75 - 1Jn 5:6-11
Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων ἐστὶν, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ. Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ· ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ Θεῷ, ψεύστην πεποίηκεν αὐτὸν, ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ Θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ· Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.
Thus, then, it appears that the section we have just been considering forms one whole with that of 1Jn 4:19-21; but we observe that there is in it one distinct element, which carries us back again to the beginning of the Epistle. In the middle of its first sentence it was declared that the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς [“word of life”] would form the contents of it; that St. John’s purpose was to give an annunciation concerning Christ; and if not to exhibit His person, yet to exhibit His work in us. He had then in his first main division described the interior religious character of the Christian life in its relation to God and to the brethren; in the second, the external confirmation of this as a token of a right posture towards God and man, and as therefore a condition of true Christian joy. But all this is subsumed under a higher aim: not for its own sake, but for the sake of an annunciation περὶτοῦλόγου τῆς ζωῆς [“concerning the word of life”]. The relation to Him—that is, to Christ the Son of God—it was to which his final aim was directed. But this relation is in the New Testament phraseology embraced and expressed by the idea of πίστις [“faith”]; and in here introducing this, the apostle rounds off the Epistle into unity; he seems to declare that the design laid down in 1Jn 1:1 ff. was in this at length fulfilled. But there is one element in the Introduction which has not yet had justice done to it, having only once, 1Jn 4:14, been touched upon in passing: the idea of μαρτυρία [“testimony”]. What other was the purport of the copious sentence of 1Jn 1:1 ff., with its so emphatic development of one idea, but the guarantee and witness of the truth of the apostolic tendency? This element is now, in the section 1Jn 5:6-12, taken up again, although in another form than what it assumed in 1Jn 1:1. All that the apostle had aimed to teach he had now taught: luminous and distinct, complete and self-contained, lies the full development of his thought before us. He has established the true relation towards God and the brethren; the παῤῥησία [“boldness”], as the result even in relation to the יוֹםגָּדוֹלוְנוֹרָא [“awesome and terrifying day”]; the χαρὰ τετελειωμένη [“joy made perfect”] is guaranteed and secured; while all this rests upon the outgoings of πίστις [“faith”] in the divine Son of God. On this last, therefore, rests the superstructure of the whole. This faith must accordingly in itself be a spiritual possession, absolute and unconquerable; its object must have the strongest possible confirmation and assurance. To show that this is so remains now the apostle’s final problem. The idea of μαρτυρία [“testimony”], which, apart from these explanations, must appear to the most superficial and external observation the centre of all that follows, is one that has a remarkable prominence throughout the Johannaean writings. This idea appears at the beginning, and recurs at the end of all the three greater documents which we have received from St. John. In the Apocalypse he commences, Rev 1:2, with the vindication of his trustworthiness: ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα τὲ εἶδεν [“who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, as much as that he saw”]. It is matter of indifference whether the ἐμαρτύρησεν [“he testified to”] referred to the work itself which he was beginning, or to the earlier written Gospel, or to his general and ordinary oral ministry: in any case, it is the drift of the apostle to introduce a guarantee of his veracity by the mention of his eye-witness-ship (ὅσατὲεἶδεν [“as much as he saw”]). So, again, at the close of the book, Rev 22:1-21, its contents are summed up again and again as a μαρτυρία [“testimony”] of our Lord. The Gospel, in its turn, goes on, after the prologue, with the μαρτυρία [“testimony”] of the Baptist, Joh 1:18 ff., and ends with that of the evangelist himself, Joh 21:24. And, finally, our Epistle begins with the personal testimony of the apostle, while it ends with that of God Himself. But to return, the body of the Gospel gives the same prominent part to the idea of the μαρτυρεῖν [“to testify”]: the valid and sufficient witness which the Lord has to appeal to in His controversies with the Jews is a thought which is constantly on His lips. In particular, He appeals in His own behalf again and again—compare Joh 5:3; John 8:18, John 15:26 (strictly speaking, it is the Holy Ghost who is referred to in this last)—to the witness of His God to His mission. Now it is precisely this, as we have seen, which is spoken of in our present passage. It is true that in 1Jn 5:6 the witness is that of the Spirit; in 1Jn 5:8, that of water, and blood, and the Spirit; but as from 1Jn 5:9 onwards THE witness of God is spoken of (mark the article) without any kind of specification as to the manner or the medium in which this testimony reaches us, it follows from this last circumstance, as well as from the definite article, that the water, and the blood, and the Spirit have no independent meaning of their own, but are only the mediating representations of the divine testimony. They together form, in fact, the μαρτυρίατοῦθεοῦ [“testimony of God”].
