Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 5:6 - 5:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Jn_5:6. In order to arrive at an understanding of this verse we must first of all look at the expression: ἔρχεσθαι διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος . The question, what is to be understood by ὕδωρ and αἷμα , has been answered in very different ways. The explanations worthy of notice are these:—1. That the apostle means thereby the blood and water which flowed from Christ’s side on the cross, Joh_19:34; this explanation is found in Augustine, Vatablus, and many of the old commentators; but some of them consider that the apostle here mentions this water and blood as the proof of the actual occurrence of the death of Christ, others that he uses them as symbols of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 2. That by ὕδωρ and αἷμα are to be understood the sacraments appointed by Christ; this is the explanation of Wolf (who, however, understands an allusion to the incident recorded in Joh_19:34), S. Schmid, Carpzovius, Baur, Sander, Besser, and others.[297] 3. That by ὕδωρ John means the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist, and by ΑἿΜΑ the atoning death which He suffered. This is the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact, Cappellus, Heumann, Semler, Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Neander, Ewald,[298] Brückner, Lücke (3d ed. Introd. p. 160; comp. Bertheau’s note on this passage, p. 381), Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune, etc. Not a few commentators, however, divide the explanation, understanding ὕδωρ of the baptism appointed by Christ, and ΑἿΜΑ of His own death; so Hornejus, Knapp, Lücke (in the comm. on this passage; also in the 3d ed., Introd. p. 110; differently, Introd. p. 160), de Wette, Rickli, Gerlach, Frommann (p. 596), Düsterdieck, etc.[299]
By many commentators (as Bede, a Lapide, Russmeyer, Spener, Bengel, etc.) different interpretations are connected together in one or the other of these ways.[300]
[297] To this class belongs also Luther’s interpretation (in the 1st ed. of Walch), which, however, differs in this, that according to it water and blood together constitute the sacrament of baptism; he says: “Most commentators consider both sacraments …; I do not object, indeed, to this explanation, but I understand the phrase of baptism merely.… Christ comes not by water only, but by water which is mixed with blood, that is, by baptism, which is coloured with blood.” So also in the interpretation of the following verse: “If you are baptized with water, the blood of Christ is sprinkled by the Word. If you are baptized in blood, you are at the same time washed by the Holy Spirit through the Word.” In his 2d ed., on the other hand, Luther understands water and blood, with reference to Joh_19:34, of the two sacraments: “This brief summary has been kept in the Church, that out of the side of Jesus the two sacraments flowed.”
[298] Ewald understands by them, however, not merely the baptism and the death, but by ὕδωρ the baptism “with everything special which besides occurred in His case,” and by αἷμα “the bloody death on the cross with everything still more wonderful that was connected with it.”
[299] To this class Ebrard also belongs, but he differs from the other commentators in this respect, that he understands by ὕδωρ Christian baptism indeed, but “not the entire sacrament of baptism (consisting of symbol and thing signified), but only the symbol in the sacrament;” hence only that side of Christian baptism in which it is identical with the baptism of John. Clearly an unjustifiable division of the sacrament! The same view is no doubt that of Hofmann, who says (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 76): “ αἷμα is, in contrast with ὕδωρ , the blood shed by Jesus for the remission of sins, differing from the water of baptism, which John also performed;” then on p. 470 he asserts that ὕδωρ is not the baptism which Jesus received, but that which He introduced—hence it denotes that which Jesus had in common with the Baptist; and in II. 2, p. 221, he describes ὕδωρ precisely as “the baptism with water originated by John.” But how strange it is to say, nevertheless, that the baptism which Jesus introduced is the baptism of water originated by John!
[300] Bengel: Aqua dicit baptismum, quem primum administravit Johannes; ideo in aqua baptizare missus, ut Jesus manifestaretur tanquam Filius Dei. Porro baptismus etiam per discipulos Jesu administratus est. Sanguis est utique sanguis—Jesu Christi, qui effusus in passione, in coena dominica bibitur. Tertullian says: Venerat per aquam et sanguinem, sicut Joh. scripsit, ut aqua tingeretur, sanguine glorificaretur. Proinde ut nos aqua faccret vocatos, sanguine electos, hos duos baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit.
