1Jn_5:9 brings out the greatness of the witness of God, and our obligation to accept it. The two clauses which are here connected with one another do not perfectly correspond in form; for in the antecedent clause the idea that corresponds to the
μείζων
of the consequent clause is not expressed, nor in the consequent clause the idea that corresponds to the
λαμβάνομεν
of the antecedent. The sentence, if completed, would run: If we receive the witness of men because it is of some value, much more must we receive the witness of God, as it has a much greater value (comp. A. Buttm. p. 338). The sentence contains a conclusion ex minore ad majus. The conjunction
εἰ
, as frequently, is not dubitative.
Brückner justly says, in opposition to Baur: “The witness of men is only alluded to on the side of its judicial value; there is not assumed to be in it an import which would be equal to that of the witness of God by water and blood and spirit.”[315]
Ἡ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΑ
ΤΟῦ
ΘΕΟῦ
is here used quite generally; the more particular definition is only given by the sequel (so also Düsterdieck).
ὍΤΙ
ΑὝΤΗ
ἘΣΤῚΝ
Ἡ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΑ
ΤΟῦ
ΘΕΟῦ
] With
ὍΤΙ
it seems necessary to supply a thought to which it refers; Lücke supplies the thought: “if we accept the witness of God, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;” Düsterdieck, with whom Braune agrees: “a witness of God now really exists, namely this …;” but such a supplement is not necessary if we suppose that the clause beginning with
ὍΤΙ
is intended to give the reason of the contrast of the human and of the divine witness which here appears, in this sense: “I say,
ἡ
μαρτυρία
τοῦ
θεοῦ
, for …”
In the reading:
ὍΤΙ
(instead of
ἭΝ
)
ΜΕΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΚΕ
ΠΕΡῚ
ΤΟῦ
ΥἹΟῦ
ΑὐΤΟῦ
, which is attested by the best manuscripts, this second
ὍΤΙ
may be taken as causal particle, in which case
ΑὝΤΗ
would be referred to the witness spoken of in 1Jn_5:6-7, in this sense: “for this is the witness of God, since He has testified (it) of His Son;” but the want of an
ΑὐΤΌς
before
ΜΕΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΚΕ
is an obstacle to this view; it is therefore better to interpret
ὍΤΙ
by “that,” and to refer
αὕτη
to this sentence which begins with
ὍΤΙ
(Lücke, Erdmann, Düsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Ewald, Brückner, Braune), so that the sense is: for this is (therein consists) the witness of God, that He has testified of His Son. By this witness we are to understand no other than that which was spoken of in the preceding, namely, the objective witness of the Spirit, not the internal witness, of which the apostle does not speak until afterwards (contrary to Düsterdieck), but still less, as Ebrard interprets, the witness in Joh_1:33.
With the reading
ἭΝ
,
ΑὝΤΗ
must be referred back to the preceding; the sense then is: “for that (1Jn_5:6-7) is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.”[316]
The perfect
ΜΕΜΑΡΤΎΡΗΚΕ
is here to be taken in the same way as John frequently uses the perfect, namely, in this way, that the witness which God has given is to be regarded as permanently remaining.
[315] It is quite erroneous for Storr to understand by the witness of men specially the witness of John the Baptist.
[316] Lücke erroneously thinks that with the reading
ἥν
there results only an imperfect sense, when he says: “the witness of God, which He has testified, consists—in what?” This appearance of incompleteness disappears, however, as soon as
αὕτη
is referred to the preceding.