We have here, however, two things sharply to distinguish. First comes the question as to the substance of the witness of God: what does it testify? This question is fully and clearly answered in 1Jn 5:11, καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν [“and the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son”]; but it is also, in a more condensed form, contained in 1Jn 5:6. However, if we are content for a time with the perfectly clear answer in 1Jn 5:11, we perceive that the object of the divine testimony is the eternal life sealed for us in the Son of God: He is the possessor (ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν [“in him is”]), and He is the mediator, of this life. The second question is this: by what means does God bear His witness? And its answer: by water, blood, Spirit. Now we have in the substance of the divine testimony, given to us in 1Jn 5:11, a standard by which we may measure and ascertain the correctness of our interpretation of these three witnesses. They must be such as can testify concerning Jesus as the possessor of eternal life, and as the giver of eternal life to us. In what sense, then, do the water, the blood, the Spirit furnish this witness for Christ? In order to explain the water and the blood, we must consider the twofold relation which they here assume. First, they are witnesses, or media of the testimony, μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ Θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ [“the testimony God has given concerning the Son”]: the water and the blood must therefore represent some divine act, some divine institution, in virtue of which God appears in behalf of Christ. Secondly, it is to be observed that Christ Himself is said to have come δι᾽ὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος [“by water and blood”]. Now, as St, John uses always the word “come,” or the ἔρχεσθαι [“to come”], concerning Christ, as a vox solemnis which refers to the coming of Jesus as the Messiah,—not to His being born generally, but to His manifestation as Saviour of the world,—the proposition before us must needs signify that Jesus attained His Messianic position through water and blood. These two are therefore not only the pledge of His divine sonship, but at the same time the powers through which He was constituted the Saviour: the water and the blood must, accordingly, be pointed to as constitutive factors in the life oi the Redeemer. Before, however, we look more closely at the sense in which this is true, we must first justify the phraseology we have just used. We have, that is, described the testimony here concerned, now as witnessing His divine sonship, and now as witnessing His Messianic activity,—that is, as at once testimony to His person and as testimony also to His work. For this double way of describing it we have the apostle’s own warranty; for in 1Jn 1:1 he refers both to the gift of life and to the bringer of life as the object of the divine witness. And, in fact, the one is involved in the other: He who is to give the life must first have it in Himself; and He who has it in Himself is thereby declared to be the Son of God, according to Joh 5:26, ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως ἔδωκε καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ [“For just as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself”] life is thereby demonstrated to be the Son of God; and He who shall give life to others must ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχειν [“have in himself”] that life. Thus in reality the divine sonship and the Messiahship of, Jesus are bound up together. But what manner of water is that, concerning which so great things are said? Primarily, we are led to think of the baptism which Christ received at the hands of John the Baptist. In truth, He was by that baptism inaugurated into His Messianic function: the three Synoptists make this point of view abundantly prominent; and at the first glance it seems therefore perfectly intelligible, when it is said δι᾽ὕδατος [“through water”], that He came as the Messiah by this baptismal water, that this event was the medium of His introduction to His Christly function, and fitted Him to enter on it. But we must bethink ourselves to examine this closely. What prepared Jesus for His office was not the baptismal water, but the communication of the Spirit connected; with His baptism. In our sacramental Christian baptism, indeed, the water and the impartation of the Spirit through the rite are so inseparably united, that the one word water may well be used to signify the whole, including the heavenly blessing: the earthly sign and the heavenly reality are in the sacrament indissolubly one. But it was quite otherwise in the baptism of John. That was assuredly no sacramental act, and certainly did not of itself confer the Holy Ghost: whence, indeed, John himself could say that, in contrast with his own baptism, Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost: compare Joh 1:33, ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, Ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον. . .οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ [“the one who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ’the one upon whom you see the Spirit descending . . . this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’”]. The communication of the Spirit, of which our Lord at His baptism was the object, was not itself connected by any means with that baptism as such; but it was an extraordinary event, which was attached to it. John’s baptism and Christian baptism are in antithesis to each other: in the former, man is, primarily, the giver; in the latter, he is the receiver. He who submitted to John’s rite laid down this confession: as the water cleanses my body, so will I henceforth dedicate my soul to God in pure service. Anything like an extraordinary supernatural gift of God to man was not by any means connected with this act. Thus, if the question here is of the inauguration of Christ to His office, the designation of baptism by ὕδωρ [“water”] would be altogether unsuitable; since the introduction to His function was not by baptism in itself, but by the gift of the Spirit1not necessarily connected with that rite. Moreover, the water of Christ’s baptism cannot by any means be exhibited as a witness of His divine mission: this external rite was in fact one common to the Lord and many besides, which therefore did not involve of itself any such virtue of special testimony. The voice which sounded from heaven, or the Spirit who ὡσεὶπεριστερά [“like a dove”] descended on Jesus, might indeed have this virtue; but they would not be designated by ὕδωρ [“water”], because, as we have seen, the baptism of John did not necessarily include the gift of the Spirit.