To these interpretations may be added others, the arbitrariness of which is evident at the first glance. To this class the following belong:—1. That by ὕδωρ and αἷμα John denotes the two elements of the physical life of Jesus; this is the view of Schulthess. Wetstein adds even the following πνεῦμα , and says that the apostle wants to prove that Christ was a verus homo, who was formed ex spiritu, sanguine et aqua sive humore.[301] 2. That by both words, or at least by ὝΔΩΡ , the ethical nature of Christ is indicated; thus Grotius interprets ΔΙʼ ὝΔΑΤΟς = per vitam purissimam, quae per aquam significari solet. Socinus understands by ὝΔΩΡ : ipsa doctrina pura cum vitae puritate conjuncta. 3. That in ὝΔΩΡ and ΑἿΜΑ it is not so much the baptism and death of Christ themselves that are to be thought of, as rather the testimonies that were given in connection with them; in ὝΔΩΡ the testimony of the divine voice in the baptism (Wahl); in ΑἿΜΑ either the testimony of the good centurion (Stroth), or the events that followed the death of Jesus, namely His resurrection and ascension (Wahl, Ziegler, Lange), or even the testimony of God in Joh_12:28 (Oecumenius).[302] 4. That in these two expressions we are to consider the operations brought into exercise by Christ; in ὕδωρ , regeneratio et fides (Clemens Al.), or purgatio (Cameron); in αἷμα , cognitio (Clemens Al.), or expiatio (Cameron), or redemptio (Bullinger). To this class belongs also Calvin’s explanation: ego existimo Joannem hic fructum et effectum exprimere ejus rei, quam in historia evangelica narrat. Christi latus sanguinis et aquae fons erat, ut scirent fideles, veram munditiem (cujus figurae erant veteres baptismi) in eo sibi constare: ut scirent etiam completum, quod omnes sanguinis aspersiones olim promiserant. 5. That those expressions and πνεῦμα are descriptive of the threefold redemptive office of Christ: that ὓδωρ (= coelestis doctrini; Bullinger) represents Him as prophet, αἷμα as priest, and πνεῦμα as king. Here may be added the strange explanation of ὓδωρ as the tears which Jesus shed on various occasions, and of αἷμα as the blood which He shed at His circumcision. Again, some of the old commentators understood by αἷμα the blood of the martyrs.
[301] Similarly Paulus in reference to αἷμα ; ὕδωρ he understands of the baptism of John.
[302] Oecumenius: διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος , τουτέστιν , ἐν τῷ διʼ ὕδατος βαπτίσματι ἑξεφάνθη υἱὸς Θεοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς μαρτυρίας · διὰ δὲ τοῦ αἵματος · ὅτι μέλλων σταυροῦσθαι ἔλεγε , δοξασόν με σὺ πάτερ , καὶ ἠνέχθῃ ἡ φωνή , καὶ ἐδόξασα , καὶ πάλεν δοξάσω · διὰ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος , ὅτι ὡς Θεὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν .
It is at all events incorrect to permit ourselves, in the interpretation of ὕδωρ and αἷμα , to be led by the question as to the nature of their testimony (Sander: “It must be maintained as the chief difficulty in the passage before us, what are the three witnesses on earth”), for that is not the subject in this verse, in which the πνεῦμα only is mentioned as bearing witness.[303] By the words: οὗτός ἐστιν κ . τ . λ ., the apostle simply states who Jesus the Son of God is.
With regard to the expression: ὁ ἐλθὼν διʼ κ . τ . λ ., most commentators interpret as if it were: “ οὗτος ἔρχεται ,” or: “ οὗτός ἐστιν ἐρχόμενος .” Others, it is true, have not overlooked the aorist, but they interpret it as if it expressed something present; thus Sander = “has come and comes,” against which Bengel rightly says: non dicit: ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Praesenti, sed ὁ ἐλθών Aoristo tempore, Praeteriti vim habenti. It is true, it is further correct when, in opposition to de Wette, who takes ἐλθών as synonymous with ἐληλυθώς , chap. 1Jn_4:2, Brückner objects that by the aorist as a purely historic tense nothing continuous or permanent is expressed; but even then the expression does not obtain complete justice. It is to be observed that John did not write “ ἦλθε ,” or “ ἐστὶν ἐλθών ,” but ἐστὶν ὁ ἐλθών . By the participle with the definite article, it is not a verbal, but a nominal, and, if it is not in apposition to a preceding substantive (as in Joh_1:18; Joh_1:29; Joh_3:13; Joh_6:44, and passim), a substantive idea that is expressed; comp. Joh_1:15; Joh_1:33; Joh_3:31; Joh_3:36, and many other passages. It therefore does not mean “this came,” or “this is one who came,” but “this is he that came;” by this predicate it is not merely stated what the subject which is here spoken of (namely, οὗτος ) has done, but the subject is thereby characterized as the particular person to whom this predicate is suitable as a specific characteristic; according to the analogy of Joh_1:33 ( οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ), 1Jn_3:13 ( ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς ), and other passages, the expression therefore serves to state something characteristic of the Messianic office of Christ. If this is taken into consideration, the incorrectness of Augustine’s interpretation (see above) follows; for even if the flowing of the blood and water from the side of Jesus was intended by John not so much as a proof of the actual occurrence of Christ’s death (Lücke), but as a wonder proving the Messiahship of Jesus (Meyer on Joh_19:34), yet this would be only a very subordinate proof, which by no means states a characteristic sign of the Messiah as such.
