I John Chapter 5
ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER
THIS chapter embraces the following subjects:
I. A continuance of the discussion about love, 1 John 5:1-3. These
verses should have been attached to the previous chapter.
II. The victory which is achieved over the world by those who are born of
God. The grand instrumentality by which this is done, is by the belief
that Jesus is the Son of God, 1 John 5:4,5.
III. The evidence that Jesus is the Son of God; or the means by which
that truth is so believed as to secure a victory over the world,
1 John 5:6-12. In this part of the chapter the apostle goes fully into
the nature of this evidence, or the ways in which the Christian becomes
so thoroughly convinced of it as to give to faith this power. He refers
to these sources of evidence:
(a.) The witness of the Spirit, 1 John 5:6.
(b.) The record borne in heaven, 1 John 5:7--if that verse be genuine.
(c.) The evidence borne on earth, by the Spirit, the water, and the
blood--all bearing witness to that one truth.
(d.) The credit which is due to the testimony of God, or which the soul
pays to it, 1 John 5:8.
(e.) The fact that he who believes on the Son of God has the witness in
himself, 1 John 5:10.
(f.) The amount of the record, that God has given to us eternal life
through his Son, 1 John 5:11,12.
IV. The reason why all this was written by the apostle, 1 John 5:13. It
was that they might know that they had eternal life, and might believe on
the name of the Saviour.
V. The effect of this in leading us to the throne of grace, with the
assurance that God will hear us, and will grant our requests,
1 John 5:14,15.
VI. The power of prayer, and the duty of praying for those who have
sinned. The encouragement to this is, that there are many sins which are
not unto death, and that we may hope that God will be merciful to those
who have not committed the unpardonable offence, 1 John 5:16,17.
VII. A summary of all that the apostle had said to them, or of the
points of which they were sure in the matter of salvation,
1 John 5:18-20. They knew that those who are born of God do not sin;
that the wicked one cannot permanently injure them; that they were of
God, while all the world lay in wickedness; that the Son of God had come,
and that they were truly united to that Saviour who is the true God, and
who is eternal life.
VIII. An exhortation to keep themselves from all idolatry, 1 John 5:21.
Verse 1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ. Is the
Messiah; the anointed of God. On the meaning of the word Christ,
See Barnes "Matthew 1:1". Of course it is meant here that the proposition,
that "Jesus is the Christ," should be believed or received in the true
and proper sense, in order to furnish evidence that any one is born of
God. Comp. See Barnes "1 John 4:3". It cannot be supposed that a mere
intellectual acknowledgment of the proposition that Jesus is the Messiah
is all that is meant, for that is not the proper meaning of the word
believe in the Scriptures. That word, in its just sense, implies that
the truth which is believed should make its fair and legitimate
impression on the mind, or that we should feel and act as if it were
true. See Barnes "Mark 16:16". If, in the proper sense of the phrase, a
man does believe that Jesus is the Christ, receiving him as he is
revealed as the Anointed of God, and a Saviour, it is undoubtedly true
that that constitutes him a Christian, for that is what is required of a
man in order that he may be saved. See Barnes "Acts 8:37".
Is born of God. Or rather, "is begotten of God."
See Barnes "John 3:3". And every one that loveth him that begat.
That loves that God who has thus begotten those whom he has received as
his children, and to whom he sustains the endearing relation of Father.
Loveth him also that is begotten of him. That is, he will love all
the true children of God; all Christians. See Barnes "1 John 4:20". The
general idea is, that as all Christians are the children of the same
Father; as they constitute one family; as they all bear the same image;
as they share his favour alike; as they are under the same obligation of
gratitude to him, and are bound to promote the same common cause, and are
to dwell together in the same home for ever, they should therefore love
one another. As all the children in a family love their common father, so
it should be in the great family of which God is the Head.
{a} "Whosoever believeth" John 1:12,13
Verse 2. By this we know that we love the children of God, etc. This
is repeating the same truth in another form. "As it is universally
true that if we love him who has begotten us, we shall also love his
children, or our Christian brethren, so it is true also that if we love
his children it will follow that we love him." In other places, the
apostle says that we may know that we love God if we love those
who bear his image, 1 John 3:14. He here says, that there is another
way of determining what we are. We may have undoubted evidence that we
love God, and from that, as the basis of an argument, we may infer
that we have true love to his children. Of the fact that we may have
evidence that we love God, apart from that which we derive from our love
to his children, there can be no doubt. We may be conscious of it; we may
find pleasure in meditating on his perfections; we may feel sure that we
are moved to obey him by true attachment to him, as a child may in
reference to a father. But, it may be asked, how can it be inferred from
this that we truly love his children? Is it not more easy to ascertain
this of itself than it ia to determine whether we love God? Comp.
1 John 4:20. To this it may be answered, that we may love Christians
from many motives: we may love them as personal friends; we may love them
because they belong to our church, or sect, or party; we may love
them because they are naturally amiable: but the apostle says here,
that when we are conscious that an attachment does exist towards
Christians, we may ascertain that it is genuine, or that it does not
proceed from any improper motive, by the fact that we love God.
We shall then love him as his children, whatever other grounds of
affection there may be towards them.
And keep his commandments. See Barnes "John 14:16"
Verse 3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.
This constitutes true love; this furnishes the evidence of it. And his
commandments are not grievous. Greek, heavy--\~bareiai\~; that is,
difficult to be borne as a burden. See Matthew 11:30. The meaning
is, that his laws are not unreasonable; the duties which he requires
are not beyond our ability; his government is not oppressive. It is
easy to obey God when the heart is right; and those who endeavour
in sincerity to keep his commandments do not complain that they are hard.
All complaints of this kind come from those who are not disposed to keep
his commandments. They, indeed, object that his laws are
unreasonable; that they impose improper restraints; that they are not
easily complied with; and that the Divine government is one of severity
and injustice. But no such complaints come from true Christians. They
find his service easier than the service of sin, and the laws of God more
mild and easy to be complied with than were those of fashion and honour,
which they once endeavoured to obey. The service of God is freedom; the
service of the world is bondage. No man ever yet heard a true Christian
say that the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern
and "grievous." But who has not felt this in regard to the inexorable
laws of sin? What votary of the world would not say this if he spoke his
real sentiments? Comp. Notes, John 8:32.
{b} "that we keep" John 14:15,21
{c} "not grievous" Psalms 119:45; Matthew 11:30
Verse 4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. The
world, in its maxims, and precepts, and customs, does not rule him, but
he is a freeman. The idea is, that there is a conflict between religion
and the world, and that in the heart of every true Christian religion
secures the victory, or triumphs. In John 16:33, the Saviour says,
"Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." See Barnes "John 6:33".
He obtained a complete triumph over him "who rules the darkness of the
world," and laid the foundation for a victory by his people over all
vice, error, and sin. John makes this affirmation of all who are born of
God. "Whatsoever," or, as the Greek is, "Everything which is begotten
of God," (\~pan to gegenhmenon\~;) meaning to affirm, undoubtedly, that in
every instance where one is truly regenerated, there is this victory
over the world. See Barnes "James 4:4"; See Barnes "1 John 2:15",
See Barnes "1 John 2:16". It is one of the settled maxims of
religion, that every man who is a true Christian gains a victory over
the world; and consequently a maxim as settled, that where the
spirit of the world reigns supremely in the heart there is no true
religion. But, if this be a true principle, how many professed Christians
are there who are strangers to all claims of piety--for how many
are there who are wholly governed by the spirit of this world!
And this is the victory. This is the source or means of the victory
which is thus achieved. Even our faith. Faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ, 1 John 5:5. He overcame the world, John 16:33, and
it is by that faith which makes us one with him, and that imbues us with
his Spirit, that we are able to do it also.