We must therefore look about for another interpretation of the ὕδωρ [“water”]. Does it signify Christian baptism? It is clear that this, in contradistinction to that of John, may well be described by ὕδωρ [“water”]; since that essential and necessary interpretation of water and Spirit, form and matter, is found in it which is absent from John’s baptism. And the phrase ὁἐλθὼνδι᾽ὕδατος [“the one who came by water”] is thus perfectly intelligible. The Baptist himself comprises the whole work of Christ in this, that He would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Even the fact that the baptismal sacrament was instituted only at the end of our Lord’s ministry would not stand obstinately in the way of this explanation; for the proper unfolding of the Messianic activity of Christ, to which the ἔρχεσθαι [“to come”] refers, actually attained its consummation only at the end of His course upon earth. We should indeed expect to read ἐρχόμενος [“the one coming”]; since the historically completed fact of the manifestation of the Messiah in the world was not consummated by means of the baptismal sacrament; rather in it He continuously comes as the Saviour and Redeemer of men. Another reason for rejecting this view is suggested by the way in which the ὕδωρ [“water”] and the αἷμα [“blood”] are here placed in correlation or opposition: for Christian baptism itself includes a reference to the death, and therefore to the blood of Christ, according to the Pauline declaration of Rom 6:3, εἰςτὸνθάνατοναὐτοῦἐβαπτίσθημεν [“we have been baptized into his death”]. Now, where it is said that Christ came not by water alone, but by water and blood, there is ascribed to each of these elements a specific matter: there is somewhat in the blood which is not found in the water. But, as we have seen that in the baptismal sacrament water and blood are together efficient, the interpretation which makes the water the sacrament of baptism is not altogether suitable. And this objection is strengthened when we consider the peculiar position which St. John assumes to the sacraments generally. We certainly find in his Gospel passages which must be referred incidentally to the sacraments, having in them their highest fulfilment and truth; but we find no reference to the institution of these rites, nor indeed any mention of them as such. In John chapter 6 our Lord speaks of the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood, and the words in question doubtless allude also to the holy supper; but the explanation of eating by the idea of faith itself shows that the paragraph is primarily to be understood as a symbolic way of teaching the full and living appropriation of Christ Himself ( ἐγώεἰμιὁἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς [“I am the bread of life” cf. Joh 6:35,John 6:48,John 6:51]) and of His atonement (αἷμα [“blood”]). Similarly, when John 3:1-36 speaks of regeneration of water and the Spirit, the words certainly allude to the water of baptism; indeed they cannot be read by Christian people without bringing this allusion to their consciousness. But the very fact that there existed at the time no sacrament of baptism, that therefore Nicodemus, to whom the words were applied, could not, if this were their only meaning, have understood them, indicates that the water also must primarily be accepted in its symbolical sense. Now, as we have seen that our Epistle never in any passage goes beyond the circle of thought prescribed by the Gospel, this of itself must make us suspicious of accepting a reference to the sacraments as the direct and exclusive meaning of our present passage.
Thus we are led to make the experiment, whether the same interpretation of ὕδωρ [“water”] which applies everywhere to the Gospel may not be here also applicable,—that is, in effect, the symbolical. A test of this method of interpretation we have in the fact that the meaning of the water in our text must be different from that of the blood: this latter must involve an element which the former has not; while both must be available and equally valid as witnesses for Christ. Now at the outset we find the symbolical use of the ὕδωρ [“water”] in 1Jn 4:1-21, “he that drinketh of the water that I shall give shall never thirst;” [Joh 4:14] and, further, in Joh 7:38, “he that believeth on me, out of his body shall flow rivers of living water.” In these passages we must understand by the water the new and saving life, which springs up fresh and clear as from a fountain: compare the πηγαὶτοῦσωτηρίον [“springs of salvation”] of Isa 12:3, and Psa 23:2. On the other hand, the washing with water is in the Old Testament ritual the means of purification; and the water very frequently elsewhere occurs with this meaning, apart from the legal observances. The two symbolical applications must not be sundered, for they rest on the same fundamental ideas: water is the symbol, not only of the attainment of purification, that is, of holiness, but of the possession of it as the result. Thus we find it in the passage, Joh 3:5, which is fundamental for the meaning of our present text: the new birth of water and of the Spirit describes the production of new and pure and saving life, ὕδωρ [“water”], through the Holy Ghost, πνεῦμα[“Spirit”]. Thus the relation of the water and the blood is clear, at least clear in general: in the blood lies the element of propitiation; this is wanting in the water, which points rather to redemption. Regeneration is, in fact, primarily not so much the expiation of the past, as the implanting of a new nature, the establishing of salvation. That negative aspect, according to which the λοῦτρονπαλιγγενεσίας [“washing of regeneration” cf. Tit 3:5]; becomes at the same time βαπτισμός εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν [“a baptism for the forgiveness of sins”] (Act 2:38), is introduced first by the above-mentioned reference to the death of Christ. Accordingly, the ὕδωρ [“water”] would here be the symbol of the new divine life, filled and replenished with purifying energies, which the Redeemer has brought. In virtue (διὰ [“through”]) of this power existing in Himself, as the source of the fountain (John 4:1-54). He came as the Messiah (ἦλθεν [“he came”]): only because He had this life of salvation and could impart it to us was He fitted to be the Messiah. And, at the same time, the fact that the powers of a new and saving life came from. Christ, is the witness that legitimates Him as the Son of God. For, as we unfolded at the outset of our discussion, He who can impart life is thereby guaranteed as the possessor of it, and, moreover, therefore attested to be the Son of God. So far we are led by the principle of a purely symbolical interpretation; it must be admitted, however, as the exegetical feeling of every one will suggest, that the Interpretation of ὕδωρ [“water”] thus arrived at is not at all points satisfactory and sufficient. But before we penetrate further, we must deal in a similar way with the αἷμα [“blood”] for its preliminary symbolical exposition. That the αἷμα [“blood”] is not to be understood, primarily at least, of the sacrament of the altar, is shown—apart from what has been already said, which partly applies here also—by the fact that there is in the New Testament no allusion to the Lord’s Supper, which mentions only the blood. But we have in our Epistle itself one passage which expresses to us the significance of the blood of Christ, and from which, therefore, we must not in our interpretation of the present text without strong necessity depart: it is in 1Jn 2:2 (also 1Jn 4:10), where the ἱλασμός[“atoning sacrifice”], the propitiation, is described as the result of the death of the Redeemer. And to this we must add 1Jn 1:7, to τὸαἷμαἸησοῦΧριστοῦκαθαρίζειἡμᾶςἀπὸπάσηςἁμαρτίας [“the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins”]. Accordingly St. John says here that Christ, by means of His propitiatory death, came forward as the Messiah; that in this lay the realization of His work as the Saviour. And this atoning power, which proceeds from Him and fills His being ἦλθεν ἐναἵματι [“he came with blood”], is the second witness which God bears to Him. It demonstrates that He in whom such power dwells is the Son of God. This symbolical interpretation of the ὕδωρ [“water”] and αἷμα [“blood”] by no means excludes the possibility that the sacraments are also included in these expressions. It is, in fact, not fortuitous that in baptism the water, in the Eucharist the blood, assume so prominent a place; it was so appointed, because in the former the renewal of the power of life, the purifying and saving energy of the Spirit, is the main point; in the latter, the appropriation of the atonement lying in the blood of Jesus. Indeed, with baptism also is connected the forgiveness of sins, and therefore expiation, and with the Eucharist renewal to pure life; but still in such a way that with baptism the element of the implanting of new life comes into the foreground, with the Eucharist the suppression of the sin indwelling in the flesh by the diffusion and penetration of the glorified body of Christ. While, therefore, the reasons already alleged forbid our thinking of the sacraments primarily and exclusively, they are so far included as the symbolical meaning of the water and the blood finds in them its application, indeed its culminating application. Our passage, accordingly, ranks side by side with the third and sixth chapters of the Gospel. It is even probable that the thought of the sacraments, and the order in which they are received by Christians, prescribed the order of the words ὕδωρ καὶαἷμα [“water and blood”].