In the life of Jesus there are two points which correspond with the expressions ὕδωρ and αἷμα , namely, His baptism at the beginning of His Messianic work, and His bloody death at the end of it; by His baptism Jesus entered on His mediatorial work; it formed the initiatio (Erdmann, Myrberg) of it, but this did not take place only by means of what happened at the baptism, but by the act of baptism itself; by His death he effected the atonement itself, inasmuch as by His blood he blotted out the guilt of the sinful world, for χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις (Heb_9:22). John may with justice therefore describe Christ as the Mediator by calling Him the one who came διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος .[304] Against the view that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are to be understood of the sacraments instituted by Christ, is not only the circumstance that these are only the means for the appropriation of the atonement effected by Him, whereas the subject here is the accomplishment of the atonement itself, but also the use of the aorist ἐλθών , instead of which, in that case, the present would have to be used, and also the expression αἷμα , which by itself alone never in the N. T. signifies the Lord’s Supper; even in 1Co_12:13 ἐποτίσθησαν is not an allusion to the Lord’s Supper, but to the communication of the Spirit in baptism. In opposition to the idea that αἷμα indeed signifies the death which Christ suffered, but that ὕδωρ does not denote the baptism which He received, but the baptism which He instituted, are—(1) that the close connection of the two words (without repetition of διά before αἵματος ) is only suitable if the ideas correspond with one another, which is not the case if by διʼ ὕδατος we understand an institution of Christ, but by αἵματος , on the other hand, the blood shed by Christ;[305] (2) that the simple expression ὝΔΩΡ is little suited for a description of Christian baptism;[306] (3) that as the institution of baptism took place after the death of Christ, and necessarily presupposes it, John, if he had understood by ὕδωρ Christian baptism, would certainly have put ὕδατος , not before, but after αἵματος . Hilgenfeld and Neander have rightly shown that if ἔρχεσθαι διʼ αἵματος signifies something pertaining to the Messiah personally, the same must be the case with ἔρχεσθαι διʼ ὕδατος . The connection must be the same in both expressions. If by αἷμα is meant the death which Christ underwent, then by ὕδωρ can therefore only be meant the baptism which He likewise underwent.
[303] This is usually too little noticed by commentators. Even Lücke—who remarks on the following words: καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα κ . τ . λ ., that “it was not said of the water and blood that they bear witness,” and then “it is only through the πνεῦμα that both of them, which in themselves give no testimony, likewise become witnesses”—has in his discussion of the meaning of ὕδωρ and αἷμα all along regarded them as “witnesses” for the Messiahship of Jesus. Brückner also, in his interpretation of the ideas ὕδωρ and αἷμα , has all along included the element of testimony, whereby the clearness of his statement is only too much diminished.
[304] That “Jesus in both cases proved His obedience to His Father’s will, and that His obedience proved Him to be the Son of God, the holy and innocent One” (Braune), are ideas which John here in no way suggests.
[305] This inconsistency is only apparently removed by Düsterdieck’s observation that “John regards the blood of the Lord shed at His death as something which has a substantial existence;” for even if this be correct, yet there remains the difference that the water of Christian baptism is something at present existing, but the blood which Christ shed is only regarded as such by John. It is no better with the interpretation of Hofmann, who at one time describes αἷμα as “the blood of Christ shed for remission,” and at another time as “the sprinkling of blood which Christ bestows.”
[306] It is indeed just this very fact that distinguishes Christian baptism from that of John, that the former in its nature is not ὕδωρ as the latter is, as John the Baptist himself, marking his difference from Christ, said: ἐγώ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι (Joh_1:26), whereas Jesus was described by him as ὁ βαπτιζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Joh_1:33).