{*} "whatsoever" "whosoever"
{d} "overcometh" 1 Corinthians 15:57
Verse 5. Who is he, etc. Where is there one who can pretend to have
obtained a victory over the world, except he who believes in the
Saviour? All else are worldly, and are governed by worldly aims and
principles. It is true that a man may gain a victory over one worldly
passion; he may subdue some one evil propensity; he may abandon
the gay circle, may break away from habits of profaneness, may
leave the company of the unprincipled and polluted; but still, unless
he has faith in the Son of God, the spirit of the world will reign
supreme in his soul in some form. The appeal which John so confidently
made in his time may be as confidently made now. We may ask, as
he did, where is there one who shows that he has obtained a complete
victory over the world, except the true Christian? Where is there one
whose end and aim is not the present life? Where is there one who shows
that all his purposes in regard to this world are made subordinate to the
world to come? There are those now, as there were then, who break away
from one form of sin, and from one circle of sinful companions; there are
those who change the ardent passions of youth for the soberness of middle
or advanced life; there are those who see the folly of profaneness, and
of gaiety, and intemperance; there are those who are disappointed in some
scheme of ambition, and who withdraw from political conflicts; there are
those who are satiated with pageantry, and who, oppressed with the cares
of state, as Diocletian and Charles V. were, retire from public life; and
there are those whose hearts are crushed and broken by losses, and by the
death, or what is worse than death, by the ingratitude of their children,
and who cease to cherish the fond hope that their family will be
honoured, and their name perpetuated in those whom they tenderly
loved--but still there is no victory over the world. Their deep
dejection, their sadness, their brokenness of spirit, their lamentations,
and their want of cheerfulness, all show that the spirit of the world
still reigns in their hearts. If the calamities which have come upon them
could be withdrawn; if the days of prosperity could be restored, they
would show as much of the spirit of the world as ever they did, and would
pursue its follies and its vanities as greedily as they had done before.
Not many years or months elapse before the worldly mother who has
followed one daughter to the grave, will introduce another into the
gay world with all the brilliancy which fashion prescribes; not long
will a worldly father mourn over the death of a son before, in the
whirl of business and the exciting scenes of ambition, he will show
that his heart is as much wedded to the world as it ever was. If such
sorrows and disappointments conduct to the Saviour, as they sometimes do;
if they lead the troubled mind to seek peace in his blood, and support in
the hope of heaven, then a real victory is obtained over the world; and
then, when the hand of affliction is withdrawn, it is seen that there has
been a work of grace in the soul that has effectually changed all its
feelings, and secured a triumph that shall be eternal.
Verse 6. This is he. This Son of God referred to in the
previous verse. The object of the apostle in this verse, in connexion
with 1 John 5:8, is to state the nature of the evidence that Jesus
is the Son of God. He refers to three well-known things on which he
probably had insisted much in his preaching--the water, and the blood,
and the Spirit. These, he says, furnished evidence on the very point
which he was illustrating, by showing that that Jesus on whom they
believed was the Son of God. "This," says he, "is the same one, the very
person, to whom the well-known, and important testimony is borne; to
him, and him alone, this undisputed things appertain, and not to any
other who should claim to be the Messiah; and they all agree on the same
one point," 1 John 5:8.
That came. \~o elywn\~. This does not mean that when he came into the
world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is,
that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing
on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his
character and work. An ambassador might be said to come with
credentials; a warrior might be said to come with the spoils of
victory; a prince might be said to come with the insignia of royalty;
a prophet comes with signs and wonders; and the Lord Jesus might also
be said to have come with power to raise the dead, and to heal disease,
and to cast out devils; but John here fixes the attention on a
fact so impressive and remarkable in his view as to be worthy of special
remark, that he came by water and blood.
By water. There have been many opinions in regard to the meaning of
this phrase. See Pool's Synopsis. Compare also Lucke, in loc. A mere
reference to some of these opinions may aid in ascertaining the true
interpretation.
(1.) Clement of Alexandria supposes that by water regeneration and faith
were denoted, and by blood the public acknowledgment of that.
(2.) Some, and among them Wetstein, have held that the words are used to
denote the fact that the Lord Jesus was truly a man, in contradistinction
from the doctrine of the Docetae; and that the apostle means to say
that he had all the properties of a human being--a spirit or soul, blood,
and the watery humours of the body.
(3.) Grotius supposes that by his coming "by water," there is reference
to his pure life, as water is the emblem of purity; and he refers to
Ezekiel 36:25; Isaiah 1:16; Jeremiah 4:14. As a sign of that purity, he says that
John baptized him, John 1:28. A sufficient objection to this view is,
that as in the corresponding word blood there is undoubted reference
to blood literally, it cannot be supposed that the word water in the
same connexion would be used figuratively. Moreover, as Lucke (p. 287)
has remarked, water, though a symbol of purity, is never used to
denote purity itself, and therefore cannot here refer to the pure
life of Jesus.
(4.) Many expositors suppose that the reference is to the baptism of
Jesus, and that by his "coming by water and blood," as by the latter
there is undoubted reference to his death, so by the former there is
reference to his baptism, or to his entrance on his public work. Of this
opinion were Tertullian, Ecumenius, Theophylact, among the fathers, and
Capellus, lieumann, Stroth, Lange, Ziegler, A. Clarke, Bengel,
Rosenmuller, Macknight, and others, among the moderns.
A leading argument for this opinion, as alleged, has been that it was
then that the Spirit bare witness to him, (Matthew 3:16,) and that this
is what John here refers to when he says, "It is the Spirit that beareth
witness," etc. To this view, Lucke urges substantially the following
objections:
(a.) That if it refers to baptism, the phrase would much more
appropriately express the fact that Jesus came baptizing others, if that
were so, than that he was baptized himself. The phrase would be strictly
applicable to John the Baptist, who came baptizing, and whose ministry
was distinguished for that, (Matthew 3:1;) and if Jesus had baptized in
the same manner, or if this had been a prominent characteristic of his
ministry, it would be applicable to him. Comp. John 4:2. But if it
means that he was baptized, and that he came in that way "by water,"
it was equally true of all the apostles who were baptized, and of all
others, and there was nothing so remarkable in the fact that he was
baptized as to justify the prominence given to the phrase in this
place.
(b.) If reference be had here, as is supposed in this view of the
passage, to the "witness" that was borne to the Lord Jesus on the
occasion of his baptism, then the reference should have been not to the
"water" as the witness, but to the "voice that came from heaven,"
(Matthew 3:17,) for it was that which was the witness in the case. Though
this occurred at the time of the baptism, yet it was quite an independent
thing, and was important enough to have been referred to. See Lucke,
Com. in loc. These objections, however, are not insuperable. Though
Jesus did not come baptizing others himself, (John 4:2,) and though
the phrase would have expressed that if he had, yet, as Christian baptism
began with him; as this was the first act in his entrance on public life;
as it was by this that he was set apart to his work; and as he
designed that this should be always the initiatory rite of his religion,
there was no impropriety in saying that his "coming," or his advent
in this world, was at the beginning characterized by water, and at the
close by blood. Moreover, though the "witness" at his baptism was really
borne by a voice from heaven, yet his baptism was the prominent thing;
and if we take the baptism to denote all that in fact occurred when he
was baptized, all the objections made by Lucke here vanish.
(5.) Some, by the "water" here, have understood the ordinance of baptism
as it is appointed by the Saviour to be administered to his people,
meaning that the ordinance was instituted by him. So Beza, Calvin,
Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Beausobre, Knapp, Lucke, and others understand
it. According to this the meaning would be, that he appointed baptism by
water as a symbol of the cleansing of the heart, and shed his blood to
effect the ransom of man, and that thus it might be said that he "came by
water and blood;" to wit, by these two things as effecting the salvation
of men. But it seems improbable that the apostle should have grouped
these things together in this way. For
(a.) the "blood" is that which he shed; which pertained to him
personally; which he poured out for the redemption of man; and it is
clear that, whatever is meant by the phrase "he came," his coming by
"water" is to be understood in some sense similar to his coming by
"blood;" and it seems incredible that the apostle should have joined a
mere ordinance of religion in this way with the shedding of his
blood, and placed them in this manner on an equality.
(b.) It cannot be supposed that John meant to attach so much importance
to baptism as would be implied by this. The shedding of his blood was
essential to the redemption of men; can it be supposed that the apostle
meant to teach that baptism by water is equally necessary?