But, as we said before, the interpretation thus reached does not perfectly satisfy. For, though ὕδωρ [“water”] and αἷμα [“blood”] often occur in St. John symbolically, or rather tropically, this does not explain how this tropical expression finds its way here. Instead of saying that the powers of the new life which Christ has brought testify for Him, to say that the water testifies for Him,—is and must ever be thought inexpressibly hard. In addition to this: granted that the blood is here a symbol of expiation, yet it is not as a mere trope, or figurative style of speaking; actual and true blood was shed and effected the propitiation, and therefore the expression αἷμα [“blood”] is perfectly intelligible in this connection. The blood, that is, the expiating blood of Christ poured out on the cross, witnesses to His divine sonship. But is not this precise background of reality altogether wanting in the ὕδωρ [“water”]? Is it not merely a purely figurative expression, and one that in this passage has no foundation for it assigned? It would indeed be altogether different, if in the life of Christ—apart from His baptism, which we have found to be inapplicable for our purpose—there could be specified any point at which actual water appears in the higher symbolical sense we have indicated, thus giving our passage just such a concrete historical foundation as the blood has in it: such an event as we now contemplate would assume in the mind of the apostle and of his readers a place of peculiar prominence, so that the mention of the water would at once and necessarily suggest it. Now such an event is found; and our whole passage would receive a rich illumination if it could be shown that it refers to Joh 19:34: a passage the reference to which is so obvious that it is difficult not to point to it at once. It is not simply that in these two passages of Scripture alone blood and water are thus placed in juxtaposition; in both cases they are conjoined in an equally marked manner, with manifest emphasis; and in both cases μαρτυρεῖν [“to testify”] is the idea under the light of which the αἷμα [“blood”] and ὕδωρ [“water”] are introduced. Now, if it can be shown that that water and that blood which are spoken of in the history of the passion are to be typically understood, that is, that there an external fact occurred which bore in it a deeper meaning; that, further, the interpretation of the type, or rather of the typical ideas ὕδωρ [“water”] and αἷμα [“blood”], is there the same as we have discerned to be true in our present passage: then shall we be constrained to regard the passage in the Gospel as the foundation of this; and similarly, the relation of these symbolical expressions, as well as the meaning we have discovered in them, will be demonstrated afresh and more fully illustrated. The only external reason which can be adduced in opposition to our reference to John chapter 19 is this, that the blood comes first in the Gospel, while here the water has precedence. But the force of this objection is altogether neutralized by a consideration of two things. First, in the Gospel the apostle observes the order in which the elements issued from the Lord’s side, while here the water comes first on account of the reference, mentioned above, to the sacraments. Secondly, the difference urged has the less significance, because (presupposing the symbolical meaning of the water and the blood in the Gospel, which we shall confirm presently) the difference between redemption and propitiation is generally a fleeting one, the two ideas being involved in each other.
