Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 1 John 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
II. 5:1-12. Second presentation of the two main thoughts closely combined together. Faith the ground of love
1. 5:1a. Faith the sign of the Birth from God (cf. 2:29, 4:7, Love).
2. 5:1b-4. The love of God which is the true ground of love of the brethren, is the sign of love of the brethren (contrast 4:20).
3. 5:5-12. Faith, in its full assurance, the witness to Jesus as being the Christ.
1. 5:1a. Faith the sign of the Birth from God
1 ff. The writer has shown that love has its origin in the nature of God, and is not merely an affection of human nature. He has also reminded his readers how their love for God, the reflex of His love for us, can be tested. The truth of our claim to love God is shown in our attitude towards the brethren. He now proceeds to show why this is so, and how we can be sure of the sincerity of our love for others. The love of a child for its father and for its brother or sister are facts of nature. Every one who loves the father who begat him naturally loves the other children whom his father has begotten. The facts of the spiritual birth are analogous. What is true of the human family is also true of the Divine Society. If we love the Father who hath “begotten us again,” and the reality of that love is shown in our active obedience (πιμν His commands, we may be assured that our love to His other (spiritual) children is real and sincere. Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ shows by that belief, as it manifests itself in word and deed as well as in intellectual conviction, that he has experienced the new birth. Those who are “born of God” must love all His children, as surely as it is natural that any child should love his father’s other children.
1 πςὁπσεω κτλ Cf. Joh_1:12 f. ὅο δ ἔαο ατν ἔωε ατῖ ἐοσα τκαθο γνσα, τῖ πσεοσνεςτ ὄοαατῦ ο…ἐ θο ἐενθσν Where true faith in Jesus as God’s appointed messenger to men is present, there the new birth has taken place. The writer does not state whether faith is the cause or the result of the new birth. The point is not present to his thoughts, and his argument does not require its elucidation. What he wishes to emphasize is the fact that they go together. Where true faith is the new birth is a reality, and has abiding and permanent consequences. The believer has been born of God. But incidentally the tenses “make it clear that the Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing.” “Christian belief, which is essentially the spiritual recognition of spiritual truth, is a function of the Divine Life as imparted to men” (Law).
ὁπσεω] Πσεενὅιexpresses belief in the truth of a statement or thesis. The phrase used in the passage quoted above from the Gospel (πσεενεςτ ὄοα suggests complete and voluntary submission to the guidance of a Person, as possessed of the character which his name implies. But though the writer is careful to distinguish the two, he would have been unable to conceive of any true faith stopping short at intellectual conviction of the abstract truth of a statement like that which follows in the clause introduced by ὅι which had no effect on the shaping of a man’s conduct. He would have regarded the belief that Jesus is the Christ as inseparable from faith in Jesus as Christ. Neither belief nor knowledge are for him purely intellectual processes.
Ἰσῦ ἐτνὁΧιτς The exact form of this confession of faith is conditioned by the antichrists’ denial (cf. 2:22, ὁἀνύεο ὅιἸσῦ οκἐτνὁΧιτς It lays stress on the identity of the man Jesus with the Christ who became incarnate in Him, as opposed to the theories, then prevalent, of the descent of a higher power on Jesus at the Baptism, which left Him before the Crucifixion.
κὶπςὁἀαῶ κτλ The child’s love for its parent naturally carries with it love for brothers and sisters. The step in the argument, “Every one that is born of God loveth God,” is passed over as too obvious to require statement. We are again reminded that we have to deal with the language of meditation.
αααB 7. 13. 33. 62 om. demid. tol. sah. Hil. Aug.] + κιאA K L P al. pler. cat. vg. harl. syr. arm. aeth. boh. Cyr. Thdt. Thphyl. Oec. Hil. Aug. Bed.
οχιτςετνIb δ (440).
γγντιIa δ δ 552*, 256, 1402 (69).
τν20] to א31.
2. As usual a test is added by which the sincerity of the love may be determined. Ἐ τύῳpoints forward. This is clearly the established usage of ἐ τύῳin the Epistle, but difficulty has been felt in thus explaining it here, because the clause to which it points forward is introduced by ὅα, instead of the usual constructions, ἐν ὅι or a disconnected sentence. But the difficulty is not serious, and it is probable that ἐ τύῳshould be interpreted as usual. Whenever our love to God is clear, and issues in active obedience to His will, we know by this that our love for His children is real. Weiss’ explanation, which makes ἐτύῳrefer back to the statement immediately preceding (πςὁγπνκτλ is perhaps at first sight easier. “When, or as soon as, we love God, we love also the children of God, in accordance with the law that love for him who begets has as its necessary consequence love for those whom he has begotten” (p. 150). Thus the duty of loving the brethren is deduced from the natural law of affection, as well as being directly commanded by God. But the other interpretation is more in accordance with the writer’s wish to emphasize the Divine origin of love. There is certainly no need to reduce the verse to the merest repetition of what has been already said, by the transposition of the objects “Hereby we know that we love God, when we love the children of God,” as Grotius and others have suggested.
τ τκατῦθο] The use of this phrase instead of “the brethren” is significant. True love, which has its origin in God, is called out by that in its object which is akin to the Divine. Every one who has been born of God must love all those who have been similarly ennobled. Love of God bears witness to, and has witness borne to itself by, love of the godlike.