(c.) If this be understood of baptism, there is no natural connexion
between that and the "blood" referred to; nothing by which the one would
suggest the other; no reason why they should be united. If he had said
that he "came" by the appointment of two ordinances for the edification
of the church, "baptism and the supper," however singular such a
statement might be in some respects, yet there would be a connexion, a
reason why they should be suggested together. But why should baptism and
the blood shed by the Saviour on the cross be grouped together as
designating the principal things which characterized his
coming into the world?
(6.) There remains, then, but one other interpretation; to wit, that he
refers to the "water and the blood" which flowed from the side of the
Saviour when he was pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier. John had
himself laid great stress on this occurrence, and on the fact that he had
himself witnessed it, See Barnes "John 19:34",
(See Barnes "John 19:35";) and as, in these epistles, he is accustomed
to allude to more full statements made in his gospel, it would seem most
natural to refer the phrase to that event as furnishing a
clear and undoubted proof of the death of the Saviour. This would be the
obvious interpretation, and would be entirely clear, if John did not
immediately speak of the "water" and the "blood" as separate
witnesses, each as bearing witness to an important point, as separate as
the "Spirit" and the "water," or the "Spirit" and the "blood ;" whereas,
if he refers to the mingled water and blood flowing from his side, they
both witness only the same fact, to wit, his death. There was no special
significance in the water, no distinct testifying to anything different
from the flowing of the blood; but together they bore witness
to the one fact that he actually died. But here he seems to suppose that
there is some special significance in each. "Not by water only, but
by water and blood." "There are three that bear witness, the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in
one." These considerations seem to me to make it probable, on the whole,
that the fourth opinion, above referred to, and that which has been
commonly held in the Christian church, is correct, and that by the
"water" the baptism of the Saviour is intended; his baptism as an
emblem of his own purity; as significant of the nature of his
religion; as a rite which was to be observed in his church at all times.
That furnished an important attestation to the fact that he was the
Messiah, (comp. See Barnes "Matthew 3:15",) for it was by that that he
entered on his public work, and it was then that a remarkable testimony
was borne to his being the Son of God. He himself "came" thus by
water as an emblem of purity; and the water used in his church in all
ages in baptism, together with the "blood" and the "Spirit," bears public
testimony to the pure nature of his religion. It is possible that the
mention of the "water" in his baptism suggested to John also the water
which flowed from the side of the Saviour at his death, intermingled with
blood; and that though the primary thought, in his mind was the fact that
Jesus was baptized, and that an important attestation was then
given to his Messiahship, yet he may have instantly adverted to the
fact that water performed so important a part, and was so important a
symbol through all his work; water at his introduction to his work as an
ordinance in his church, as symbolical of the nature of his religion, and
even at his death, as a public attestation, in connexion with flowing
blood, to the fact that he truly died, in reality, and not, as the
Docetae pretended, in appearance only, thus completing the work of
the Messiah, and making an atonement for the sins of the world. Comp.
See Barnes "John 19:34", See Barnes "John 19:35".
And blood, referring, doubtless, to the shedding of his blood on the
cross. He "came" by that; that is, he was manifested by that to men,
or that was one of the forms in which he appeared to men, or by which his
coming into the world was characterized. The apostle means to say that
the blood shed at his death furnished an important evidence or "witness"
of what he was. In what way this was done, See Barnes "1 John 5:8".
Not by water only, but by water and blood. John the Baptist came "by
water only;" that is, he came to baptize the people, and to prepare them
for the coming of the Messiah. Jesus was distinguished from him in the
fact that his ministry was characterized by the shedding of blood, or the
shedding of his blood constituted one of the peculiarities of his work.
And it is this Spirit. Evidently the Holy Spirit. That beareth
witness. That is, he is the great witness in the matter,
confirming all others. He bears witness to the soul that Jesus came "by
water and blood," for that would not be received by us without his
agency. In what way he does this, See Barnes "1 John 5:8".
Because the Spirit is truth. Is so eminently true that he may be
called truth itself, as God is so eminently benevolent that he may be
called love itself. See Barnes "1 John 4:8".
{a} "came by" John 19:34
Verse 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, etc.
There are three that witness, or that bear witness--the same
Greek word which, in 1 John 5:8, is rendered bear witness
--\~marturountev\~. There is no passage of the New Testament which has given
rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The
supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the
Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree
of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness
of no other passage of the New: Testament. On the one hand, the clear
testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made
that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant
in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same
clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it
not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage. It is not
consistent with the design of these Notes to go into a full investigation
of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a
brief way, the results which have been reached, in an examination of
the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation
further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the
bottom of the page.* The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7,8,
whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following
quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament:
"For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that
bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and
these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be
omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three
that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these
three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the
passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as
a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
I. It is wanting in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in
no Greek Ms. written before the sixteenth century. Indeed, it is found in
only two Greek manuscripts of any age--one the Codex Montfortianus, or
Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the
other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken
partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, and partly from
the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage
of the New Testament should be wanting in all the early Greek
manuscripts.
II. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part
of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former
times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions--one of which was made
probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic,
Ehiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on
the doctrine of the Trinity--a passage which would be so much in point,
and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it
is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at
the end of the fifth century. If the passage were believed to be
genuine--nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any
probability in its favour--it is incredible that in all the controversies
which occurred in regard to the Divine nature, and in all the efforts to
define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been
referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to any one who
examines the subject with an unbiased mind, that the passages which are
relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin,
etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725,) are not taken from this place, and are not
such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this
passage, and had designed to quote it.
IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed
by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be
genuine.
(a.) The connexion does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance
what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument
entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear "witness" to the
fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things were well known to those
to whom he was writing--the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How
does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in
heaven there are "three that bear witness"--three not before
referred to, and having no connexion with the matter under consideration?
(b.) The language is not such as John would use. He does, indeed,
elsewhere use the term Logos, or Word, \~o logov\~ John 1:1,14
1 John 1:1, but it is never in this form, "The Father, and the Word;"
that is, the terms "Father" and "Word" are never used by him, or
by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word
Son--\~o uiov\~--is the term which is correlative to the Father in
every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred
writers. See 1 John 1:3; 2:22-24; 4:14; 1 John 3:9; and the Gospel of John,
passim. Besides, the correlative of the term Logos, or Word, with
John, is not Father, but God. See John 1:1. Comp. Revelation 19:13.
(c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and
appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is
the Messiah. These are referred to in 1 John 5:6; and in immediate
connexion with this, in the argument, (1 John 5:8,) it is affirmed that
their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there
are other witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes
nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three--the
water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the
passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as
the external proof. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place
in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of
some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was
true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to
deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some
transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere
belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it
became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to
be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered
into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century,
while it was wanting in all the earlier manuscripts.
VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek
Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach
and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear
that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and
should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. One or
two remarks may be made, in addition, in regard to its use.
(1.) Even on the supposition that it is genuine, as Bengel believed
it was, and as he believed that some Greek manuscript would yet be found
which would contain it **; yet it is not wise to adduce it as a
proof-text. It would be much easier to prove the doctrine of the Trinity
from other texts, than to demonstrate the genuineness of this.
(2.) It is not necessary as a proof-text. The doctrine which it
contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New
Testament, by passages about which there can be no doubt.
(3.) The removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the
doctrine of the Trinity, or to modify that doctrine. As it was never used
to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its
rejection, and its removal from the New Testament, will do nothing to
modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced, and held, and
successfully defended without it, and it can and will be so still.
* Mill. New Test., pp. 379-386; Wetstein, II. 721--727; Father Simon,
Crit. Hist. New Test.; Michaelis, Intro. New Test. iv. 412, seq.; Semler,
Histor. und Krit. Sammlungen uber die sogenannten Beweistellen der
Dogmatik. Erstes Stuck uber, 1 John v. 7; Griesbach, Diatribe in locum,
I John v. 7, 8, second edit., New Test., vol. II., appendix 1; and
Lucke's Commentary in loc.
** Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet si non autographurn
Joanneurn, at alios vetustissimos codices Graecos, qui hanc periocham
habeant in occultis providentiae divine forulis adhuc latentes auo
tempore productum iri.
{b} "the Father" John 8:18
{c} "the Word" Hebrews 4:12,13; Revelation 19:13
{d} "Holy Ghost" John 10:30
Verse 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth. This is
a part of the text, which, if the reasoning above is correct, is to
be omitted. The genuine passage reads, (1 John 5:7,) "For there
are three that bear record, [or witness--\~marturountev\~,] the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood." There is no reference to the fact that it is
done "in earth." The phrase was introduced to correspond with
what was said in the interpolated passage, that there are three that
bear record "in heaven."
The Spirit. Evidently the Holy Spirit. The assertion here is, that
that Spirit bears witness to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God,
1 John 5:5. The testimony of the Holy Ghost to this fact is contained
in the following things:
(1.) He did it at the baptism of Jesus. See Barnes "Matthew 3:16",
See Barnes "Matthew 3:17".
(2.) Christ was eminently endowed with the influences of the Holy
Spirit; as it was predicted that the Messiah would be, and as it was
appropriate he should be, Isaiah 11:2; 61:1. Compare Luke 4:18;
See Barnes "John 3:34".
(3.) The Holy Spirit bore witness to his Messiahship, after his
ascension, by descending, according to his promise, on his apostles, and
by accompanying the message which they delivered with saving power to
thousands in Jerusalem, Acts 2.
(4.) He still bears the same testimony on every revival of religion, and
in the conversion of every individual who becomes a Christian, convincing
them that Jesus is the Son of God. Comp. John 16:14,15.
(5.) He does it in the hearts of all true Christians, for "no man can say
that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost," 1 Corinthians 12:3.
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 2:3". The Spirit of God has thus always borne witness
to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, and he will continue to do it to
the end of time, convincing yet countless millions that he was sent from
God to redeem and save lost men.
And the water. See Barnes "1 John 5:6". That is, the baptism of
Jesus, and the scenes which occurred when he was baptized, furnished
evidence that he was the Messiah. This was done in these ways:
(1.) It was proper that the Messiah should be baptized when he entered on
his work, and perhaps it was expected; and the fact that he was baptized
showed that he had in fact entered on his work as Redeemer.
See Barnes "Matthew 3:15".
(2.) An undoubted attestation was then furnished to the fact that he was
"the Son of God," by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a
dove, and by the voice that addressed him from heaven, Matthew 3:16,17.
(3.) His baptism with water was an emblem of the purity of his own
character, and of the nature of his religion.
(4.) Perhaps it may be implied here, also, that water used in baptism
now bears witness to the same thing,
(a.) as it is the ordinance appointed by the Saviour;
(b.) as it keeps up his religion in the world;
(c.) as it is a public symbol of the purity of his religion;
(d.) and as, in every case where it is administered, it is connected with
the public expression of a belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
And the blood. There is undoubted allusion here to the blood shed on
the cross; and the meaning is, that that blood bore witness also to
the fact that he was the Son of God. This it did in the following
respects:
(1.) The shedding of the blood showed that he was truly dead--that his
work was complete--that he died in reality, and not in appearance only.
See Barnes "John 19:34", See Barnes "John 19:36".
(2.) The remarkable circumstances that attended the shedding of this
blood--the darkened sun, the earthquake, the rending of the veil of the
temple --showed in a manner that convinced even the Roman centurion that
he was the Son of God. See Barnes "Matthew 27:54".
(3.) The fact that an atonement was thus made for sin was an
important "witness" for the Saviour, showing that he had done that which
the Son of God only could do, by disclosing a way by which the sinner may
be pardoned, and the polluted soul be made pure.
(4.) Perhaps, also, there may be here an allusion to the Lord's
Supper, as designed to set forth the shedding of this blood; and the
apostle may mean to have it implied that the representation of the
shedding of the blood in this ordinance is intended to keep up the
conviction that Jesus is the Son of God. If so, then the general sense
is, that that blood--however set before the eyes and the hearts of
men--on the cross, or by the representation of its shedding in the Lord's
Supper--is a witness in the world to the truth that Jesus is the Son of
God, and to the nature of his religion. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:26".
And these three agree in one; \~eiv to en eisi\~. They agree in one thing;
they bear on one and the same point, to wit, the fact that Jesus is the
Son of God. All are appointed by God as witnesses of this fact; and all
harmonize in the testimony which is borne. The apostle does not say that
there are no other witnesses to the same thing; nor does he even say that
these are the most important or decisive which have been furnished; but
he says that these are important witnesses, and are entirely harmonious
in their testimony.
{a} "the Spirit" John 15:26; Acts 2:2-4; 2 Corinthians 1:22
{b} "water" 1 Peter 3:21
{c} "Blood" Hebrews 13:12
Verse 9. If we receive the witness of men. As we are accustomed
to do, and as we must do in courts of justice, and in the ordinary daily
transactions of life. We are constantly acting on the belief that what
others say is true; that what the members of our families, and our
neighbours say is true; that what is reported by travellers is true;
that what we read in books, and what is sworn to in courts of justice,
is true. We could not get along a single day if we did not act on this
belief; nor are we accustomed to call it in question, unless we have
reason to suspect that it is false. The mind is so made that it must
credit the testimony borne by others; and if this should cease even for
a single day, the affairs of the world would come to a pause.
The witness of God is greater. Is more worthy of belief; as God is
more true, and wise, and good than men. Men may be deceived, and may
undesignedly bear witness to that when is not true--God never can be; men
may, for sinister and base purposes, intend to deceive--God never can;
men may act from partial observation, from rumours unworthy of
credence--God never can; men may desire to excite admiration by the
marvellous--God never can; men have deceived--God never has; and though,
from these causes, there are many instances where we are not certain that
the testimony borne by men is true, yet we are always certain that
that which is borne by God is not false. The only question on which the
mind ever hesitates is, whether we actually have his testimony, or
certainly know what he bears witness to; when that is ascertained,
the human mind is so made that it cannot believe that God would
deliberately deceive a world. See Barnes "Hebrews 6:18". Comp.
Titus 1:2.
For this is the witness of God, etc. The testimony above referred
to--that borne by the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. Who that saw
his baptism, and heard the voice from heaven, (Matthew 3:16,17,) could
doubt that he was the Son of God? Who that saw his death on the cross,
and that witnessed the amazing scenes which occurred there, could fail to
join with the Roman centurion in saying that this was the Son of God? Who
that has felt the influences of the Eternal Spirit on his heart, ever
doubted that Jesus was the Son of God? Comp. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 12:3".
Any one of these is sufficient to convince the soul of this; all combined
bear on the same point, and confirm it from age to age.
Verse 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in
himself. The evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
See Barnes "Romans 8:16". This cannot refer to any distinct and immediate
revelation of that fact, that Jesus is the Christ, to the soul of the
individual, and is not to be understood as independent of the external
evidence of that truth, or as superseding the necessity of that evidence;
but the "witness" here referred to is the fruit of all the evidence,
external and internal, on the heart, producing this result; that is,
there is the deepest conviction of the truth that Jesus is the Son of
God. There is the evidence derived from the fact that the soul has found
peace by believing on him; from the fact that the troubles and anxieties
of the mind on account of sin have been removed by faith in Christ; from
the new views of God and heaven which have resulted from faith in the
Lord Jesus; from the effect of this in disarming death of its terrors;
and from the whole influence of the gospel on the intellect and the
affections--on the heart and the life, These things constitute a mass of
evidence for the truth of the Christian religion, whose force the
believer cannot resist, and make the sincere Christian ready to
sacrifice anything rather than his religion; ready to go to the stake
rather than to renounce his Saviour. See Barnes "1 Peter 3:15".
He that believeth not God hath made him a liar.
See Barnes "1 John 1:10".