Now let us examine Joh 19:34 ff. more carefully. First of all, it is an altogether wrong view of the incident, that blood and water issued from the Redeemer, which sees in it only a demonstration that Jesus had actually died. It is not only the fact—often remarked—that Christian antiquity never had doubts about the reality of Christ’s death, and that therefore so emphatic a demonstration of it might appear quite without reason; but to attain such an end the apostle is supposed to have adopted the worst possible means. At any rate, it would have been much simpler to say that the soldier pierced the heart of our Lord. Moreover, we can scarcely attribute to the evangelist so much physiological knowledge as to be aware that the dissolution of the blood into placenta and serum was a sure sign of consummated death: even granting that this can be proved, which we do not believe. How could a fact of such special peculiarity that its physiological explanation has not to the present day been arrived at, have been used as a decisive evidence of the death of Jesus? Since these elements do not usually flow from a corpse any more than from a living body, the conclusion might have drawn with equal truth and un-truth to the life of Christ, or His death not consummate. But the main point is this: the Old Testament citations introduced by γάρ [“for”] in Joh 19:36-37 must, if it had been the apostle’s design to confirm the fact of Christ’s death, stand in some connection with that design. But we see no trace of such a connection. The quotations are no more linked with the flowing of blood and water than they are with the certainty of our Lord’s death. They furnish evidence that the piercing with the lance, and the pretermission of the breaking the legs, were predicted in the Old Testament: not, however, to establish the reality of these facts themselves, but to point out that He, as to whom that took place and this did not take place, was the Messiah. No bone of the paschal Lamb was to be broken; Jesus therefore, by the circumstance that the crurifragum could not befall Him, was marked out as the paschal Lamb. They were to look on Him as Jehovah whom they pierced: the piercing of the lance, therefore, marked out Jesus as Jehovah, as the Son of God. Thus all else that is recorded in this section was to demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God: the flowing of blood and water from His side must be regarded from the same point of view. And that this is the only right one, appears from Joh 19:35: καὶ ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκε, καὶ ἀληθινὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, κᾀκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγει, ἵνα ὑμεῖς πιστεύσητε, [“he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe ...”] ὅτι ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ [“that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”Joh 20:31]. St. John says, ὁἑωρακὼς [“he who has seen”]: in this he includes in one whole all that he had related, the pouring out, therefore, of blood and water included; and he declares all to be testimony that Jesus was the Son of God. If, indeed, the words quoted in Joh 19:35 produce the impression that they record something miraculous, something so wonderful that it might appear incredible to the readers, this cannot refer so much to the piercing itself, which was not such a matter of wonder, but to the water and blood which flowed from the side of Jesus. For the fact of the piercing, and the pretermitted crurifragum, the apostle can appeal to other witnesses, those of the Old Testament, which also explain the facts as indicating the divine sonship of our Lord. But he has no other witness for the water and the blood; instead, therefore, of that, he must himself give the most confident assertion of his exact and true observation; and he must himself explain what he saw. Accordingly, the facts adduced by the evangelist receive a twofold illustration: first, the truth of each is attested by the apostle’s eye-witness, with that of the Old Testament superadded; secondly, their significance is confirmed, and this significance is declared to be the same in all three, that is, the vindication of Christ as the Son of God. But it is clear that the flowing of blood and water could not of itself attest this truth; this it could do only if the two ideas are symbolically understood. These symbols we must interpret according to the general usage of Scripture, and especially that of St. John, and thus obtain for the passage in the Gospel the same results which we have arrived at in the case of our text in the Epistle. As the prophecy of Hosea [Hos 11:1], “Out of Egypt have I called my Son,” would maintain its applicability to Christ even if He had never set His foot in Egypt, though He was carried to Egypt that the prophecy might be set in a clearer light; as the word of Zechariah concerning the meek King sitting on an ass would maintain its truth even without its external fulfilment in the history of Palm Sunday: so would the significance of the death of Jesus naturally be the same if it had not been symbolically exhibited in the flowing forth of the blood and water. But God so ordered it that the internal should become external; and the apostle’s wonder approved and attested this divine and altogether miraculous order of Providence. If we revert to our passage in the Epistle, this now receives its most satisfactory and final elucidation. First, it is plain how the powers of purifying renewal and reconciliation might be here expressed by ὕδωρ [“water”] and αἷμα [“blood”]: they are used on the ground of the fact in the Gospel, which is by St. John made prominent with such emphasis, and in which water and blood occur with so symbolical a meaning. Whenever one acquainted with the Gospel read this passage, and noted that the question was concerning a witness borne, he must have recalled to his mind that historical event. Secondly, it is clear how water and blood could be adduced as witnesses appointed of God: for in a most marvelous way God had so ordered it that blood and water should flow from the side of the Crucified, and thus symbolically seal His vocation as a Saviour. But there is yet a third witness given by God, the Spirit; and the matter of His testimony is guaranteed (ὅτι [“because”]), because the Spirit is the truth. This clause must he considered well on all sides. It needs no argument that πνεῦμα [“Spirit”] is the Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost, without whom no man can call Jesus Lord, and who bears witness to Jesus as the Christ in our hearts; but we must note the accordance with Joh 15:26, where in like manner the μαρτυρεῖνπερὶΧριστοῦ [“to testify about Christ”] is exhibited as the function of the Paraclete. In the paraphrase we have given, the clause with ὅτι [“because”] is not regarded as the substance of the testimony, but as the ground of its truth. If it is taken as the substance of it, and translated, “The Spirit beareth witness that the Spirit is truth,” thus making the Spirit bear witness to Himself, we have only to observe that He is certainly introduced here only as a witness for Christ. Moreover, it would be a poor specification of the matter of His testimony, that He witnesses His own truth, that is Himself: the main idea. His testimony that His witness to Christ is true, would