τ τκατυθο] filium Dei arm. boh-codd.: Dominum aeth. | οα] si boh.
οα…ααωε] ε τ ααα τνθο13. 191. 57lect.
πιμνB 27. 29. 64. 69. 106. 15lect ascr dscr gscr vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Thphyl. Lcif. Aug.] πιυε 5. 17. 33. 34: τρμνאK L P al. pler. cat. tol. cav. Oec.: τρυε 31* Rev_2.
om. πιμν(3) ατυ10 A 3. 42. 66** 100. 101.
The reading τρμνis clearly a correction to the more usual phrase which occurs in ver. 3. In itself the reading of B, etc., is more forcible. It emphasizes the active character of the obedience which testifies to the love felt for God and therefore for the brethren.
3. The first clause justifies the addition of the last clause of ver. 2, κὶτςἐτλςατῦπιμν Obedience to His commands is the necessary outcome of love to God. There is no such thing as true love of God which does not issue in obedience.
ατ …ἵα Cf. Joh_17:3. The definitive ἵαgenerally introduces an ideal not yet actually attained. This is perhaps the only class of ideas whose contents it is used to define.
τρμν Contrast ver. 2 (πιμν Actual “doing” is the test of love. But love includes more of obedience than the actual carrying out of definite commands. It accepts them as the expression of an underlying principle, which is capable of moulding the whole character, and which must be kept alive and given scope to work.
βρῖι Cf. Mat_23:4, δσεοσνδ φρί βρα Luk_11:46, φρίεετὺ ἀθώοςφρί δσάτκα and contrast Mat_11:30, τ φρίνμυἐαρνἐτν The word cannot here mean “difficult to fulfil.” It suggests the idea of a heavy and oppressive burden. The commands may be in themselves difficult to carry out, and yet not burdensome, if the Christian is possessed of adequate power to fulfil them, in virtue of his Christian standing and love: dilige et quod vis fac (Augustine). Windisch regards vv. 3 and 4 as intended to show the possibility of fulfilling the Divine commands, and of realizing the Divine ideal for men. (1) On the side of God, He does not demand what is too hard for men. Cf. Philo, de spec. leg. 1:299, p. 257, ατῖα …ὦδάοα πρ σῦὁθὸ οδνβρ κὶπιίο ἢδσρο, ἀλ ἁλῦ πν κὶῥδο. τῦαδ ἐτνἀαᾶ ατνὡ εεγτν ε δ μ, φβῖθιγῦ ὡ ἄχνακὶκρο …κὶτννοῶ ατῦπρέεθικὶτ δκι τμν (2) On man’s side, the necessary power has been given to him. But this interpretation ignores the form of the sentence (ὅιπνκτλ
γρ om. H δ (Ψ K2 (S) sahw boh-codd.
4. And this power each Christian has, in virtue of the new birth from God. The statement is made in its most abstract form (πντ γγνηέο) which emphasizes the power of the new birth rather than its possession by each individual (πςὁεενμνς Every one who is born of God has within himself a power strong enough to overcome the resistance of all the powers of the world, which hinder him from loving God.κὶατ κτλ For the form of expression, cf. 1:5; Joh_1:19. Our faith, the faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God, accepted not as an intellectual conviction but as a rule of life, overcame in our case the powers of the world, which fight for a different principle of life. The aorist (νκσσ) naturally points to a definite act, or fact. The writer must be thinking either of the conversion of each member of the community, “the moment when he ἐίτυε, ” or else of some well-known event in the history of the Church or Churches addressed. The most natural reference is to the definite withdrawing of the false teachers from the fellowship of the Church. There is no obvious reference to the victory of Christ over the world (cf. Joh_16:33, ἐὼννκκ τνκσο) which His followers share in virtue of their faith, i.e. in so far as they unite themselves with Him.
πςογγνηεο Ia 173 (156).
ηω אA B K P al. pler. cat. vg. etc.] υω L 3. 42. 57. 98. 105. 191 al. fere. 20 aeth.
5. τςἐτν Cf. 2:22, τςἐτνὁψύτςε μ κτλ The appeal is to practical experience. He who has realized what Jesus of Nazareth really was, and he alone, has in himself the power which overcomes the forces of the world which draw men away from God; cf. 1Co_15:57.
ὁυὸ τῦθο] Cf. verse 1, ὁχιτς The fuller p’rase brings out the meaning more clearly, though the writer probably means much the same by both titles. He varies his phrase to leave no doubt about his meaning. The πῶο ψῦο of the false teachers was the denial, not that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, but that He was the complete revelation of the Father, the assertion that the higher Power that was in Him was only temporarily connected with Him during a part of His earthly life.
τςετνA L al. pler. vg. sah. Oec.] pr. et arm.: + δ א(B) K P 13. 29. 66**. 68. 69 ascr al. fere. 15 cat. cav. demid. tol. cop. syr. arm. Did. Cyr. Thphyl. (τςδ ετνB cav. demid. tol. Did.).
οπσεω] οπσεσςP.
ισυ + Christus arm-codd. boh-codd.
ετν om. Ia 1402 (219).
ουο] pr. οχιτς13. 56: οχ̄Ic 258 (56).