Because he believeth not the record, etc. The idea is, that in
various ways--at his baptism, at his death, by the influences of the Holy
Spirit, by the miracles of Jesus, etc.-- God had become a witness
that the Lord Jesus was sent by him as a Saviour, and that to doubt or
deny this partook of the same character as doubting or denying any other
testimony; that is, it was practically charging him who bore the
testimony with falsehood.
{a} "witness in himself" Romans 8:16
Verse 11. And this is the record. This is the sum, or the
amount of the testimony (\~marturia\~) which God has given
respecting him.
That God hath given to us eternal life. Has provided, through the
Saviour, the means of obtaining eternal life. See Barnes "John 5:24";
See Barnes "John 17:2", See Barnes "John 17:3".
And this life is in his Son. Is treasured up in him, or is to be
obtained through him. See Barnes "John 1:4";
See Barnes "John 1:25"; See Barnes "John 14:6";
See Barnes "Colossians 3:3".
{*} "record" "witness"
{b} "this life" John 1:4
Verse 12. He that hath the Son, hath life. See Barnes "John 5:24".
John evidently designs to refer to that passage in the verse before us,
and to state a principle laid down by the Saviour himself. This is the
sense of all the important testimony that had ever been borne by God on
the subject of salvation, that he who believes in the Lord Jesus already
has the elements of eternal life in his soul, and will certainly
obtain salvation. Comp. See Barnes "John 17:3".
And he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. He that does not
believe on him will not attain to eternal life.
See Barnes "John 3:36";
See Barnes "Mark 16:16".
{c} "He that" John 5:24
Verse 13. These things have I written unto you. The things in this
epistle respecting the testimony borne to the Lord Jesus.
That believe on the name of the Son of God. To believe on his
name, is to believe on himself--the word name often being used to
denote the person. See Barnes "Matthew 28:19".
That ye may know that ye have eternal life. That you may see the
evidence that eternal life has been provided, and that you may be able,
by self-examination, to determine whether you possess it.
See Barnes "John 20:31".
And that ye may believe, etc. That you may continue to believe,
or may persevere in believing. He was assured that they actually did
believe on him then; but he was desirous of so setting before them the
nature of religion, that they would continue to exercise faith in him. It
is often one of the most important duties of ministers of the gospel, to
present to real Christians such views of the nature, the claims, the
evidences, and the hopes of religion, as shall be adapted to secure their
perseverance in the faith. In the human heart, even when converted, there
is such a proneness to unbelief; the religious affections so easily
become cold; there are so many cares pertaining to the world that are
fitted to distract the mind; there are so many allurements of sin to draw
the affections away from the Saviour; that there is need of being
constantly reminded of the nature of religion, in order that the heart
may not be wholly estranged from the Saviour. No small part of preaching,
therefore, must consist of the re-statement of arguments with which the
mind has been before fully convinced; of motives whose force has been
once felt and acknowledged; and of the grounds of hope and peace and joy
which have already, on former occasions, diffused comfort through the
soul. It is not less important to keep the soul, than it is to
convert it; to save it from coldness, and deadness, and formality,
than it was to impart to it the elements of spiritual life at first. It
may be as important to trim a vine, if one would have grapes, as it is to
set it out; to keep a garden from being overrun with weeds in the summer,
as it was to plant it in the spring.
{d} "ye may know" John 20:31
Verse 14. And this is the confidence that we have in him.
Marg., concerning. Greek, "towards him," or in respect
to him--\~prov auton\~. The confidence referred to here is that which
relates to the answer to prayer. The apostle does not say that this is
the only thing in respect to which there is to be confidence in him, but
that it is one which is worthy of special consideration. The sense is,
that one of the effects of believing on the Lord Jesus (1 John 5:13)
is, that we have the assurance that our prayers will be answered. On the
word confidence, See Barnes "1 John 3:21";
See Barnes "1 John 4:17".
That, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us. This
is the proper and the necessary limitation in all prayer. God has not
promised to grant anything that shall be contrary to his will, and it
could not be right that he should do it. We ought not to wish to receive
anything that should be contrary to what he judges to be best. No man
could hope for good who should esteem his own wishes to be a better guide
than the will of God; and it is one of the most desirable of all
arrangements that the promise of any blessing to be obtained by prayer
should be limited and bounded by the will of God. The limitation here,
"according to his will," probably implies the following things:
(1.) In accordance with what he has declared that he is willing to
grant. Here the range is large, for there are many things which we know
to be in accordance with his will, if they are sought in a proper manner
as the forgiveness of sins, the sanctification of the soul,
(1 Thessalonians 4:3,) comfort in trial, the needful supply of our wants, grace
that we may do our duty, wisdom to direct and guide us, (James 1:5,)
deliverance from the evils which beset us, the influences of his Spirit
to promote the cause of religion in the world, and our final salvation.
Here is a range of subjects of petition that may gratify the largest
wishes of prayer.
(2.) The expression, "according to his will," must limit the answer to
prayer to what he sees to be best for us. Of that we are not always
good judges. We never perceive it as clearly as our Maker does, and in
many things we might be wholly mistaken. Certainly we ought not to desire
to be permitted to ask anything which God would judge not to be for
our good.
(3.) The expression must limit the petition to what it will be
consistent for God to bestow upon us. We cannot expect that he will
work a miracle in answer to our prayers; we cannot ask him to bestow
blessings in violation of any of the laws which he has ordained, or in
any other way than that which he has appointed. It is better that the
particular blessing should be withheld from us, than that the laws which
he has appointed should be disregarded. It is better that an idle man
should not have a harvest, though he should pray for it, than that God
should violate the laws by which he has determined to bestow such
favours as a reward of industry, and work a special miracle in answer
to a lazy man's prayers.
(4.) The expression, "according to his will," must limit the promise to
what will be for the good of the whole. God presides over the
universe; and though in him there is an infinite fulness, and he regards
the wants of every individual throughout his immense empire, yet the
interests of the whole, as well as of the individual, are to be consulted
and regarded. In a family, it is conceivable that a child might ask for
some favour whose bestowment would interfere materially with the rights
of others, or be inconsistent with the good of the whole, and in such a
case a just father would of course withhold it. With these necessary
limitation the range of the promise in prayer is ample; and, with these
limitations, it is true beyond a question that he does hear and answer
prayer.
Verse 15. And if we know that he hear us. That is, if we are assured
of this as a true doctrine, then, even though we may not see immediately
that the prayer is answered, we may have the utmost confidence that it is
not disregarded, and that it will be answered in the way best adapted to
promote our good. The specific thing that we may not indeed be granted,
(comp. Luke 22:42; 2 Corinthians 12:8,9,) but the prayer with not be disregarded,
and the thing which is most for our good wilt be bestowed upon us. The
argument here is derived from the faithfulness of God; from the
assurance which we that when he has promised to hear us, there will be,
sooner or later a real answer to the prayer.
We know that we have the petitions. That is, evidently, we know that
we shall have them, or that the prayer will be answered. It cannot
mean that we already have the precise thing for which we prayed, or that
will be a real answer to the prayer, for
(a.) the prayer may relate to something future, as protection on a
journey, or a harvest, or restoration to health, or the safe return of a
son from a voyage at sea, or the salvation of our souls--all of which are
future, and which cannot be expected to be granted at once; and
(b.) the answer to prayer is sometimes delayed, though ultimately
granted. There may be reasons why the answer should be deferred, and the
promise is not that it shall be immediate. The delay may arise from
such causes as these:
(1.) To try our faith, and see whether the blessing is earnestly desired.
(2.) Perhaps it could not be at once answered without a miracle.
(3.) It might not be consistent with the Divine arrangements respecting
others to grant it to us at once.
(4.) Our own condition may not be such that it would be best to answer it
at once. We may need further trial, further chastisement, before
the affliction, for example, shall be removed; and the answer to the
prayer may be delayed for months or years. Yet, in the meantime,
we may have the firmest assurance that the prayer is heard, and
that it will be answered in the way and at the period when God shall
see it to-be best.
{a} "know" Proverbs 15:29; Jeremiah 29:12,13
{*} "desired" "asked"
Verse 16. If a man see his brother sin a sin, etc. From the general
assurance that God hears prayer, the apostle turns to a particular
case in which it may be benevolently and effectually employed, in
rescuing a brother from death. There has been great diversity of
opinion in, regard to the meaning of this passage, and the views of
expositors of the New Testament are by no means settled as to its
true sense. It does not comport with the design of these Notes to
examine the opinions which have been held in detail. A bare reference,
however, to some of them will show the difficulty of determining with
certainty what the passage means, and the impropriety of any very great
confidence in one's own judgment in the case. Among these opinions are
the following. Some have supposed that the sin against the Holy Ghost is
intended; some that the phrase denotes any great and enormous sin, as
murder, idolatry, adultery; some that it denotes some sin that was
punishable by death by the laws of Moses; some that it denotes a sin
that subjected the offender to excommunication from the synagogue or the
church; some that it refers to sins which brought fatal disease upon the
offender, as in the case of those who abused the Lord's Supper at
Corinth, (See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:30";) some that it refers to crimes
committed against the laws, for which the offender was sentenced to
death, meaning that when the charge alleged was false, and the
condemnation unjust, they ought to pray for the one who was condemned to
death, and that he would be spared; but that when the offence was one
which had been really committed, and the offender deserved to die, they
ought not to pray for him, or, in other words, that by "the sin unto
death," offences against the civil law are referred to, which the
magistrate had no power to pardon, and the punishment of which he could
not commute; and by the "sin not unto death," offences are referred to
which might be pardoned, and when the punishment might be commuted; some
that it refers to sins before and after baptism, the former of
which might be pardoned, but the latter of which might not be; and some,
and perhaps this is the common opinion among the Roman Catholics, that it
refers to sins that might or might not be pardoned after death, thus
referring to the doctrine of purgatory. These various opinions may be
seen stated more at length in Rosenmuller, Lucke, Pool, (Synopsis,) and
Clarke, in loc. To go into an examination of all these opinions
would require a volume by itself, and all that can be done here is to
furnish what seems to me to be the fair exposition of the passage. The
word brother may refer either to a member of the church, whether
of the particular church to which one was attached or to another, or it
may be used in the larger sense which is common as denoting a
fellow-man, a member of the great family of mankind. There is nothing in
the word which necessarily limits it to one in the church; there is
nothing in the connexion, or in the reason assigned, why what is said
should be limited to such an one. The duty here enjoined would be the
same whether the person referred to was in the church or not; for it is
our duty to pray for those who sin, and to seek the salvation of those
whom we see to be going astray, and to be in danger of ruin, wherever
they are, or whoever they may be. At the same time, the correct
interpretation of the passage does not depend on determining whether the
word brother refers to one who is a professed Christian or not.
A sin which is not unto death. The great question in the
interpretation of the whole passage is, what is meant by the "sin unto
death." The Greek (\~amartia prov yanaton\~) would mean properly a in which
tends to death; which would terminate in death; of which death was
the penalty, or would be the result, unless it were arrested a sin which,
if it had its own course, would terminate thus, am we should speak of a
disease "unto death." Comp. John 11:4. The word death is used in
three significations in the New Testament, and as employed here might, so
far as the word is concerned, be applied in any one of those senses.
It is used to denote
(a.) literally the death of the body;
(b.) spiritual death, or death "in trespasses and sin," Ephesians 2:1;
(c.) the "second death," death in the world of woe and despair. If the
sin here mentioned refers to temporal death, it means such a sin that
temporal death, must inevitably follow, either by the disease
which it has produced, or by a judicial sentence where there was no hope
of pardon or of a commutation of the punishment; if it refers to death in
the future world, the "second death", then it means such a sin as is
unpardonable. That this last is the reference here seems to me to be
probable, if not clear, from the following considerations:
(1.) There is such a sin referred to in the New Testament, a sin for
which there is forgiveness "neither in this life nor the life to come."
See Barnes "Matthew 12:31,32". Comp. Mark 3:29. If there is such a
sin, there is no impropriety in supposing that John would refer to it
here.
(2.) This is the obvious interpretation. It is that which would occur
to the mass of the readers of the New Testament, and which it is presumed
they do adopt; and this in general, is one of the best means of
ascertaining the sons of a passage in the Bible.
(3.) The other significations attached to the word death, would be
quite inappropriate here.
(a.) It cannot mean "unto spiritual death," that is, to a continuance
in sin, for how could that be known? and if such a case occurred, why
would it be improper to pray for it? Besides, the phrase "a sin unto
spiritual death," or "unto continuance in sin," is one that is unmeaning.
(b.) It cannot be shown to refer to a disease that should be unto death,
miraculously inflicted on account of sin, because, if such cases
occurred, they were very rare, and even if a disease came upon a man
miraculously in consequence of sin, it could not be certainly known
whether it was, or was not, unto death. All who were visited in this way
did not certainly die. Comp. 1 Corinthians 5:4,5, with 2 Corinthians 2:6,7. See
also 1 Corinthians 11:30.
(c.) It cannot be shown that it refers to the case of those who were
condemned by the civil magistrate to death, and for whom there was no
hope of reprieve or pardon, for it is not certain that there were such
cases; and if there were, and the person condemned were innocent, there
was every reason to pray that God would interpose and save them, even
when there was no hope from man; and if they were guilty, and deserved
to die, there was no reason why they should not pray that the sin
might be forgiven, and that they might be prepared to die, unless it
were a case where the sin was unpardonable. It seems probable,
therefore, to me, that the reference here is to the sin against the
Holy Ghost, and that John means here to illustrate the duty and the power
of prayer, by showing that for any sin short of that, however
aggravated, it was their duty to pray that a brother might be forgiven.
Though it might not be easy to determine what was the unpardonable
sin, and John does not say that those to whom he wrote could determine
that with certainty, yet there were many sins which were manifestly
not of that aggravated character, and for those sins it was proper to
pray. There was clearly but one sin that was unpardonable--" there is
a sin unto death;" there might be many which were not of this
description, and in relation to them there was ample scope for the
exercise of the prayer of faith. The same thing is true now. It is not
easy to define the unpardonable sin, and it is impossible far us to
determine in any case with absolute certainty that a man has committed
it. But there are multitudes of sins which men commit, which on no proper
interpretation of the passages respecting the sin which "hath never
forgiveness," can come under the description of that sin, and for which
it is proper, therefore, to pray that they may be pardoned. We know of
cases enough where sin may be forgiven; and, without allowing the
mind to be disturbed about the question respecting the unpardonable sin,
it is our duty to bear such cases on our hearts before God, and to
plead with him that our erring brethren may be saved.
He shall ask. That is, he shall pray that the offender may be brought
to true repentance, and may be saved.
And he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. That is,
God shall give life, and he shall be saved from the eternal death to
which he was exposed. This, it is said, would be given to "him" who
offers the prayer; that is, his prayer would be the means of saving the
offending brother. What a motive is this to prayer! How faithful and
constant should we be in pleading for our fellow-sinners, that we may be
instrumental in saving their souls! What joy will await those in
heaven who shall see there many who were rescued from ruin in answer to
their prayers! Comp. See Barnes "James 5:15",
See Barnes "James 5:19".
There is a sin unto death. A sin which is of such a character that it
throws the offender beyond the reach of mercy, and which is not to be
pardoned. See Mark 3:28,29. The apostle does not here say what that
sin is; nor how they might know what it is; nor even that in any case
they could determine that it had been committed. He merely says that
there is such a sin, and that he, does not design that his remark
about the efficacy of prayer should be understood as extending to that.