The objection of Knapp (with whom Lücke and Sander agree), that ἐλθὼν διʼ ὕδατος in this sense is much more appropriately said of John the Baptist than of Christ, is untenable, for that expression may at least just as well be used of him who allowed himself to be baptized as of him who baptized; Erdmann: sane id non alius momenti, ac si quis objiceret, ἔρχεσθαι διʼ αἵματος non posse dici de Christi sanguine et morte, sed potius de iis, qui cruentam mortem ei paraverint. There is just as little in the objection of Lücke, that Christ allowed Himself to be baptized, not in order to purify Himself, but to fulfil all righteousness; since two ideas are here placed in antagonism to one another, which are by no means mutually exclusive, as Jesus underwent the baptism of purification just for the very purpose of fulfilling all righteousness.
With regard to the expression ἐλθὼν διά , διά is not to be separated from ἐλθὼν , so that ὁ ἐλθών in itself would denote “the Saviour who came,” and διʼ κ . τ . λ . would state “in what way Jesus is the Saviour who came” (Hofmann in the Schriftbew. 2d ed. p. 469); for that Christ is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Mat_11:4; Luk_7:19-20) does not confirm, but contradicts this interpretation; besides, John does not here want to bring out how Jesus is the Messiah, but that He is so. The preposition διά has been differently explained; usually it is here taken simply in the sense of accompaniment, which, however, is unjustifiable; in this commentary, with reference to Heb_9:12 (where it is indicated by διά that the high priest entered into the holy place by means of the blood which he had with him), the idea of instrumentality is combined with that of accompaniment, inasmuch as Jesus operated as mediator by means of ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα ; similarly Brückner explains διά as a preposition of instrumentality, namely, in the passive sense, as “by which he was proved;” διά , however, is here connected neither with an idea of operation nor of verification, but with ἐλθών . Weiss takes the preposition in this way, that ὕδωρ κ . αἷμα are thereby “introduced as historical elements of the life of Christ through which His career passed;” but it might be more suitable to interpret διʼ ὕδ . κ . τ . λ . in this way, that thereby the elements are brought out by which the ἐλθών was specially characterized; just as in 2Co_5:7 by διὰ πίστεως the feature is mentioned by which our present περιπατεῖν is characterized; comp. also Rom_8:24 : διʼ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα , and Heb_12:1; Braune simply abides by the idea of instrumentality, without further explaining himself on the subject. The question, whether οὗτος refers to Ἰησοῦς or to ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ , is to be answered in this way, that it refers to the whole idea: Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ; Jesus, the Son of God, is the subject of Christian faith; it is He who came by water and blood. In favour of this reference is the addition Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός , which, as Ἰησοῦς shows, is not an explanatory apposition of the predicate (“He who came by water and blood,” i.e. Christ), but is in apposition to the subject οὗτος , which is more particularly defined by the predicate; the preceding, Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is thereby resumed, but in this way, that in consequence of ὁ ἐλθὼν κ . τ . λ . the idea ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is changed into ὁ Χριστός .
The import of the preceding lies, as cannot be doubted, simply in the statement which is therein contained; Ebrard, indeed, thinks that the apostle wants thereby to express “that in the loving and merciful act of the devotion of Jesus to death lies the power by which He has overcome the world;” but although in the preceding the victory over the world is ascribed to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, yet it is not to be inferred from this that it is Christ’s victory over the world that is the subject here, as John does not make the most remote suggestion of that.
By the words: οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι , the apostle brings out with special emphasis the fact that Jesus did not come by water only, but by both water and blood; as the latter two, in their combination, are contrasted with the former one, the principal emphasis plainly falls on the blood, as that by which the Mediator as such has operated. This emphasis is not intended for the purpose of indicating the difference between Jesus and John the Baptist (Lücke, de Wette, Düsterdieck, Ebrard); for, on the one hand, it is self-evident to Christians that Jesus would not be the mediator if He had not acted differently from John; and, on the other hand, the feature which distinguishes Jesus from John in regard to baptism is this, that the latter baptized with water, but the former baptizes with the Holy Ghost.[307] The addition has a polemic import (not against “disciples of John,” Ewald, but) against the Docetans, who in a certain sense indeed taught that Christ came διʼ ὕδατος , but denied that He came διʼ αἵματος , inasmuch as, according to their heresy, Christ united Himself with Jesus at His baptism, but separated from Him again before His death (Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune); indeed, it is only by the reference to these heretics, against whom the apostle frequently directs a polemic in the Epistle, that the whole section from 1Jn_5:6 to 1Jn_5:12 can be explained.
With regard to grammar, it is to be observed that μόνον is not connected with οὐ , but with ὕδατι , and therefore there can be no καί after ἀλλά , which is not observed by A. Buttmann (p. 317). The preposition ἐν simply expresses the idea of accompaniment without bringing out the accessory notion which lies in διά ; comp. Heb_9:12; Heb_9:25.