6-9. He, the pre-existent Son of God, was sent from heaven by God to do His will. He came to earth to fulfil His Mission. In His fulfilment of it, two events are prominent: the Baptism by which He was consecrated to His Messianic work, and the Passion by which He completed His work of atonement and propitiation. His coming was not in the water of John’s Baptism alone, it was realized even more fully in the Blood which He shed upon the Cross. “He that came” is the title which best characterizes His work. The function of the Spirit was different. It was to bear witness. He was the witness-bearer. And He was fitted for His office, for truth is of the essence of His being. He is the truth. And the witness may be trusted, for it is threefold. The witness-bearers are three: the Spirit, whose very nature qualifies Him for the office; the water of John’s Baptism, after which He was declared to be the Son of God; and the blood shed upon the Cross, where testimony was again given to the fact that He is the Son of God, for His death was not like that of other men. Thus the three witnesses all tend to the same point. They establish the one truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
6. Of the many interpretations of this passage which have been suggested, only three deserve serious consideration: (1) A reference to the two Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist naturally suggested itself to many interpreters of the Epistle, especially in view of the 4th and 6th chapters of the Gospel. But it is open to more than one fatal objection. If ὕω can be satisfactorily explained of Baptism, αμ is never found in the New Testament as a designation of the Eucharist. And, secondly, the form of the sentence, ὁἐθνδʼὕαο κὶἵαο, almost necessitates a reference to definite historical facts in the life of Christ on earth which could be regarded as peculiarly characteristic of the Mission which He “came” to fulfil. If the writer had intended to refer to the Christian Sacraments, he must have said ὁἐχμνς It is hardly necessary to point out that any interpretations which refer one of the expressions to a rite instituted by Christ, and the other to something which happened to Him (as, e.g., the Christian rite of baptism, and the atoning death on the Cross), are even less satisfactory. See Cambridge Greek Testament.(2) The reference to the incident recorded in Joh_19:34 was also natural, considering the stress laid upon it by the author of the Gospel, and the exact language in which he records the result of the piercing of the Lord’s side by the soldier’s lance, ἐῆθναμ κὶὕω. This incident gives a definite fact which would justify the use of the aorist (ὁἐθν And the difference in order (αμ κὶὕω) offers no real difficulty. It is easily explicable as a consequence of the writer’s desire to throw special emphasis on the αμ, which he develops further in the next clause, οκἐ τ ὕαιμννἀλ ἐ τ ὕαικὶτ ὕαι But it is difficult to see how this incident could be regarded as characterizing the Lord’s Mission as a whole. No doubt the incident, as the writer had seen it or heard the account of it from a trustworthy and competent witness, had made a deep impression upon him. It had suggested to him the significance of “blood” and “water” as symbolizing two characteristic aspects of the Lord’s work, cleansing and life giving. But the incident itself could hardly be thought of as the means whereby He accomplished His work. As an explanation of the actual words used, ὁἐθνδʼὕαυ κὶαμτς it fails to satisfy the requirements of the case.
(3) We are thus thrown back on the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact, and many modern commentators, who see in the words a reference to the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, in which at the beginning of His ministry He was consecrated to His Messianic work and received the gift of the Spirit descending upon Him and abiding on Him, and the Death on the Cross by which His work was consummated. The terms used refer definitely to the historical manifestation of the Son of God, and compel us to look for definite and characteristic events in that history by means of which it could be said that His mission was accomplished, His “coming” effected. The two great events at the beginning and the end of the ministry satisfactorily fulfil these conditions. At the Baptism He was specially consecrated for His public work, and endowed with the Spirit which enabled Him to carry it out. And His work was not finished before Calvary. The Death on the Cross was its consummation, not a mere incident in the life of an ordinary man, after the Higher Power had left Him, which had temporarily united itself with His human personality for the purposes of His mission of teaching.
The middle clause of the verse distinguishes two facts, and lays emphasis on the latter. The repetition of both preposition and article brings this out clearly. The statement is as precise as grammar can make it. And the whole statement, including what is said about the function of the Spirit as witness-bearer, is no doubt conditioned by the special form of erroneous teaching which had made so precise a statement necessary.
Though Tertullian apparently adheres to this interpretation, his mention of it shows the early connection of this passage with the incident at the Crucifixion, recorded in Joh_19:34. Cf. Tert. de Baptismo, 16, “Uenerat enim per aquam et sanguinem, sicut Ioannes scripsit, ut aqua tingueretur, sanguine glorificaretur, proinde nos facere aqua uocatos, sanguine electos. Hos duos baptismos de uulnere perfossi lateris emisit, quatenus qui in sanguinem eius crederent, aqua lauarentur, qui aqua lauissent, etiam sanguinem potarent.”The combination of the historical and sacramental explanation is well illustrated by Bede, “Qui uenit per aquam et sanguinem, aquam uidelicet lauacri et sanguinem suae passionis: non solum baptizari propter nostram ablutionem dignatus est, ut nobis baptismi sacramentum consecraret ac traderet, uerum etiam sanguinem suum dedit pro nobis, sua nos passione redimens, cuius sacramentis semper refecti nutriremur ad salutem.” Considering his usual dependence upon Augustine, this may be taken as probably giving that writer’s comment on the passage, especially if we compare his comment on the passage in the Gospel (Tract. cxx. 2), “Aperuit, ut illic quodammodo uitae ostium panderetur, unde Sacramenta Ecclesiae manauerunt, sine quibus ad uitam quae uera uita est non intratur. Ille sanguis in remissionem fusus est peccatorum: aqua illa salutare temperat poculum; haec et lauacrum praestat et potum.”