be wanting. Or we should be obliged to understand the first πνεῦμα [“Spirit”] of the Spirit as the third Person in the Godhead, and the second of the Spirit as dwelling in man, or of the Spirit of Christ as blended with the human spirit. But, apart from the question whether we may establish such a severance at all, we know nothing generally of a testimony of the Holy Spirit of the Trinity in His distinction from the Spirit of God as ruling in man. Finally, if we should understand the second πνεῦμα [“spirit”] of the human spirit, and explain it after the analogy of Rom 8:16, αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν [“the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit”], we should then miss this precise ἡμῶν [“our”] in our passage. On the other hand, the thought is perfectly clear and truly Johannaean if we take ὅτι [“because”] as the causal particle: the Spirit of God, who enters into man, is in Himself a πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας [“Spirit of truth”] (Joh 15:26), and therefore the testimony which He bears for Christ in our experience is true. But there yet remains one difficulty, and that is the article before μαρτυροῦν [“one who testifies”]. The proposition, τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν [“the Spirit is the one who testifies”], by means of this article produces the impression that the Spirit is the only witness, while, nevertheless, the apostle goes on, τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [“there are three that testify”]. In this last clause the Spirit is mentioned co-ordinately with the water and the blood: the three have all one office of witness. On the other hand, our proposition in its formal construction exhibits the Spirit not as conjoined with the water and the blood, but as conjoined with Christ. That is to say, 1Jn 5:6
After we have thus generally elucidated the constitutive fundamental ideas, we have the details to observe on; and pre-eminently to decide the question whether 1Jn 5:7 belongs to the text or not. If our decision invariably depended on the testimony of manuscripts known to us, there could be no question about the genuineness or spuriousness of this verse; for it is undeniable that no Greek codex earlier than the sixteenth century contains it. If the text is defended in spite of this, it must be on the ground of quotations from the Fathers; and then it must be explained how it came to pass that the words vanished from the text without leaving a trace. In both these respects the matter here is very different from that involved in the reading of 1Jn 4:3, λύειν τὸνἸησοῦν [“to dissolve Jesus”]. In this latter case a reading no longer extant at the threshold of the third century was attested in the east and in the west by such men as Irenaeus and Tertullian, while, as we saw, it cannot be proved that Polycarp did not know it. But in the case now before us this 1Jn 5:7 is found for centuries only in the west, while in the east there is no trace of it; and it may be taken for granted that it could not have been known in the east, for otherwise it would have been used in the Arian controversy. And this leads to the other question, as to the possibility of its vanishing from the text. Let us in this respect also compare 1Jn 5:7 with 1Jn 4:3. The phrase λύειν τὸνἸησοῦν [“to dissolve Jesus”] might indeed, as Socrates shows, have been applied to refute the heretics; but it was in itself too profound to put an end to the controversy by one stroke; at any rate, it was not of such a kind that every transcriber would at once perceive in it an ἑδραίωμαἀληθείας [“a pillar of truth”]. But how different is it with 1Jn 5:7! No one can deny that in the whole compass of holy writ there is no passage even approaching the dogmatic precision with which, in a manner approximating to the later ecclesiastical definitions, this one asserts the immanent Trinity. Such a verse could not have been omitted by inadvertence; for, even supposing such a thing possible in a text of such moment, the absence of the words ἐντῇγῇ [“in the earth”] of 1Jn 5:8 would still be inexplicable. The omission must then have been intentional, and due to the hand of a heretic. But would such an act have remained un-condemned; and were all our manuscripts produced by heretics or constructed from heretical copies? In spite of my subjective conviction of the genuineness of the λύειν τὸνἸησοῦν [“to dissolve Jesus”], I could not decide to receive this reading into the text of 1Jn 4:3; for our editions must, above all things, keep close to the substance of the manuscripts. But to preserve 1Jn 5:7 cannot by any means be justified. The most acute argument that has been adduced to this hour in its favour is represented by the venerable Bengel, who asserts that here the analysis of the Epistle is summed up in one point, the Trinity being the governing principle of its arrangement. But we have found that an altogether different analysis is the right one; and to us, therefore, this argument for the genuineness is neutralized. As to the dogmatic shortsightedness which bewails in its loss the removal of a prop for the doctrine of the absolute Trinity, this might be expected in lay circles, but ought not to be found among theologians. A doctrine which should depend on one such utterance, and in its absence lose its main support, would certainly be a very suspicious one. Omitting the verse, we have in this very section the doctrine of the Trinity just in the form in which Scripture generally presents it: the Father, who witnesses, 1Jn 5:9; the Son, who is attested, 1Jn 5:6 ff.; the Holy Spirit, through whom the Son is witnessed by the Father, 1Jn 5:6
We have recognised that the leading idea of the entire section, 1Jn 5:6-12, is that of the μαρτυρεῖν [“to testify”]. The whole Epistle rests upon faith in the Son of God: He is to be exhibited in the fulness of His divine attestation; and it is accomplished in such a way that 1Jn 5:6-9 present to us the witnesses, 1Jn 5:10-12 the effects of the witness. This and no other (hence the οὗτός [“this”] at the outset, resuming the subject of the preceding proposition) is He who came with the powers of a new life which overcomes the world; that is, the Jesus Christ already named. He came: the aorist specifies His coming simply as an historical fact; not marking it as one accomplished event, as if it were ἐληλυθώς [“the one who had come”], nor as something continuous, as if it were ἐρχόμενος [“the one coming”]. The words must be taken in their strict order and meaning: it is not Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς [“Jesus Christ”], as if the person were mentioned with a double nomen proprium, but Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς [“Jesus the Christ”]; the article before Χριστὸς [“Christ”], and only before it, makes it a closer appellative definition of Ἰησοῦς [“Jesus”], Jesus who is the Messiah. The Messiahship of Jesus is taken for granted; for nothing new concerning this is asserted throughout the section, only the old is confirmed afresh. Moreover, we do not read οὗτόςἐστινἐλθών [“this is the one who came”], after the manner of Joh 1:9, τὸ φῶς ἦν ἐρχόμενον [“the light was coming”],—as if, for the sake of more strongly emphasizing the verbal idea, the copula were separated from the verb,—but οὗτόςἐστιν ὁἐλθών δι᾽ὕδατος [“this is the one who came by water”].