I do not say that he shall pray for it. "I do not intend that my
remark shall be extended to all sin, or mean to affirm that all possible
forms of guilt are the proper subjects of prayer, for I am aware that
there is one sin which is an exception, and my remark is not to be
applied to that." He does not say that this sin was of common occurrence:
or that they could know when it had been committed; or even that a case
could ever occur in which they could determine that; he merely says that
in respect to that sin he did not say that prayer should be offered. It
is indeed implied in a most delicate way that it would not be proper to
pray for the forgiveness of such a sin, but he does not say that a case
would ever happen in which they would know certainly that the sin had
been committed. There were instances in the times of the prophets in
which the sin of the people became so universal and so aggravated, that
they were forbidden to pray for them. Isaiah 14:11, "Then said the Lord
unto me, Pray not for this people for their good;" Isaiah 15:1, "Then
said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my
mind could not be toward this people; cast them out of my sight, and let
them go forth." Comp. See Barnes "Isaiah 1:15". But these were cases in
which the prophets were directly instructed by God not to pray for a
people. We have no such instruction; and it may be said now with truth,
that as we can never be certain respecting any one that he has committed
the unpardonable sin, there is no one for whom we may not with propriety
pray. There may be those who are so far gone in sin that there may seem
to be little, or almost no ground of hope. They may have cast off all the
restraints of religion, of morality, of decency; they may disregard all
the counsels of parents and friends; they may be sceptical, sensual,
profane; they may be the companions of infidels and of mockers; they may
have forsaken the sanctuary, and learned to despise the sabbath; they may
have been professors of religion, and now may have renounced the faith of
the gospel altogether, but still, while there is life it is our duty to
pray for them, "if peradventure God will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth," 2 Timothy 2:26. "All things are possible
with God;" and he has reclaimed offenders more hardened, probably, than
any that we have known, and has demonstrated that there is no form of
depravity which he has not the power to subdue. Let us remember the cases
of Manasseh, of Saul of Tarsus, of Augustine, of Bunyan, of Newton, of
tens of thousands who have been reclaimed from the vilest forms of
iniquity, and then let us never despair of the conversion of any, in
answer to prayer, who may have gone astray, as long as they are in this
world of probation and of hope. Let no parent despair who has an
abandoned son; let no wife cease to pray who has a dissipated husband.
How many a prodigal son has come back to fill with happiness an aged
parent's heart! How many a dissipated husband has been reformed to give
joy again to the wife of his youth, and to make a paradise again of his
miserable home!
{a} "unto death" Matthew 12:31,32
{b} "not say" Jeremiah 7:16
{*} "it" "that"
Verse 17. All unrighteousness is sin, etc. This seems to be
thrown in to guard what he had just said, and there is one great
and enormous sin, a sin which could not be forgiven. But he says also
that there are many other forms and degrees of sin, sin for which prayer
may be made. Everything, he says, which is unrighteous --\~adikia\~--
everything which does not conform to the holy law of God, and which is
not right in the view of that law, is to be regarded as sin; but we
are not to suppose that all sin of that kind is of such a character
that it cannot possibly be forgiven. There are many who commit sin who we
may hope will be recovered, and for them it is proper to pray. Deeply
affected as we may be in view of the fact that there is a sin which can
never be pardoned, and much as we may pity one who has been guilty of
such a sin, yet we should not hastily conclude in any case that it has
been committed, and should bear constantly in mind that while there is
one such sin, there are multitudes that may be pardoned, and that for
them it is our duty unceasingly to pray.
{c} "unrighteousness" 1 John 3:4
Verse 18. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not. Is not
habitually and characteristically a sinner; does not ultimately and
finally sin and perish; cannot, therefore, commit the unpardonable
sin, Though he may fall into sin, and grieve his brethren, yet we
are never to cease to pray for a true Christian; we are never to
feel that he has committed the sin which has never forgiveness, and
that he has thrown himself beyond the reach of our prayers. This
passage, in its connexion, is a full proof that a true Christian
will never commit the unpardonable sin, and, therefore, is a
proof that he will never fall from grace. Comp. See Barnes "Hebrews 6:4",
seq. See Barnes "Hebrews 10:26". On the meaning of the assertion here
made, that "whosoever is born of God sinneth not,"
See Barnes "1 John 3:6", seq.
Keepeth himself. It is not said that he does it by his own strength,
but he will put forth his best efforts to keep himself from sin, and by
Divine assistance he will be able to accomplish it. Comp.
See Barnes "1 John 3:3"; See Barnes "Jude 1:21".
And that wicked one toucheth him not. The great enemy of all good is
repelled in his assaults, and he is kept from falling into his snares.
The word toucheth (\~aptetai\~) is used here in the sense of harm
or injure.
{+} "begotten" "born"
{d} "keepeth himself" Romans 5:20,21
Verse 19. And we know that we are of God. We who are Christians.
The apostle supposed that true Christians might have so clear evidence on
that subject as to leave no doubt on their own minds that they were the
children of God. Comp. 1 John 3:14; 2 Timothy 1:12.
And the whole world. The term world here evidently means not the
material world, but the people that dwell on the earth, including all
idolaters, and all sinners of every grade and kind.
Lieth in wickedness. "In the wicked one," or under the power of the
wicked one--\~en tw ponhrw\~. It is true that the word \~ponhrw\~ may be used
here in the neuter gender, as our translators have rendered it,
meaning "in that which is evil," or in "wickedness;" but it may
be in the masculine gender, meaning "the wicked one;" and then
the sense would be that the whole world is under his control or
dominion. That this is the meaning of the apostle seems to be clear,
because
(1.) the corresponding phrase, (1 John 5:20,) \~en tw alhyinw\~, "in
him that is true," is evidently to be construed in the masculine,
referring to God the Saviour, and meaning "him that is true," and
not that we are "in truth."
(2.) It makes better sense to say that the world lies under the control
of the wicked one, than to say that it lies "in wickedness."
(3.) This accords better with the other representations in the Bible, and
the usage of the word elsewhere. Comp. 1 John 2:13, "Ye have overcome
the wicked one;" 1 John 5:14," ye have overcome the wicked one;"
1 John 3:12, "who was of that wicked one."
See Barnes "2 Corinthians 4:4", on the expression "the god of this world;"
John 12:31, where he is called "the prince of world; and Ephesians 2:2,
where he is called "the prince of the power of the air." In all these
passages it is supposed that Satan has control over the world, especially
the heathen world. Comp. Ephesians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:20. In regard to the
fact that the heathen world was pervaded by wickedness,
See Barnes "Romans 1:21", seq.
(4.) It may be added, that this interpretation is adopted by the most
eminent critics and commentators. It is that of Calvin, Beza, Benson,
Blacknight, Bloomfield, Piscator, Lucke, etc. The word lieth here
(\~keitai\~) means, properly, to lie; to be laid; to recline; to be
situated, etc. It seems here to refer to the passive and torpid
state of a wicked world under the dominion of the prince of evil, as
acquiescing in his reign; making no resistance; not even struggling to be
free. It lies thus as a beast that is subdued, a body that is dead,
or anything that is wholly passive, quiet, and inert. There is no energy;
no effort to throw off the reign; no resistance; no struggling. The
dominion is complete, and body and soul, individuals and nations,
are entirely subject to his will. This striking expression will not
unaptly, now describe the condition of the heathen world, or of
sinners in general. There would seem to be no government under
which men are so little restive, and against which they have so little
disposition to rebel, as that of Satan. Comp. 2 Timothy 2:26.
Verse 20. And we know that the Son of God is come. We know this by
the evidence that John had referred to in this epistle, 1 John 1:1-4;
1 John 5:6-8.
And hath given us an understanding. Not an "understanding" considered
as a faculty of the mind, for religion gives us no new faculties; but he
has so instructed us that we do understand the great truths referred to.
See Barnes "Luke 24:45". All the correct knowledge which we have of
God and his government, is to be traced directly or indirectly to the
great Prophet whom God has sent into the world, John 1:4,18; 8:12;
John 9:5; Hebrews 1:1-3; Matthew 11:27.
That we may know him that is true. That is, the true God.
See Barnes "John 17:3".
And we are in him that is true. That is, we are united to him; we
belong to him; we are his friends. This idea is often expressed in the
Scriptures by being "in him." It denotes a most intimate union, as if
we were one with him or were a part of him--as the branch is in the
vine, John 15:4,6. The Greek construction is the same as that
applied to "the wicked one," 1 John 5:19, (\~en tw alhyinw\~.)