The definite article before ὕδατι and αἵματι is explained by the fact that both have been already mentioned. Bengel correctly: Articulus habet vim relativam.
καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν ] Just as in regard to ὕδωρ and αἷμα , so in regard to πνεῦμα the views of commentators vary very much. The following opinions are to be rejected as utterly arbitrary:—(1) that it denotes the psychical element, which, with αἷμα and ὕδωρ as the physical elements, constituted the human nature of Christ (Wetstein); (2) that it is the spirit which Christ at His death committed into His Father’s hands (Augustine, etc.); (3) that it means “the teaching of Jesus” (Carpzovius); (4) that τὸ πνεῦμα is = ὁ πνευματικός , whereby John means himself (Ziegler, Stroth). By τὸ πνεῦμα can only be understood either the Holy Ghost Himself or the spiritual life produced by Him in believers.[308] Against the latter view there are, however, two reasons:—(1) that ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ never has this meaning without a more particular definition indicating it; and (2) that the ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟῦΝ , which is added, here defines the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ as something specifically different from the subjective life of man. We must therefore understand by it the objective Spirit of God, yet not, however, inasmuch as He descended on Christ at His baptism, and testified to Him as the Messiah, nor inasmuch as He was in Christ as the divine power which manifested itself in His miracles,[309] but (as most commentators correctly interpret) the Holy Ghost, whom Christ sent to His disciples at Pentecost, and who is the permanent possession of His Church. The predicate ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν is not put for μαρτυρεῖ or for ἐστὶ μαρτυροῦν ; here also the article must not be overlooked; τὸ μαρτυροῦν is a nominal idea, and, moreover, not adjectival, but substantive: “the Spirit is the witness” (Lücke). The office of witnessing belongs essentially to the Holy Ghost; comp. Joh_15:26.[310]
As the apostle continues: ὍΤΙ ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΆ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ , he seems thereby to state the object of ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕῖΝ ;[311] but this view is opposed to the whole context, according to which the apostle does not want to bring out that the Spirit is truth, but: “that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.” Therefore ὅτι here must, with Gerhard, Calovius, and most modern commentators (de Wette, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune), be taken as causal particle, so that the subordinate clause serves to strengthen the preceding thought. It is because the Spirit is the truth that the Spirit is the witness in the fullest sense of the word.
To interpret ἡ ἀλήθεια = ἀληθές (Grotius) is to weaken the thought; by the definite article the idea ἀλήθεια is indicated in its full concrete vividness; comp. Joh_14:6, where Christ calls Himself ἡ ἀλήθεια . Weiss calls attention to the way in which this designation proves the personality of the Spirit, inasmuch as “the truth is the nature of God Himself made manifest.”
The object which is to be supplied with τὸ μαρτυροῦν can be no other than the thought which John has previously expressed in the first half of the verse.
[307] Erdmann has rightly pointed out that the view, according to which ὕδωρ is understood of the baptism instituted by Christ, is opposed to the idea that the addition refers to John the Baptist; this antagonism can only be removed if we explain the idea ὕδωρ in the principal clause differently from its meaning in this subordinate clause, in the former of a baptism which was not merely a baptism of water, but also of the Spirit, but in the latter of a baptism which is only a baptism of water; but that would be an interpretation which condemns itself.
[308] Sander is very uncertain in his explanation of τὸ πνεῦμα ; first he explains it by: “the conversion of man accomplished by the communication of the Holy Ghost,” but then he puts instead of this, without further explanation: “those who are born of the Spirit” (!).
[309] Grotius understands by τὸ πνεῦμα even the miracles themselves: admiranda ejus opera a virtute divina manifeste procedentia.
[310] The assertion of Ebrard, that John in these words shows “how and how far our faith in Christ, in consequence of the fact that Christ bears in Himself the power that overcomes the world, is itself an overcoming power,” and that μαρτυρεῖν therefore “must denote an act which is in substance identical with the act of overcoming the world,” is simply to be rejected.
[311] In connection with this view, Luther takes τὸ πνεῦμα in a different sense from that in the principal sentence, namely, as “the word which has saved us by baptism and by blood,” and of which the Spirit bears witness that it proceeds from the Spirit of truth, and is the truth itself; Besser distinguishes τὸ πν . in the principal clause from the πν . in the subordinate clause, in that he understands by the former “the Spirit bearing witness to the heart of believers,” and by the latter “the Spirit dominating in the sacraments and in the word.” Ebrard interprets: “the Spirit evidences itself … by its power;” clearly the words “by its power” are a pure importation.