Thus the purport of the whole is this: You call Jesus the Messiah; and you are right in this, for it is He who has in Himself the necessary and settled (mark the article) sign of Messiahship: which is, that He has brought the powers of renewal and atonement. By means (διά [“by”]) of the water and the blood He has come; and His coming is comprehended in the water and the blood (ἐν [“in”]). If we abidingly receive these powers of renewal and atonement, then is He no longer ὁἐλθών [“the one who came”]: for here we must remember that ἔρχεσθαι [“to come”], spoken of Jesus, does not signify a mere appearing or being born; but, on the ground of the Old Testament, His manifestation as Saviour and Redeemer. And, in very deed, He has the two necessary tokens of a Saviour in Himself: not as it were only the one, that of water (οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον [“not by water only”]). We saw above that in the symbol of water the element of atonement as such is wanting. It refers to the establishment of a new life, and thus looks forward to the future and not back to the past. Past sins are not washed away by water, but only by blood; for χωρὶςαἱματεκχυσίαςοὐκἐστινἄφεσις [“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” cf. Heb 9:22]. It is true that this seems to be contradicted by Mar 1:4, where the baptism of John is called βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν [“a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”]. But it is not really contradicted. The baptism is expressly termed βάπτισμα μετανοίας [“a baptism of repentance”], having its character in the change of mind; and we have therefore to assume that the forgiveness of sins also comes as the result of the change of mind. It is therefore such a forgiveness of sins as took place in the case of David: viewed as in the future, on the ground of an atonement hereafter to come. The expiatory element was by no means involved in the baptism of John; it implied an act of God’s grace standing in no necessary connection with this ordinance. Sins were, in the baptism of John, as generally down to the manifestation of Christ, placed under the ἀνοχῇτοῦΘεοῦ [“forbearance of God”]; but a propitiation was not connected with it, save symbolically through the shedding of blood. Through that propitiation itself was man’s sin done away in the sight of God; and hence it is the sign of the true and only Saviour that He came οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι [“not by water only, but by water and blood”]. By the side of this work of Christ, laying the foundation, comes in the attesting and confirming work of the Spirit. Our Lord’s work had its own confirmation in its power to renew and to abolish guilt; but it receives a new and most express confirmation through the Spirit, whose only office is to witness (τὸ μαρτυροῦν [“the one testifying”]), and who possesses the fullest adaptation to this office, inasmuch as He is ἡ ἀλήθεια [“the truth”], the compendium of all truth. But that which was to be attested is the subject of the first clause, the fact which this testimony makes unassailably secure to faith: ἸησοῦςἐστινὁΧριστὸς [“Jesus is the Christ”]. It is secure, for the condition is fulfilled to which the Mosaic law attaches all security, the concurrence of three witnesses. These are εἰςτὸἕν [“in the one”], converge to one goal, that is, the fact already announced and the consequence deducible from it (1Jn 5:11-12), that we possess in Jesus Christ eternal life. Inasmuch as this goal has been already named, and is known to the readers, it is not said that they merely agree εἰςἕν [“in one”], but εἰςτὸἕν [“in the one”], that particular end with which the whole was concerned. The mighty force of conviction inherent in these testimonies rests emphatically on this, that they are given not by men, but by God Himself, the source of all truth, 1Jn 5:9. The comparison between human and divine witness is suggested to the apostle by 1Jn 5:8, in which he had referred to the fact that the testimony adduced by him fulfilled the conditions demanded by valid human testimony. It not only furnishes valid human testimony; it does more than that,—he goes on,—for it springs from God. A corresponding development, fundamental for our passage, is found in Joh 8:17 ff. There, our Lord avers that in His case the requirements were met which men are justified in demanding for the guarantee of any truth; here. His apostle goes further, and. says that more than this is furnished for Christ. Therefore, as men are wont to receive attested facts without contradiction, and always thus to receive them (Indicative Presentfn), so must we yet more heartily yield our assent to truth. Thus the μείζων [“greater than”Joh 8:53] does not refer to the matter of the testimony, as if the thing here attested were of greater and higher moment than the things which men attest,—these latter being about ἐπίγεια [“earthly”], while God vouches for ἐπουράνια [“heavenly”],—but simply to the trustworthiness of the witness. For, the apostle says, the question is here essentially of nothing less than a divine testimony (the emphasis falls on τοῦΘεοῦ [“of God”]); the witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood of which we speak (αὕτη [“this”], scilicetἡμαρτυρία [namely,“the testimony”]) is only the means by which God Himself testifies. The clause following these words with ὅτι [“because”] is not to be attached to them by ἥν [“which”]: this appears certain from the evidence of manuscripts, and is confirmed by internal arguments; for, in the first place, we can easily understand the lapsus oculorum, which might take up the ἥν [“which”] of the similar words of 1Jn 5:10 into our verse; and, secondly, this ἥν [“which”] produces at once the impression of being an explanatory correction. For it is not obvious at first sight whether the ὅτι [“because”] here means “that” or “because.” If we take the former, ὅτι [“because”] is the unfolding of the preceding αὕτη [“this”], and must be translated thus: “it is for us to receive the testimony of God rather than the testimony of man, because (the first ὅτι [“because”]) it consists in this, that God has witnessed concerning His Son.” Then the contents or the object of the testimony would establish its higher trustworthiness. But, as we have already remarked, it is impossible to see what significance in that case there is in the contrast between the witness of God and that of man. The divine testimony is for its own sake, and not because it is given to this or that fact, more trustworthy than human testimony. In fact, we might deduce from this view the inference that if God were to give His witness to anything else, His witness would not be more strong than that of man. Hence we must take the second ὅτι [“because”] as causal, and lay the emphasis on the μεμαρτύρηκε [“he has testified”], to which, indeed, we are led by its prominence in the order of the verse. The meaning then is, that we must receive the witness of God as greater than the witness of men; for (the first ὅτι [“because”]) the question is of a divine testimony, and God hath borne witness concerning; His Son. The first clause of the verse thus has two reasons assigned: the first confirms that the matter is of God’s testimony, the second that it is of a testimony of God. When we go on to observe the injunction to the readers to believe in this testimony, a difficulty arises from its appearing that the witnesses mentioned speak only in the believer. For in whom but the believer does the Spirit speak concerning the Lord, and, to use the Lord’s own word, glorify Him? and to whom does the water, the renewing energies which proceed and have proceeded from Christ, witness of Christ, but to him who finds evidence in himself of these invigorating powers, and who is conscious that he has received from Him every inspiration to a new life? The same may be said of the witness of the αἷμα [“blood”], the atonement centred and rooted in Christ. Ave not then these witnesses superfluous, witnessing only to those who already believe? Now such a contradiction as seems here to emerge would not, apart from other considerations, be intolerable; for it would not be greater in our passage than in those which speak of our Lord being come as a light to those who sit in darkness; while, on the other hand, those only can hear His voice who are of the truth. But the case is different here. If the subject were, as we presumed, the witness of God in believers, it would not be, as we read here, μεμαρτύηκεν ὁΘεὸς [“God has testified”], but only μαρτυρεῖ [“he testified”]. As it is, the testimony of God must be a definite and closed testimony, perfected in the past. And such it is in very deed: that the powers of renewal and atonement lie summed up and sealed in Christ, is indeed an historical fact. No one with open eyes can possibly deny that all such energies as have been manifest in the world have without exception resulted from the name of Jesus Christ. No man can gainsay that the Spirit sent to the apostles witnessed to them on behalf of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Thus the testimony of God in its threefold direction is not only one that lives in individual believers, but it stands before us as an incontrovertible historical fact. It is with faith in this testimony of God as it is with faith in the miraculous power indwelling in Christ and in Christianity. He who has experienced the miracle of sinful man’s renewal needs no other witness for the miracles which the Lord aforetime wrought. But has not he to whom this is not a living experience historically before him the great and undeniable miracle that a sunken, dying, ruined world has been awakened through Christ to a new life? Thus, as this one great, undeniable miracle is even to the unbeliever a real demonstration of the miraculous power of Christ generally, so the historically undeniable witness of the water and the blood and the Spirit is obligatory on all who have not as yet experienced it in themselves. In a word, the witnesses here adduced are valid not only to believers, but also for unbelievers; they stimulate and invite faith; for they are not only subjective in men’s hearts, but objective also in history.
These observations make the progress of the thought between 1Jn 5:6-9 on the one hand, and 1Jn 5:10-12 on the other, quite clear. 1Jn 5:6-9 treat of the witness of God as of one that is historically present, completed, and closed (μεμαρτύρηκεν [“he has testified”]). Then in 1Jn 5:10 the new thought enters, that if we believe this objectively present testimony, it becomes a subjective one which we find experimentally in ourselves (ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ [“the one who believes has this testimony in himself”]). But he who believes not (μή [“not”], for the participle is to be conditionally understood, as it were, ἐὰνμή [“if not”]) makes God a liar: he charges the historically present testimony of God with falsehood. We see at once how in this proposition we can again expect only μεμαρτύρηκεν [“he has testified”], and not μαρτυρεῖν [“to testify]; for the divine testimony, which has its realization in man, the unbeliever has indeed not experienced.
Now follows the explicit statement of the substance of the witness, which 1Jn 5:6 indicated only in few words. That is to say, Jesus is generally attested as the Son of God and the Messiah. At an earlier stage it was impressed on us that these two ideas are regarded by St. John as involved in each other, so that if He is said to be the Messiah, He must be the Son of God; if the Son of God, He must also be the Messiah. The idea Son of God or that of Logos is not in our apostle a mere metaphysical description of what Christ is in Himself or in relation to the Father: the idea in both its terms stands in an immediate connection with the created universe. In the first verses of the Gospel it is said that all becoming and all being in the world proceed from the Logos,—the former, the becoming, in 1Jn 5:3; the latter, the being, in 1Jn 5:4,—and it follows from this that He who is the medium of ζωὴαἰώνιος [“eternal life”] to the work must therefore be the Son of God; and that the Son of God, because it is His to procure and accomplish all, must also be the mediator of salvation,—that is, the Son of God and the Messiah are in St. John’s consciousness interchangeable ideas which necessitate each other. Accordingly, the testimony which God here bears concerning His Son cannot be a merely theoretical proposition, Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ [“Jesus is the Son of God”]; but it is a proposition in which there lies a thoroughly practical element: to wit, that He, as the Son of God, is the Saviour of the world. Thus it is accounted for that the two phrases are introduced quite promiseue, as indicating the object of the testimony: in 1Jn 5:6, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς [“Jesus the Christ”], the Messiahship of Jesus; in 1Jn 5:9-10, by the words περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ [“about his Som”], His divine sonship. Finally, in 1Jn 5:11 both elements are placed in correlation, and thus the whole is summed up.
1It may seem strange that, according to the consentient narratives of the evangelists, Jesus first received the Holy Ghost in connection with His baptism, whereas He was filled with the Spirit in His mother’s womb. The solution of the difficulty lies in the distinction between the Spirit as a principle filling His personal life, and the Spirit as an official gift for communication to others. This distinction finds a more distant analogy in the fact that among men the knowledge of a matter does not involve either the vocation or the gift to appear as a witness and teacher concerning it, which latter is wont to be matured by definite experiences. A nearer analogy lies in the double impartation of the Spirit to the disciples on the evening of the resurrection and on the morning of Pentecost.