The passage was naturally allegorized by the Alexandrian School; cf. Clement, “Iste est qui uenit per aquam et sanguinem” et iterum “quia tres sunt qui testificantur, Spiritus, quod est uita, et aqua quod est regeneratio ac fides, et sanguis, quod est cognitio,” where the interpretation illustrates the absence of historical sense which usually characterizes the Allegorists. It would, of course, be possible to interpret the passage of the whole of the life of Jesus on earth, in which the Son of God was manifested in flesh, ὕω and αμ being used as symbols of two different aspects of the work which He accomplished during that life, as, e.g., cleansing and life-giving, according to the recognized Biblical usage of the terms. But if this had been intended the context must have made it plain that this was the meaning which the writer wished to convey. His readers could hardly have deduced it from the passage as it stands.
οτς Jesus, who is both Christ and Son of God. For this use of οτςto emphasize the character of the subject as previously described, see Joh_1:2, Joh_1:7, Joh_1:3:2 (21:24); 1Jn_2:22, cf. 2Jn_1:7. He who came was both Christ and Son of God. The incarnation of the Son of God in human nature was not a merely temporary connection during part only of the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.ὁἐθν The article is significant. He is one whose office or work is rightly characterized by the description given. And the aorist naturally refers to definite historical facts, or to the whole life regarded as one fact. It is hardly safe to find in the expression ὁἐθνa distinct reference to the (?) Messianic title ὁἐχμνς and so discover in the phrase a special indication of the office and work of Messiah. The idea emphasized in this and similar expressions would seem to be generally the course of action taken in obedience to the command of God. The “coming” of the Son corresponds to the “sending” of the Father. It expresses the fulfilment of the Mission which He was sent to accomplish. As that Mission was Messianic in character, Messianic ideas may often be suggested by the phrase, but they are secondary. “He who accomplished the Mission entrusted to Him by God” seems to be the meaning of the word.
δʼὕαο κὶαμτς The difficulty of the phrase is reflected in the attempts to modify the text. Cf. the critical note. The phrase should express means by which the “coming” was accomplished, or elements by which it was characterized. Cf. 2Co_5:7, δὰπσεςπρπτῖ. The tense of ἐθν any primary reference to the Christian sacraments, even if ὕω and αμ could be used to indicate them (see note at the beginning of the verse). As has been pointed out, the order of the words is not in itself decisive against such a reference or against a reference to the incident recorded in Joh_19:34 (ἐῆθναμ κὶὕω). The real objection to the latter view is the difficulty of seeing how that incident could be regarded as characteristic means by which the “coming” was accomplished. It may well have suggested to the writer the peculiar significance of two aspects of the coming, but can hardly be regarded as an event by means of which the coming was fulfilled. On the other hand, the Baptism and the Crucifixion were both important factors in the carrying out of the Mission which He came to fulfil, and in this light they stand out more prominently than any other two recorded events of the Ministry.
οκἐ τ ὕαιμνν The writer evidently feels that further precision is necessary to make his meaning clear and unmistakable. It is clear that he has to deal with a form of teaching which denied the reality, or at least the supreme importance, of the coming ἐ τ αμτ. The use of the article is natural, where the reference is to what has been mentioned before. The repetition of both article and preposition certainly suggests that two different events are referred to, a point which the earlier phrase δʼὕαο κὶαμτςleft doubtful.
The difference in meaning between the two prepositions used is not very clear. The events may be regarded as instruments by which the Mission was accomplished; or, on the other hand, water and blood, or rather the realities which they symbolize, may be thought of as spheres in which the work, or purpose, of the Mission was characteristically realized. But the influence of Semitic forms of expression may have gone far towards obliterating any difference in meaning between the two forms of expression. Cf. Lev_16:3 (ἐ μσῳ 1Co_4:21 (ἐ ῥβῳ…ἢἐ ἀάῃ Heb_9:12 (δὰτῦἰίυαμτςεσλε), 25 (εσρεα …ἐ αμτ ἀλτί).
κὶτ πεμ κτλ Τ μρυονexpresses the characteristic office of τ πεμ, as ὁἐθνdoes of οτς It is not merely equivalent to μρυον Christ was the fulfiller of the Divine plan. Cf. Heb_10:7 (Psa_40:8), ττ επν ἰο ἥω ἐ κφλδ ββίυγγατιπρ ἐο τῦπισι ὁθὸ, τ θλμ συ The special function of the Spirit is to bear witness to what the Christ was and came to do. It is not improbable that in the false teaching which is here combated, a totally different function had been assigned to the Spirit (cf. Introduction, p. xlix). We may, perhaps, see a parallel instance in the description of the proper function of the Baptist contained in the Prologue of the Gospel, (οκἦ ἐενςτ φς ἀλ ἵαμρυήῃπρ τῦφτς To the Baptist also some had assigned a different and a higher function. Perhaps, however, the sequence of thought in the passage as a whole may be brought out more clearly by a simpler interpretation, which does not exclude a secondary reference to the ideas which have been suggested. “He” came both by water and by blood. Both bore witness to the character of His Mission. But there was other witness, and more important. The Spirit is the witness-bearer. And so the witness is threefold. It fulfils the requirements of legally valid attestation. If we recognize the proper place and function of the Spirit, we gain assurance which cannot be shaken.