This is the true God.* There has been much difference of opinion in
regard to this important passage; whether it refers to the Lord Jesus
Christ, the immediate antecedent, or to a more remote
antecedent--referring to God, as such. The question is of importance in
its bearing on the doctrine of the divinity of the Saviour; for if it
refers to him, it furnishes an unequivocal declaration that he is Divine.
The question is, whether John meant that it should be referred to
him?
Without going into an extended examination of the passage, the following
considerations seem to me to make it morally certain that by the phrase
"this is the true God," etc., he did refer to the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1.) The grammatical construction favours it. Christ is the immediate
antecedent of the pronoun this--\~outov\~. This would be regarded as
the obvious and certain construction so far as the grammar is concerned,
unless there were something in the thing affirmed which led us to seek
some more remote and less obvious antecedent. No doubt would have been
ever entertained on this point, if it had not been for the reluctance to
admit that the Lord Jesus is the true God. If the assertion had been
that "this is the true Messiah;" or that "this is the Son of
God;"
or that "this is he who was born of the Virgin Mary," there would
have
been no difficulty in the construction. I admit that this argument is not
absolutely decisive; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to
the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote; but cases of
that kind depend on the ground of necessity, and can be applied
only when it would be a clear violation of the sense of the author to
refer it to the immediate antecedent.
(2.) This construction seems to be demanded by the adjunct which John has
assigned to the phrase "the true God"--" ETERNAL LIFE." This is an
expression which John would he likely to apply to the Lord Jesus,
considered as life, and the source of life, and not to God as
such. "How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! 'In
him (i.e. Christ) was Life, and the LIFE was the light of men--giving
LIFE to the world--the bread of LIFE.--my words are spirit and LIFE
--I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE. This LIFE (Christ)
was manifested, and we have seen it, and do testify to you, and
declare the ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father, and was manifested to
us,' 1 John 1:2."--Prof. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing,
p. 83. There is no instance in the writings of John, in which the
appellation LIFE, and eternal Life, is bestowed upon the Father,
to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as
this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ,
the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase "the true God,"
and "eternal life," should be applied to him.
(3.) If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true"--\~ton alhyinon\~
[\~yeon\~]--it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would
then be, "That we may know the true God, and we are in the true God:
this is the true God, and eternal life." Can we believe that an
inspired man would affirm gravely, and with so much solemnity,
and as if it were a truth of so much magnitude, that the true God
is the true God?
(4.) This interpretation accords with what we are sure John would affirm
respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Can there be any doubt that he who
said,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God;" that he who said "all things were made by him, and without him
was not anything made that was made;" that he who recorded the
declaration of the Saviour, "I and my Father are one," and the
declaration
of Thomas, "my Lord and my God," would apply to him the appellation the
true God!
(5.) If John did not mean to affirm this, he has made use of an
expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have
shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read
what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the
very sin against which he endeavours to guard in the next verse--the
sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to
another the honour due to him. The language which he uses is just such
as,
according to its natural interpretation, would lead men to worship
one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus
be Divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation
of this passage demands that it should be understood as referring to the
Lord Jesus Christ. If so, it is a direct assertion of his divinity, for
there could be no higher proof of it than to affirm that he is the true
God.
And eternal life. Having "life in himself," (John 5:26,) and the
source and fountain of life to the soul. No more frequent appellation,
perhaps, is given to the Saviour by John, than that he is life, and the
source of life. Comp. John 1:4; 5:26,40; 10:10; 6:33,35,48,51,53,63;
John 11:25; 14:6; 20:31; 1 John 1:1,2; 5:12.
* Many MSS. here insert the word God--"the true God"--\~ton alhyinon yeon\~,
this is also found in the Vulgate, Coptic, AEthiopic, and Arabic
versions,
and in the Complutensian edition of the New Testament. The reading,
however, is not so well sustained as to be adopted by Griesbach, Tittman,
or Hahn. That it may be a genuine reading is indeed possible, but the
evidence is against it. Lucke supposes that it is genuine, and endeavours
to account for the manner in which it was omitted in the MSS.
--Commentary, p. 349.
{a} "understanding" Luke 24:45
{b} "This" Isaiah 9:6
Verse 21. Little children. This is a favourite mode of address with
John, (See Barnes "1 John 2:1",) and it was proper to use it in giving
his parting counsel; embracing, in fact, all that he had to say--that
they should keep themselves from idols, and suffer nothing to alienate
their affections from the true God. His great object had been to
lead them to the knowledge and love of God, and all his counsels
would be practically followed, if, amidst the temptations of idolatry,
and the allurements of sin, nothing were allowed to estrange their
hearts from him.
Keep yourselves from idols. From worshipping them; from all that
would imply communion with them or their devotees. Compare
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 10:14". The word rendered idols here
(\~eidwlwn\~) means, properly, an image, spectre, shade--as of the
dead; then any image or figure which would represent anything,
particularly anything invisible; and hence anything designed to
represent God, and that was set up with a view to be acknowledged
as representing him, or to bring him, or his perfections, more vividly
before the mind. The word is applicable to idol-gods--heathen
deities, 1 Corinthians 8:4,7; 10:19; Romans 2:22; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; but it would,
also, be applicable to any image designed to represent the true God,
and through or by which the true God was to be adored. The essential
things in the word seem to be,
(a.) an image or representation of the Deity, and
(b.) the making of that an object of adoration instead of the true God.
Since one of these things would be likely to lead to the other, both are
forbidden in the prohibitions of idolatry, Exodus 20:4,5. This would
forbid all attempts to represent God by paintings or statuary; all
idol-worship, or worship of heathen gods; all images and pictures that
would be substituted in the place of God as objects of devotion, or that
might transfer the homage from God to the image; and all giving
of those affections to other beings or objects which are due to God.
Why the apostle closed this epistle with this injunction he has not
stated, and it may not be easy to determine. It may have been for
such reasons as these:
(1.) Those to whom he wrote were surrounded by idolaters, and there was
danger that they might fall into the prevailing sin, or in some way so
act as to be understood to lend their sanction to idolatry.
(2.) In a world full of alluring objects, there was danger then, as there
is at all times, that the affections should be fixed on other objects
than the supreme God, and that what is due to him should be withheld. It
may be added, in the conclusion of the exposition of this epistle, that
the same caution is as needfull for us as it was for those to whom John
wrote. We are not in danger, indeed, of bowing down to idols, or of
engaging in the grossest forms of idol-worship. But we may be in no less
danger than they to whom John wrote were, of substituting other things in
our affections in the place of the true God, and of devoting to them the
time and the affection which are due to him. Our children it is possible
to love with such an attachment as shall effectually exclude the true
God from the heart. The world --its wealth, and pleasures, and
honours--we may love with a degree of attachment such as even an
idolater would hardly show to his idol-gods; and all the time which
he would take in performing his devotions in an idol-temple, we
may devote with equal fervour to the service of the world. There
is practical idolatry all over the world; in nominally Christian lands
as well as among the heathen; in families that acknowledge no God
but wealth and fashion; in the hearts of multitudes of individuals
who would scorn the thought of worshipping at a pagan altar; and
it is even to be found in the heart of many a one who professes to
be acquainted with the true God, and to be an heir of heaven.
God should have the supreme place in our affections. The love of
everything else should be held in strict subordination to the love of
him. He should reign in our hearts; be acknowledged in our closets, our
families, and in the place of public worship; be submitted to at all
times as having a right to command and control us; be obeyed in all the
expressions of his will, by his word, by his providence, and by his
Spirit; be so loved that we shall be willing to part without a murmur
with the dearest object of affection when he takes it from us; and so
that, with joy and triumph, we shall welcome his messenger, the angel
of death, when he shall come to summon us into his presence. To all
who may read these illustrations of the epistle of the "beloved
disciple," may God grant this inestimable blessing and honour. AMEN.
{*} "Little children" "My children"
{c} "idols" 1 Corinthians 10:14
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP