Steven Avery
Administrator
1994
Haas, C.,
Marinus de Jonge (1925-2016)
J. L. Swellengrebel
======
Henk de Jonge
en.wikipedia.org
1 John 5:6
This is he who came …, Jesus Christ. The demonstrative pronoun this, taking up “Jesus” in the last clause of v. 5, points forward to Jesus Christ at the end of v. 6a. This name has strong emphasis. To bring this out the word order may have to be changed, for example, “it was he, Jesus Christ himself, who came …” (Goodspeed).
Who came by water and blood. The verb is in the aorist, showing that the reference is to a specific event in history. That event had to do with water, standing for Jesus’ baptism, and blood, standing for his death. These two are mentioned as the two most characteristic events of his life on earth.
The Greek preposition translated by (lit. “through”) has locative sense, but also denotes attendant circumstances. Accordingly, the phrase can be taken quite literally as a reference to Jesus’ passing through water, at his baptism, and through blood, at his death. But a secondary meaning may also be relevant: Jesus comes with the water and the blood by which his followers are to be cleansed and redeemed.*
By water and blood. Most versions investigated give a literal rendering. Some add a reference to baptism and death, for example, ‘he was baptized with water, … he spilled out his blood, he died.’ To add such references is acceptable, but to substitute them for “water and blood” is not advisable.
Not with the water only but with the water and the blood. These words are added to stress that Jesus’ death is as important as his baptism. They seem to be meant as a refutation of opinions held by the false teachers. For those opinions compare the Introduction.
With. The preposition used in the Greek (lit. “in”) again refers to attendant circumstances.—The use of the article serves to show that water and blood refer back to what has been said in the first part of v. 6.
Some commentators take this last phrase of v. 6 as a reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This seems less probable for two reasons. (1) V. 6b clearly serves to emphasize and clarify v. 6a. Consequently, in both parts of the verse the two nouns should be taken in the same sense, namely, as references to events in Jesus’ life. (2) A sacramental interpretation of the present passage assumes that the false teachers had dissenting opinions on the Lord’s Supper, but nothing in the Letter supports this assumption.
1 John 5:7
In GNT, Nestle and TEV this verse is taken as part of v. 6. And the Spirit is the witness. The discourse turns now to the Spirit. This may seem a rather abrupt shift, but was not so for John. In his school of thought there must have been a close connection between the Divine Sonship and the Spirit, as is shown, for example, by John 1:32f; 3:34. For the Spirit (in the sense of God’s Spirit, or the Holy Spirit) see 4:1.
The witness is in the Greek a participle of the present tense, lit. “the witnessing/testifying one,” compare “to testify” in 1:2. The present tense expresses continuation. The reference is to the continuing witness, or testimony, of the Spirit in the congregation (compare also John 14:26 and 15:26). The verb is used here in the sense of “to affirm,” “to assert as valid,” “to say that something (here Jesus’ coming by water and blood) has really happened so.”
In order to stress that the Spirit’s testimony about the circumstances of Jesus’ coming can be trusted the author adds, because the Spirit is the truth, that is, because all which the Spirit does or says has the quality of divine truth. Sometimes the absoluteness of this assertion can be better brought out by a negative wording such as, ‘because the Spirit cannot be a lie (or a liar).’ For truth see also comments on 1:8.
1 John 5:8
In GNT etc. the first words of this verse are taken as forming v. 7. Between there are three witnesses and the Spirit, the water, and the blood, the Textus Receptus inserts, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three witnesses on earth.” The first part of this insertion does not fit the context, for the congregation does not need a group of witnesses in heaven. And when this part is to be omitted, the second part becomes superfluous: there is no need then to state expressly that the other group of witnesses is on earth.
This objection agrees with the textual fact that the words in question are not found in a single one of the old Greek manuscripts. They occur only in some Latin versions, and have been adopted in the Vulgate (although they were not in the oldest manuscripts of that version). Consequently, the insertion is not included in any modern edition of the Greek text, nor in most modern versions.
It is much to be preferred that a translator follow this example. Sensitivities among his constituency, however, may compel him to render the inserted words in his translation. In such a case he should place them either in square brackets in the text (as done, for example, in NV), or in a footnote (Jérusalem), preferably the latter.
In the Greek the verse begins with a connective that is often rendered by ‘for.’ Here, however, it serves to introduce a further specification of what precedes rather than the reason for it. Therefore it may be rendered, ‘(yes,) actually.’ Some versions (amongst them RSV, TEV) omit it altogether, which is quite acceptable in a case like this.
There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. The Greek sentence is grammatically incongruous in that witnesses (lit. “witnessing-ones”) is of the masculine gender although the three terms in apposition to it are neuter. In the case of Spirit this incongruity is found also in John 14:26 and 15:26, where it is used to indicate that the Spirit is viewed as a person. In like fashion the two other nouns, the water and the blood, are given here personal attributes. They are said to be “witnessing,” which is basically an activity of persons.
In several receptor languages it may be possible to say that a spirit is witnessing, but not that water or blood are doing so. When that is the case one may have to use a less decidedly personal rendering of “witness,” as found in, “three the-ones showing-true: the Spirit, …” ‘there are three that prove it (or cause it to be known). They are: the Spirit, …’
The verb “to be” is in the present tense. This tense contrasts with the aorist which the Greek uses in “he who came by water and blood” (v. 6). Consequently, the reference is no longer to events that happened at a specific moment in the past, but to something that takes place in the present and will continue in the future.
This suggests that in the present passage the phrase the water and the blood refers to the sacramental elements, the water of baptism and the wine of the Lord’s Supper, which form the counterpart to Christ’s baptism and his sacrificial death. These sacraments are and will be present in the congregation as continuous witnesses to the truth of Christ’s incarnation and redemptive death.* As such their function is similar to that of the Holy Spirit, who brings in remembrance all that Jesus has said, and bears witness to him (compare the above quoted passages of John’s Gospel).
If the two passages are interpreted thus, the rendering of the water and the blood here may have to differ from the one used in v. 6 for “water and blood.” Several versions, for instance, render these words without any addition in the present verse, whereas they added a more or less explicit reference to Jesus’ baptism and death in v. 6.
And these three agree, or “and the three are one” (Goodspeed), “and they all say the same thing” (Phillips), ‘these, even though three, are of one accord (lit. their innermosts are in each other).’ This is an allusion to a rule of Jewish law: “a charge must be established on the evidence of two or of three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15, NEB). Accordingly, the clause intends to show that the evidence for the assertions just given is beyond any legal doubt. From this it follows that the metaphorical use of “witness” found in these verses is based on the legal sense of that term. The same holds true of “testimony” in vv. 9–11.
Speaking of the testimony that God has caused the three witnesses to give (vv. 6–8) the author is reminded of the testimony God himself has given about the fact that Jesus is his Son. Vv. 9–12 treat of this divine testimony, which is the foundation of the testimony of the earthly witnesses.
Haas, C., Marinus de Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel. A Handbook on the Letters of John. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print. UBS Handbook Series.
Haas, C.,
Marinus de Jonge (1925-2016)
J. L. Swellengrebel
======
Henk de Jonge
Henk Jan de Jonge - Wikipedia
1 John 5:6
This is he who came …, Jesus Christ. The demonstrative pronoun this, taking up “Jesus” in the last clause of v. 5, points forward to Jesus Christ at the end of v. 6a. This name has strong emphasis. To bring this out the word order may have to be changed, for example, “it was he, Jesus Christ himself, who came …” (Goodspeed).
Who came by water and blood. The verb is in the aorist, showing that the reference is to a specific event in history. That event had to do with water, standing for Jesus’ baptism, and blood, standing for his death. These two are mentioned as the two most characteristic events of his life on earth.
The Greek preposition translated by (lit. “through”) has locative sense, but also denotes attendant circumstances. Accordingly, the phrase can be taken quite literally as a reference to Jesus’ passing through water, at his baptism, and through blood, at his death. But a secondary meaning may also be relevant: Jesus comes with the water and the blood by which his followers are to be cleansed and redeemed.*
By water and blood. Most versions investigated give a literal rendering. Some add a reference to baptism and death, for example, ‘he was baptized with water, … he spilled out his blood, he died.’ To add such references is acceptable, but to substitute them for “water and blood” is not advisable.
Not with the water only but with the water and the blood. These words are added to stress that Jesus’ death is as important as his baptism. They seem to be meant as a refutation of opinions held by the false teachers. For those opinions compare the Introduction.
With. The preposition used in the Greek (lit. “in”) again refers to attendant circumstances.—The use of the article serves to show that water and blood refer back to what has been said in the first part of v. 6.
Some commentators take this last phrase of v. 6 as a reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This seems less probable for two reasons. (1) V. 6b clearly serves to emphasize and clarify v. 6a. Consequently, in both parts of the verse the two nouns should be taken in the same sense, namely, as references to events in Jesus’ life. (2) A sacramental interpretation of the present passage assumes that the false teachers had dissenting opinions on the Lord’s Supper, but nothing in the Letter supports this assumption.
1 John 5:7
In GNT, Nestle and TEV this verse is taken as part of v. 6. And the Spirit is the witness. The discourse turns now to the Spirit. This may seem a rather abrupt shift, but was not so for John. In his school of thought there must have been a close connection between the Divine Sonship and the Spirit, as is shown, for example, by John 1:32f; 3:34. For the Spirit (in the sense of God’s Spirit, or the Holy Spirit) see 4:1.
The witness is in the Greek a participle of the present tense, lit. “the witnessing/testifying one,” compare “to testify” in 1:2. The present tense expresses continuation. The reference is to the continuing witness, or testimony, of the Spirit in the congregation (compare also John 14:26 and 15:26). The verb is used here in the sense of “to affirm,” “to assert as valid,” “to say that something (here Jesus’ coming by water and blood) has really happened so.”
In order to stress that the Spirit’s testimony about the circumstances of Jesus’ coming can be trusted the author adds, because the Spirit is the truth, that is, because all which the Spirit does or says has the quality of divine truth. Sometimes the absoluteness of this assertion can be better brought out by a negative wording such as, ‘because the Spirit cannot be a lie (or a liar).’ For truth see also comments on 1:8.
1 John 5:8
In GNT etc. the first words of this verse are taken as forming v. 7. Between there are three witnesses and the Spirit, the water, and the blood, the Textus Receptus inserts, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three witnesses on earth.” The first part of this insertion does not fit the context, for the congregation does not need a group of witnesses in heaven. And when this part is to be omitted, the second part becomes superfluous: there is no need then to state expressly that the other group of witnesses is on earth.
This objection agrees with the textual fact that the words in question are not found in a single one of the old Greek manuscripts. They occur only in some Latin versions, and have been adopted in the Vulgate (although they were not in the oldest manuscripts of that version). Consequently, the insertion is not included in any modern edition of the Greek text, nor in most modern versions.
It is much to be preferred that a translator follow this example. Sensitivities among his constituency, however, may compel him to render the inserted words in his translation. In such a case he should place them either in square brackets in the text (as done, for example, in NV), or in a footnote (Jérusalem), preferably the latter.
In the Greek the verse begins with a connective that is often rendered by ‘for.’ Here, however, it serves to introduce a further specification of what precedes rather than the reason for it. Therefore it may be rendered, ‘(yes,) actually.’ Some versions (amongst them RSV, TEV) omit it altogether, which is quite acceptable in a case like this.
There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. The Greek sentence is grammatically incongruous in that witnesses (lit. “witnessing-ones”) is of the masculine gender although the three terms in apposition to it are neuter. In the case of Spirit this incongruity is found also in John 14:26 and 15:26, where it is used to indicate that the Spirit is viewed as a person. In like fashion the two other nouns, the water and the blood, are given here personal attributes. They are said to be “witnessing,” which is basically an activity of persons.
In several receptor languages it may be possible to say that a spirit is witnessing, but not that water or blood are doing so. When that is the case one may have to use a less decidedly personal rendering of “witness,” as found in, “three the-ones showing-true: the Spirit, …” ‘there are three that prove it (or cause it to be known). They are: the Spirit, …’
The verb “to be” is in the present tense. This tense contrasts with the aorist which the Greek uses in “he who came by water and blood” (v. 6). Consequently, the reference is no longer to events that happened at a specific moment in the past, but to something that takes place in the present and will continue in the future.
This suggests that in the present passage the phrase the water and the blood refers to the sacramental elements, the water of baptism and the wine of the Lord’s Supper, which form the counterpart to Christ’s baptism and his sacrificial death. These sacraments are and will be present in the congregation as continuous witnesses to the truth of Christ’s incarnation and redemptive death.* As such their function is similar to that of the Holy Spirit, who brings in remembrance all that Jesus has said, and bears witness to him (compare the above quoted passages of John’s Gospel).
If the two passages are interpreted thus, the rendering of the water and the blood here may have to differ from the one used in v. 6 for “water and blood.” Several versions, for instance, render these words without any addition in the present verse, whereas they added a more or less explicit reference to Jesus’ baptism and death in v. 6.
And these three agree, or “and the three are one” (Goodspeed), “and they all say the same thing” (Phillips), ‘these, even though three, are of one accord (lit. their innermosts are in each other).’ This is an allusion to a rule of Jewish law: “a charge must be established on the evidence of two or of three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15, NEB). Accordingly, the clause intends to show that the evidence for the assertions just given is beyond any legal doubt. From this it follows that the metaphorical use of “witness” found in these verses is based on the legal sense of that term. The same holds true of “testimony” in vv. 9–11.
Speaking of the testimony that God has caused the three witnesses to give (vv. 6–8) the author is reminded of the testimony God himself has given about the fact that Jesus is his Son. Vv. 9–12 treat of this divine testimony, which is the foundation of the testimony of the earthly witnesses.
Haas, C., Marinus de Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel. A Handbook on the Letters of John. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print. UBS Handbook Series.
Last edited: