spontaneous credulity can make from this source an adequate (reliable) British manuscript. The Complutensian editors gave one Greek version of the sentence from Latin writers; the British writer brought forward by Erasmus gave another; the Greek translator of the Council of Lateran another; the interpolator of the Montfortian Manuscript another.
V. That the sentence was read by the Stephens in no Greek manuscript, the margin of the Latin Bible of Robert (Stephens) of itself proves.
It is altogether unnecessary to quote the editions of the Stephens and the others. All the rest followed Erasmus and the Complutensian edition in omitting or expressing the sentence.
VI. There is no great number of Greek manuscripts in which the epistles, for instance those of John, are contained: and of those which are now extant in considerable numbers, with very few exceptions none exceed the age of a thousand years; the rest are considerably, or even much more, recent. Therefore it is the less remarkable, that the sentence in Greek is scarcely found at present in the Greek manuscripts; and I have ascertained that we must add to these the royal Hafniensian Manuscript, the Ebnerian, and all those of Paris (Journal des Savans, June 1720), and many, which the celebrated La Croze (in his History of Christianity in India, p. 316, 2d Edit. Germ.) says that he has seen. In the Florentine manuscripts, which that illustrious man, John Lamius, mentions in his book respecting the learning of the Apostles, ch. 13, there are found twelve which contain the General Epistles, and yet are without this clause; but all of them were written after the ninth century, We ought, on the other hand, to value the more highly the supplementary authority of that most ancient Version, the Latin Vulgate,[17] from which this sentence was read and quoted by many fathers in a continued series, and afterwards was introduced into the copies of other languages, and at the present time is extant in the Latin manuscripts of the New Testament.
[17] In the absence of the oldest Greek MSS. we have a valuable substitute for them in the Vulgate.
It is conjectured, but without any reason, from his silence, that Valla had read the clause in his Greek manuscripts. Valla also passed over (without notice) a remarkable difference in 1Jn 5:6, where in the Greek copies the reading is τὸ Πνεῦμα (the Spirit), in the Latin, Christus (Christ). And in ch. 2, Valla had without doubt read in the Greek copies the former part of 1Jn 5:14, which is wanting in the Latin copies;[18] and yet he passes it over in silence [et tamen in pausâ est]. He has been very sparing in his notes on this Epistle.
[18] Some MSS. of Vulg. omit ἔγραψα ὑμ. πατ. to ἀρχῆς. In Beza’s Latin, the last clause of the 13th ver., “scribo vobis, pueruli,” etc., is the first clause of ver. 14.-E.
The Council of Lateran, in that sentence, as it is found in SOME copies, does not refer to the whole of 1Jn 5:7, but to the clause of 1Jn 5:8, and these three are one: which clause, being met with in ALL the Greek copies, even of itself demonstrates that the Council is not speaking of Greek, but of Latin manuscripts, of which SOME only have the clause in question.
The Montfortian, or Dublin, or Hibernian copy, to which so much weight is attached in certain quarters on account of this clause, is new, and Latinizes; being written in the West, as is proved by the Latin division into chapters. That the Berlin Manuscript is of no weight apart from the Complutensian editors, the candour of the people of Berlin admits.
VIII. To the Greek Fathers, who did not read the clause, is to be added Germanus of Constantinople, as his View of Ecclesiastical Affairs shows. The negative argument, in such an inquiry, cannot be rejected. It is of no weight in the case of one or two ecclesiastical writers only; it is of weight in the case of a great number, when they omit a clause so remarkable, and so singularly adapted to decide controversies. If the Africans in such numbers quote it, how is it that the Asiatics in as many instances refrain from quoting it? The latter did not read it; the former did.
XIX. John Lamius, in the treatise already quoted, pp. 260, 266, 284, mentions the Latin copies of the Florentines which do or do not contain the sentence. Moreover, so great is the antiquity, and so great the authority of the Latin Version, wherever Tertullian, Cypria[19], and a portion only, but these forming a continuous series, of the Fathers follow it, that we are fully justified in depending upon it, and are not compelled to remain in suspense, although it is not yet clearly ascertained, what the following ages read in different parts of the East. They who have at hand those more abstruse versions are easily led to disparage too much the Latin Version, which is too much extolled by the Romanists.
[19] yprian (in the beginning and middle of the third century: a Latin father). Ed. Steph. Baluzii, Paris. 1726.
XXI. The Florentine Manuscript, and that Laurentian one [= Amiatinus] which we have quoted from Burnet, is the same, if I mistake not, with that which John Lamius describes in the book quoted, p. 265. Other Latin manuscripts of the Florentines are added, which have that order of the verses, pp. 258, 268, 285. A writer also of the eighth century, Etherius, Bishop of Axima in Spain, has it, who in his first book against Elipandus, reviewing a great part of this Epistle, thus sets forth the two verses: Because there are three, who bear witness on earth, the water and the blood and the flesh; and these three are one: and there are three, who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus. Cornelius Jansenius, in his Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, chapter 144, has imitated those who follow this reading, whether manuscripts or Latin Fathers. The seventh verse, in the judgment of Cameron, is to be enclosed in a parenthesis, and the sixth to be joined with the eighth. There is no need of a parenthesis: the sixth verse is of itself connected with the eighth.
XXII. That Manuel Calecas, a DOMINICAN, and the Lectionary of the Greeks, in this place undoubtedly interpolated, edited by VENETIANS, follow the authority of the Vulgate translation, is by no means surprising. The Armenians formerly did the same thing.
XXIII. That Basil the Great made use of rare (that is, having a few copies much resembling one another, which were peculiar in their class) manuscripts of the Epistles, is plain from the Apparatus, p. 690; and he lays open to us a trace of this dictum of John, when, in his fifth book against Eunomius, he says: God and the Word and the Spirit, one Deity, and alone to be adored. It is scarcely possible for more weight to be assigned to the Dialogue, which is attributed to Maximus, than is assigned to it in my Apparatus. That author undoubtedly owes his knowledge of the clause to the Latin copies of the Africans: whether he found it afterwards in Greek copies, is for the consideration of the learned.
Now I wish the reader attentively to compare together the great number of manuscripts, which Gerard of Mastricht brings together in his Notes on this passage, and the fourteen Greek witnesses which Twells enumerates in the 302d page of Wolf, and, on the other side, the things which I have supplied instead, in the 3d and subsequent paragraphs. You will say that an essential service will be rendered by him who shall prove, by any means whatever, that there are in existence even but one or two witnesses of Greek authority. He who shall bring forward credible witnesses from Greek antiquity, will deserve the gratitude of the Church.
XXV. They who defend the clause are not therefore necessarily bound to know, or to bring forward, the cause why it is wanting in so many copies. Let the cause of the omission be less certain: still the omission, and moreover the genuineness of the clause also, is certain. He who has lost and found a choice treasure, even though he knows not how it was lost, yet recognises and recovers it. The suspicion of an hiatus in this passage, arising from a similarity of ending, will, as I think, be slow in coming to an end. I frequently, throughout this work, notice what influence similarity of ending is accustomed to have in the production of hiatus; but that this cause cannot possibly avail in the present instance, I have, unless I am mistaken, proved in the Apparatus, p. 765 [Ed. ii. p. 474]. But another, and not unreasonable conjecture, as to the manner in which the clause came to be expunged, is subjoined in the same place. On the other hand, it can by no means be regarded as a patch stitched on by the Latin Fathers, who are, some wanting the clause itself, others rejoicing in it; some known, others unknown or lost; some of great antiquity, others more recent. Indulge suspicions in every way; but you will effect nothing. At so early a period, so seriously, so universally, through such a perpetual series of ages, do they bring it forward.
XXVIII. This last thesis leads us to the exigesis of this most precious passage, in which the 7th verse, when compared (1st) with the context of the whole Epistle, and especially (2d) with the 8th verse, is vindicated, upon the strongest grounds of internal probability.
(1.) There are some who think that it is not easy to ascertain the design and arrangement of this Epistle: but if we examine it with simplicity, this will be laid open to us without any violence. In this letter, or rather treatise (for a letter is sent to the absent; but here the writer seems to have been among those to whom he was writing), St John designs to confirm the happy and holy communion of the faithful with God and Jesus Christ, by showing the marks [gnorismata, by which they may be known] of their most blessed state.
There are three parts:-
THE EXORDIUM, ch. 1Jn 1:1-4.
THE DISCUSSION, ch. 1Jn 1:5 to 1Jn 5:12.
THE CONCLUSION, ch. 1Jn 5:13-21.
Let the text itself be consulted.
In the Exordium the apostle establishes authority for his own preaching and writing from the appearance of the Word of Life; and clearly points out his design (ἵνα, that, 1Jn 5:3-4). The Conclusion (that we may at once clear out of the way this point) corresponds with the Exordium, more fully explaining the same design, a recapitulation of those Marks being made by the thrice-repeated we know, ch. 1Jn 5:18-20.
The Discussion itself contains two parts, treating-
I. Separately,
a. Of communion with God, in the light, 1Jn 1:5-10 :
b. Of communion with the Son, in the light, 1Jn 2:1-2; 1Jn 2:7-8.
A special application being subjoined to fathers, young men, and little children, ch. 1Jn 2:13-27.
Here is interwoven an exhortation to abide in Him, 1Jn 2:28 to 1Jn 3:24;
That the fruit arising from His manifestation in the flesh may extend to His manifestation in glory.
c. Of the confirmation and fruit of this abiding by the Spirit, 1 John 4 throughout:
To which subject 1Jn 3:24 prepares the way, to be compared with 1Jn 4:13.
II. By a Summing up, or comprehensive statement (Congeries) of the testimony of the Father and Son and Spirit: on which depends faith on Jesus Christ, the being born of God, love towards God and His children, the keeping of His commandments, and victory over the world, ch. 1Jn 5:1-12.
The parts often begin and end in a similar manner; just as the Conclusion answers to the Exordium. See above on Ch. 1Jn 2:12. Sometimes there is a previous allusion in some preceding part, and a recapitulation in a subsequent part. Every part treats of the Divine benefit, and the duty of the faithful: and the duty is derived from the benefit by the most befitting inferences, of love towards God, of the imitation of Jesus Christ, of the love of the brethren: and although many things may appear to be repeated without order, yet these same inferences are formed in the most methodical manner, by regarding the subject in a different point of view from different causes.
The seventh verse therefore contains a recapitulation, which not only treats of the Father and the Son, but also of the Spirit. What the sun is in the universe, the needle in the mariner’s compass, or the heart in the body, that is the 7th verse of chapter 5 in this discussion. First take an edition without this verse, and then an edition which contains it; and you will easily perceive what is required by the whole tenor of John’s discourse.
(2.) The connection of the verses is indissoluble, in this text: 1Jn 5:6. This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in water only, but in water and blood: and it is the Spirit which beareth witness; because the Spirit is truth. 7. Because there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree in one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father and the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.
Lest any confusion should arise, we remind the reader, that that which is spoken of by us in the further consideration of this passage, as the 7th verse, is that which treats of those who bear witness on earth; and that the 8th verse is that which treats of those who bear witness in heaven. And we take for granted this 8th verse, partly as already confirmed by critical arguments in the Apparatus, and partly as about to be further confirmed by exegetical arguments.