work was a manifestati(m of God, and as such was, in the larger sense, truly a miracle. See, furtlier, artt. Miracles, Kesurrection of Christ, and Sign.
3. The witness of the Spirit to Jesus the Son. — The witness of God concerning His Son calls for faith in the Son (1 Jn 5""-). Tiiis witness is borne to us primarily in objective facts (1 Jn l^"'- S*- '"), but it is borne in upon our consciou.sness onlj^ by the Spirit of (iod. ' It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Sinrit is tiie truth' (1 Jn 5''; cf. also Mt 16^'^). It cannot be too strongly em- phasized that the Person and work of Jesus Christ are tlie object of tiiis testimony. Tiie Paraclete, tlie Spirit of truth (Christ says), ^ shall hear witness of nie ' (Jn 15^"). Tlie witness of tlie Spirit, accord- ing to the NT, is a much larger tiling tlian tlie assurance of personal sonship througii Christ (Ro 8'^ ; cf. art. ASSURANCE). Personal' assurance is an essential and unspeakably important part — in a sense the climax — of the Spirit's witness. But it is un-Biblical to speak of this unqualifiedly as the witness of the Spirit. The Spirit's testimony is coextensive with the objective testiviony. Tlie manifestation of the truth of God in objective facts becomes to us an inward illumination only through the iuAvard witness of the Spirit. Without the testimonium Spiritus sancti internum the objective witness is unable to produce full assurance. On the other hand, an inward persuasion that is not firmly gTounded in objective reality is miserably insecure. The climax of the inward testimony is personal assurance ; but the inward witness is inseparable from the outward. They are not two separate and independent testimonies. God would make us certain of His Avonderful love and grace. To this end He reveals Christ for us, and He also reveals Him in tis. The outward manifestation is the indispensable means to the inward revelation. The fact of the fellowship with God tiirough the Spirit {e.f/. Ro 8''*''"-) is not a thing by itself, it is the demonstration of the trutli of the promise by an initial and progressive realization of the same. The actual fellowship of the Spirit is the Spirit's own witness. See, further, art. Holy Spirit.
II. The witness of the disciples, sup- ported BY THE WITNESS OF TUE HOLY SPIRIT. — Nothing could be clearer than tliat the primitive Christian preaching was not only the most direct and specific witness to Jesus the crucified and risen Lord, but also a witness irrepressibly spontaneous and full of the unconquerable assurance of an over- powering certainty (Ac 4^", 1 Co 9'^, 2 Co 4^^).
Wliat constitutes, according to the NT, the equipment and competence of a witness of Jesus Christ? Were His original disciples the only genuine witnesses ? Are not those also ' who have not seen and yet have believed ' (Jn 20^") competent witnesses? In the first place, then, let us inquire how tiie original witnesses were prepared for tiieir office. Early in His public ministry Jesus chose from out the larger number of His discijiies 'twelve that they miglit be witii him, and tliat lie might send tliem forth to preacli ' (Mk 'i^*). These "He trained to be lieralds of His gospel (see art. Apostles ; and Bruce, The Training of the Twelve], and declared that, when tiie Paraclete siiouid have come to them, tiiey should hear iritncss of Him (Jn lo-"- "'). After His Passi(m and Resurrection He exjiressly commissioned tiiem to go fortii as His witnesses (Lk 24^*, Ac !»). They could, of course, iiave had no vital conception of Jesus and His missicm without tlie iiiuminaticm of tiie Holy Spirit. But was there sometiiing in tiieir experience whicii constituted tliem the only real witnesses? Some iiave so lieid ; Ijut this is a view unwarranted by Scripture and out of harmony with
h
832
WITNESS
WOE
the principles of evangelical Christianity. The original disciples, it is true, were the only eye- and ear- witnesses. Yet what they literally saw and heard was not the revelation itself, but only the means thereto. In Jesus the flesh was, so to speak, 'a transparency for the Word.' Never- theless multitudes 'saw and heard' Jesus and understood not. None of the rulers of this world recognized in Him the Lord of glory ( 1 Co 2^). The original heralds of Christ did indeed lay a certain stress upon their being eye- and ear-witnesses. But they prized their experience of sensible inter- course with the Lord not for its own sake, but because it was to them the means of entering into an inward personal fellowship with Him. In the days of His flesh this personal fellowship with Him was necessarily mediated through the senses, though the fellowship itself was not sensuous but spiritual. Even for these original disciples the time must come when their fellowship with their Lord should be wholly independent of the senses. Through the Paraclete the Lord would renew and continue His fellowship with His disciples (cf. esp. Jn 14 and 16 and 17^^). But He would be no longer manifest through the senses ( Jn 20^'' ; cf. the fine sermon of H. Hoffmann, Ein.s ist not, p. 153). It is clear from the NT that after Pentecost the original disciples were immovable in their per- suasion that they possessed and had fellowship with their exaltedf Lord.