The present tense excludes the need of any definite historical reference in the case of the Spirit, as, for instance, the Voice at the Baptism, or the Voice which spake from heaven shortly before the Passion (Joh_12:28).
The best explanation of the author’s meaning is to be found in the account of the function of the Paraclete in Joh_15:26, τ πεμ τςἀηεα, ὃπρ τῦπτὸ ἐπρύτι ἐενςμρυήε πρ ἐο. Cf. also Joh_14:26, 16:Joh_14:8-10, Joh_14:13-15.
ὅι Either declarative or causal. The former gives a possible meaning. The Spirit “carries with it immediately the consciousness of its truth and reality,” is in itself the best witness to its own nature, which is truth. But this is alien to the context. The emphasis is on the function of witnessing. This function the Spirit can perform perfectly, because the Spirit is the truth. The very nature of the Spirit is truth. Cf. Joh_15:26. By its very nature it is not only capable of bearing true witness, but it is also constrained to do so. It cannot deny itself.
εθν pr. ῡτυθ Ic 258 (56).
κιαμτςB K L al. plu. vg. (am. fu. demid. harl.) syrsch Cyr. Γ Oec. Tert.]: pr. κιπεμτς5. 68. 83 arm. aeth.: κιπεμτς54. 103. 104 Cyr. Ambr.: om. Ia 158 (56) Ib 62-161. 472 (498) Ic δ (-): +κιπεμτς6. 7. 13. 15. 18. 25. 29. 30. 33. 34. 36. 39. 66**. 69. 80. 98. 101. 137 (+αιυ33. 34. 39) ascr al. pauc. cav. tol. sah. cop. syrp Cyr.
αμτς pr. δIa 184 (-) K500 (45).
ισυ χιτςאA B L al. plu. arm. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec.: χιτςισυ K P h. 15. 22. 33. 34. 36. 39. 56. 100. 192 cat. arm-codd. sah. Ambr.: ισυ οχιτςminusc. uix. multi. syr p Thphylcomn Oeccom. μνν μν B
ε τ υαι…αμτ] ε τ αμτ …υαιΡ31*. 83 arm.: ε τ υαι πεμτ A 21. 41 Cyr.: ε τ αμτ …πεμτ 66**. 80: + et spiritu cav. tol. aeth.
τ 2o] om. Hδ (Ψ
ε 3o A B L P 4. 5. 13. 17. 18. 21. 33. 40. 41. 66**. 80. 83. 118 jscr kscr cat. Cyr.] om. אK al. plu. vg. boh-cod. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec.
τ 3o] om. H162. 103 (61).
κιτ] οιIa 397ff (96).
τ πεμ 2o] χιτς34 vg. armusc: om. τ H δ (Ψ Ia 158 (395).
7. ὅιτεςκτλ The witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is trustworthy. It fulfils the conditions of legally valid witness, as laid down in Deu_19:15, οκἐμνῖμρυ εςμρυῆα κτ ἀθώο κτ πσνἀιίνκὶκτ πνἁάτμ κὶκτ πσνἁατα ἣ ἂ ἁάτ·ἐὶσόαο δὸμρύω κὶἐὶσόαο τινμρύω σήεα πνῥμ. Cf. Deu_17:6; Mat_18:16; 2Co_13:1; Joh_8:17. It is obvious that the same interpretation must be given to πεμ, ὕω, and αμ here as in the preceding verse. The Christ “came” by water and by blood, and the Spirit bore witness to Him and to His Mission. The witness of the Spirit is supported by the witness of the water and the blood. The means by which He accomplished His Mission are subsidiary witnesses to its character. And the witnesses agree. The Spirit, and the opening and closing scenes of the Ministry as interpreted by the Spirit, bear similar witness to the Christ.
εςτ ἕ εσν Are for the one thing, tend in the same direction, exist for the same object. They all work towards the same result, the establishing of the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
εσν om. Ib 157 (29).
μρυονε] μρυοσνHδ (Ψ Ic 114f (335).
κι1o] om. Ib δ (522).
κι3o] om. Hδ (Ψ
κιτ υω post αμ arm-codd.
τ 4o] om. Ia 70 (505).
8. ε τνμρυίνκτλ Cf. Joh_5:36. If we accept the testimony of men when it satisfies the conditions of evidence required by the law, much more are we bound to accept the witness which we possess in this case, for it is witness borne by God Himself. Cf. also Joh_8:18, κὶμρυε πρ ἐο ὁπμα μ πτρ and 10:25, τ ἔγ ἃἐὼπι ἐ τ ὀόαιτῦπτό μυτῦαμρυε πρ ἐο. Neither here nor in 4:11 does the ε indicate any doubt: it is known to every one that we do accept such testimony.ὅιατ κτλ Such witness is greater, and therefore more worthy of our acceptance, because it is Divine witness, and deals with a subject on which God, and God alone, is fully competent to speak. It concerns His Son. God has borne witness concerning His Son. In this case the Divine witness alone is ἀηιήin the full sense of the term, though other kinds of witness may be true so far as they go.
ὅιμμρύηε] The reading ὅιis undoubtedly right. If the reading ἥ, of the Textus Receptus, be adopted, the ατ must refer back to the witness already described, i.e. that borne by the three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, or by the one witness, the Spirit, who interprets the evidence of the historical facts. The witness meant must be the witness borne to the truth that Jesus is the Christ. If ὅιis accepted, it may be taken in three ways: (1) Causal. In this case ατ must refer to what has preceded, the witness already described. Such is the witness, Divine and legally valid, for God really has borne witness to His Son. By laying the stress on the verb μμρύηε it is perhaps possible to make sense of the passage in this way. But such an interpretation is very harsh, and not in conformity with the author’s style.
(2) ὅτ. This is the witness, i.e. that which He has borne concerning His Son. This use of ὅτ in the Johannine writings is not certainly established, though perhaps we should compare Joh_8:25, τνἀχνὅτ κὶλλ ὑῖ. In the present context it would be intolerably harsh.
(3) It is far more natural and in accordance with the author’s style (cf. Joh_3:19, ατ δ ἐτνἡκίι ὅιτ φςἐήυε κτλ to regard the ὅιas declarative. The value of the witness consists in this, that He has given it concerning His Son. There can be no more trustworthy witness, so far as competence to speak is concerned, than that which a father bears to his own son. The essence of the witness is that it is the testimony of God to His Son. In the Gospel, μρυενπρ is very frequent (1:7, 8, 15, 2:25, 5:31, 32, etc.), elsewhere very rare.
τναθωω] τυθο א | τυθο (? 1o)] τνᾱνIb δ (522) | om. οιIo K arm. | ημρυι 2o] post θο 2o] Ia | οι2o אA B 5. 6. 13 27. 29. 34. 66** vg. sah. cop. arm-codd. Cyr. Aug.] η K L P al. pler. cat. arm-codd. Thphyl. Oec.: qui arm-ed. | πρ τνυο ατυ de filio suo Iesu Christo arm-codd.: + quem misit saluatorem super terram. Et filius testimonium perhibuit in terra scripturas perficiens; et nos testimonium perhibemus, quoniam uidimus cum, et annunciamus uobis ut credatis et ideo tol.
10. He who trusts himself to the guidance of the Son has in his own experience the witness which God bore to Him, it has become part of himself. He who does not accept the witness as true has not only missed the truth, but has made God a liar; for he has set aside as false the witness which God has borne concerning His own Son.
ἐ ατ] in himself, as is made clear in the paraphrase of א(ἑυῷ The passage must describe the “testimonium spiritus internum.”
ὁμ πσεω] The subjective negative is rightly used. It lays emphasis on the character rather than the fact of non-belief. A general class is described by its significant characteristic. But in N.T. ο with the participle is rare, in the Johannine writings only Joh_10:12. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. of N.T. Grk. 1. p. 231.
τ θῷ This construction (c. dat.) expresses, as usually, acceptance of the statement rather than surrender to the person. The variants τ υῷ Jesu Christo, miss the point of the verse.
ψύτν Cf. 1:10. There is no room for ignorance or misconception. To reject the witness is to deny the truthfulness of God. He has spoken and acted deliberately, and with absolute clearness. The testimony has been borne. The things were not done in a corner. The witness must therefore either be accepted or rejected. It cannot be ignored or explained away.
ππίκν The tense suggests a definite choice of which the effects abide. The rejection has been made, and its effects are inevitable. The aorist (οκἐίτυε, A, etc.) is not so forcible.
ο ππσεκν The negative emphasizes the actual fact rather than its character (contrast ὁμ πσεω). The choice has been made, and its consequences are manifest.
ο ππσεκνεςτνμρυίν The nearest parallel to this expression is Joh_2:23 (πλο ἐίτυα εςτ ὄοαατῦ i.e. believed on Jesus as Messiah, as being that which His name implied, and were ready to follow Him as Messiah, till they discovered how different His conception of the Messianic office was from theirs). It seems to denote devotion to a person possessed of those qualities which the witness borne to him announces, or at least to the idea which is expressed in that witness.
ἣ μμρύηε κτλ The phrases of ver. 9; are repeated for emphasis; each point is dwelt upon. The witness has been borne, once for all; it cannot be ignored or set aside. It has been borne by God Himself, in a case where His word alone can be final, as it concerns His own Son. In the writer’s view there can be no excuse for refusing to accept evidence which is so clear and satisfactory. Cf. Rothe, “If God did not will that men should believe on Jesus, He led men into a terrible temptation. So if we would keep our conception of God pure, we must ascribe this intention to Him in His ordering of the world. We generally put forward prominently whatever tells against Faith, but leave on one side what speaks for it. We ought first to answer satisfactorily the question, how it could be possible that this Faith should so widely permeate humanity before we investigate the force of our doubts, and then we should rest assured that Christianity is non sine numine”; a striking comment, even if it can hardly be said to be called out by the exact expressions of the text.
om. totum comma Ia 397ffff (96) | τυθο] om. arm-cod. | τνμρυινאB K L P al. longe. plur. cat. sah. syr. arm. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] + τυθο A al. plus12 vg. cop. aeth.: +eius m. | ατ A B K L P al. fere.54 cat Thphyl.] ευωאal. muuid Cyr. Oec. | μ] om. Ia 175 (319) | τ θωאB K L al. longe. plur. cat. boh-codd. syr. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. Vig.] τ υωA 5. 27. 29. 66** al. plus12 vg. syr.: τ υωτυθ 56 sah. arm. boh-ed. filio eius aeth.: Iesu Christo m: om. am.* | ατν aeum m sah. | ο ππσεκνאB K L P etc.] οκειτυε א οκειτυε A 5. 33. 34 dscr | ες2o—η] Deo qui arm-cod. | εατρκνא| om. οθο 4 dscr jscr vg. codd. aeth. Cyr. Aug. Vig.
11. At last the witness, some of the essential characteristics of which have been already described, is actually defined. So far the writer has only taught his readers that it is Divine witness, borne by a father to his son, and that those who believe on the son have it in themselves, as a possession which experience has made part of themselves. Now he definitely states in what it consists. God bore witness to His Son when He gave life to men,—that higher spiritual life which they can realize and make their own only in so far as they unite themselves to Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God.
ατ …ὅι Cf. Joh_3:19 (ατ δ ἐτνἡκίι, ὅιτ φςἐήυε κτλ 1Jn_5:14, ατ ἐτνἡπρηί …ὅιἐντ ατμθ …ἀοε ἡῶ. The constructions with ἵα and with the nominative, are rather common in S. John.
The witness which God bore consisted in the fact that He gave life to men, by sending His Son that men might have life in Him. Cf. Joh_10:10, ἐὼἦθνἵαζὴ ἔωι κὶπρσὸ ἔωι. The sending of the Son on a mission, truly characterized by the Water of the Baptism and the Blood shed on the Cross, and of which the object was to implant a new life in men, was the witness borne by God to the nature and character of Jesus of Nazareth.
ζὴ αώιν The anarthrous phrase emphasizes character or quality. The gift was something which is best described as “spiritual life.”ἔωε] The tense emphasizes the fact, apart from its consequences. The reference is to the historic fact of the mission of Him who came by Water and by Blood.
ἡῖ] We Christians. The gift of life is a witness only where it has been received.
κὶατ ἡζὴκτλ This clause is part of the “witness,” not an additional statement made about the life. The witness is the gift of a life which is in the Son.
εωε] δδκν69. 99 ascr 1scr | οθο B 31. 38. 137 h.scr syrp] post ηι אA K L P al. pler. cat. vg. syr. arm. | ατ] + ετνA | om. ετνA 100.
12. This verse explains more fully the last clause of the preceding verse. It is probably of the nature of an appeal to the reader’s experience. Those who lived with Christ on earth found that they gained from Him a new power which transformed their life into a new and higher life. And the later generations had similar experience by which to judge, though they had not actually companied with Him during His life on earth.
ὁμ ἔω κτλ In the negative statement there are two slight changes which have their significance: (1) The addition of τῦθο to τνυό. God is the source of life. The Son of God alone can give it to men. He that cannot gain it from that source cannot find it. (2) The position of τνζή, which is placed before the verb, and thus becomes more emphatic. Whatever else the man may have in the way of higher endowments, spiritual life is not within his grasp. In the positive statement the emphasis was laid on the actual possession (ἔε τνζή). We have here another close parallel with the Gospel (see Joh_3:36).
ὁμ ἔω] The negative (μ) generalizes the statement. A class of men is described who are distinguished by this characteristic.
τνυο 1 o] + τυθο 8. 25. 34. 69 ascr boh-codd. | τνζη 1o] τνυο 31: ζη αωινIa δ (489): + ατυO46 (154) Ic 364 (137) | om. τυθο vg. (am. demid.) arm-codd. Aug. Tert. | τνζη 2o] post εε 2o Ib δ (1149): + ατυO46 Ic 364.
13-17. I have written thus about belief in Jesus as the Son of God, and the witness of the Spirit, and the witness of God, which consists in the life which He gave to men through Jesus Christ, in order that you might feel assurance as to the possession of true life, you who believe in Jesus who is the Son of God. Such confidence is realized in prayer, in knowing by experience that, whenever we ask anything of God according to His will, He hears our prayer. And if we are thus conscious that God has heard, we already possess, in anticipation, the thing we asked for. The Almighty Sovereign has said, “Let it be,” there is no further doubt about the matter, even though actual possession may be delayed for long years. This is more clearly seen in intercession for the brethren. If any man see his fellow-Christian sinning, so long as his sinning is not such as leads inevitably to final separation from Christ and the life which God gives in Him, he will naturally intercede for him, and will gain life for him, even if it be long delayed, in the case of all whose sin is not unto death. There is sin which must lead, if persisted in, to final exclusion from life. I do not say that this comes within the sphere of Christian intercession. But in any case there is full scope for intercession. For all unrighteousness is sin, and there is such a thing as sin which does not necessarily lead to final exclusion from life.
τῦαἔρψ] Cf. 2:26, where the reference is clearly to the preceding section about the False Teachers. Cf. also 2:14, which the triple ἔρψ probably refers to that part of the Epistle which had already been written. The present verse does not really present an exact parallel to the conclusion of the Gospel (Joh_20:31) which immediately precedes the appendix (ch. 21.). Even if the reference is to the whole Gospel and not to the σμῖ recorded in ch. 20., that reference is determined by the preceding words (ἃοκἔτνγγαμν ἐ τ ββί τύῳ Here it would seem most natural to refer the words to the preceding section of the Epistle (5:1-12), in which the writer has put forward his view of Faith in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, as the necessary condition of the realization of that spiritual life which God has given to men through Jesus Christ, and which again is the real witness of God to the nature and character of His Son. The following explanation of ὑῖ as those who believe in the name of the Son of God, makes the reference to the whole of this section almost certain.
ὑῖ κτλ For the separation of the explanatory clause (τῖ πσεοσνκτλ cf. ver. 16, δσιατ ζή, τῖ ἁατνυι μ πὸ θντν where the change in number creates a still greater strangeness of expression, and Joh_1:12, ἔωε ατῖ ἐοσα τκαθο γνσα, τῖ πσεοσνεςτ ὄοαατῦ
This separation of τῖ πσεοσνκτλ from ὑῖ has led to several attempts to improve the text: (1) The clause τῖ πσεοσν…θο has been added immediately after ὑῖ in the Receptus. (2) This clause has been retained in its proper place; but for τῖ πσεοσνhas been substituted (a) the nominative, ο πσεοτς or (b) a second final clause, κὶἵαπσεηε The nominative (2a) is found with and without the insertion of a clause, τῖ πσεοσν etc., immediately after ὑῖ. Thus, on the assumption that the reading of B (ὑῖ ἵαεδτ ὅιζὴ ἔεεαώιντῖ πσεοσνκτλ is original, the genesis of the other variants can be easily explained. The parallels quoted above show that it presents a text completely in harmony with the writer’s style.
ἵαεδτ] Cf. 2:1, ἵαμ ἁάττ, and 3:24, ἐ τύῳγνσοε. There are many signs in the Epistle of the writer’s consciousness that his readers’ loss of their first enthusiasm and zeal for the Christian faith had led to their feeling uncertain about their position. They lacked “assurance.”
εδτ] The knowledge which they need must be intuitive. If they realize who and what the Christ is, and the relation in which they stand to Him, they will at once “perceive and know” that they are in possession of life.
πσεοσνεςτ ὄοα Cf. ver. 10 and Joh_2:23. The phrase must imply devotion to a person possessed of the qualities which his name denotes. It is unlikely that πσεενis used with the two constructions (c. dat., εςc. acc.) in the same passage in exactly the same sense. Here the full force of the construction with εςis needed to bring out the sense. The knowledge follows as a matter of course where the self-surrender is complete.
τυα pr. κιIc 258 (56) | ερψ] post υι H δ (Ψ | υι אA B h. 5. 6. 13uid 29. 66**. 81. 142. 162 vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Cassiod.] + τι πσεοσνεςτ οοατυυο τυθο K L P al. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec.: + τι πσεοσν126 | εεεA B al. sat. mu. cat. vg. syrp Cassiod.] habemus arm-codd.: post αωινאK L P al. plus50 Thphyl. Oec. | τι πσεοσνאB syr.] ο πσεοτςא A 5. 6. 13 29, 66**. 81. 142. 162. vg. cop. aeth.: κιιαπσεηεK L P h. al. pler. cat. arm. Thphyl. Oec. (πσεστ h. 37. 57: om. κι57 arm-codd.).
14. κὶατ] The object of the preceding section was to produce assurance in the readers that they were in possession of the new life. This assurance is now described as πρηί, boldness or confidence, with perhaps special reference to the original meaning of the word, absolute freedom of speech. It is said to consist in the fact that God hears them whenever they ask anything according to His will, i.e. it is realized in true prayer, which always brings with it the consciousness that it is heard. This is the fourth mention of the Christian’s confidence; we have it twice in relation to the Judgment (2:28, 4:17), and twice in relation to prayer (3:21 and here).
ἣ ἔοε πὸ ατν which we have and enjoy in realized fellowship with God. In describing relations, πό generally denotes that which “goes out towards,” a relation realized in active intercourse and fellowship. Cf. Joh_1:1, Joh_1:2; Mar_6:3 (οκεσν…ὧεπὸ ἡᾶ; living our life).ὅι One of the common constructions used by the writer to introduce the description of that to which ατ, or ἐ τύῳ or some such expression refers. Our πρηί with God is based on the fact that He hears whatsoever we ask κτ τ θλμ ατῦ
ἐντ κτλ The necessary condition of the hearing; subject to this condition, that it is not in opposition to the Divine will, the hearing is assured whatever the petition may be.
ατμθ] The more subjective form of expression is chosen. But it is doubtful whether any definite and clear difference in meaning between the middle and the active can be pressed. Cf. Mat_20:20, Mat_20:22 (ατῦα…ατῖθ); Joh_16:24, Joh_16:26 (οκἠήαε…ατῖε…ἐ τ ὀόαίμυατσσε
κτ τ θλμ ατῦ Cf. Joh_14:13, ὅτ ἂ ατστ ἐ τ ὀόαίμυτῦοπισ.
ἀοε ἡῶ] Cf. Joh_9:31, οδμνὅιὁθὸ ἁατλνοκἀοε, ἀλ ἐντςθοεὴ ᾖ…τύο ἀοε: Joh_11:41 f.; Psa_16. (17.) 6. The word naturally includes the idea of hearing favourably.
εωεA al. pauc. | οιεντ אB K L P al. pler. sah. syr. arm.] οιοεν arm.(uid.) sah. boh.: οιαA: οιεν 68. 191. 58lect | ατμθ] ατμνIa δ (522) θλμ] ο&omi