The Pulpit Commentary — 1 John — Section 144

is that nf the Spirit (ver. 6), identical with with the polemioe.1 purpose of the Epistle, tlint nf Goo. (ver. 9), •nd poe!!el!l!ed by every viii:. to confute the errors of Cerinthua. h,,liever (ver. 10). Few paseages of Scrip- Cerint.hue taught that the Divine Logos or ture have produced. snch a mRBB of widely Christ descended upon Jesus at the baptism, diverg!'nt interpretation. e.nd departed again when J esua we.so rrested; Ver. 6.-This (Son of God) i1 he who oame so that a mere man was born of Mary, and e. by Wllter and blood, J'esue Christ. This may mere rue.n suffered on the O!'oss. St. John be regarded ns one of the main propositions assures us thnt there was no such sevemnce. of the Episile-that the eternnl Son of God The Divine Son Jesus Christ ea.me not by is identical with the historic Person, Jesus. water only at his baptism, but by blood also Of the water e.nd the blood wi<lely differing nt his death. Besides these two abiding interpretntions have been given. It would witnesrns, there is yet a third still more be tedious e.nd unprofitnble to enumerate convincing. And there is the Spirit that them. Our eFtimate of John xix. ::14, "the beareth witneu (to tbo Divinity of Christ) ; tnnst perplexing incident in the Gospel," beoauae the Spirit is the truth. There oan will probably influen<'e our interpretation of be no higher testimony than that of the this "the most perplexing passage in the truth itself (John xiv. 17; xv. 26; xvi. 13). Epistle." Not that we have here any direct It is surprising that 11.ny one should propose r, fcrence to the piercing of Christ's side, and to translate, "The Spirit is that which is its results. YLt both passages teach similar witnessing that the Spirit is the truth." spiritual truths, viz. the ideas which under- What bas this to do with the context? lie the two sncrnmcuts, and teach them by Ver. 7.-For those who bear witness are reference to facts in the life and death of three, e.nd thus constitute full legal testi- Jesus Christ. But the facts a.re not the mony (Dent. xvii. 6; xix. 15; Matt. xvili. same in ea.eh case. It is diflicnlt to believe 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 1). It will be assumed here, that this pn~e contains e.ny definite and without discussion, that the remainder of immediate a.l\nsion to John xi.L 34. Why this verse e.nd the first olause of ver. 8 ure in that case the marked change of order, spurious. Words whioh are not contained in •; water nnd blood" instead nf " blood e.ud a single Greek uncial manuscript, nor in a water" ? And if it be thought that this is single Greek cursive earlier than the four- cxpinined by saying the.t the one is "the teenth century (the two which contain the id, al. mystical, sacramental, subjective passage being evidently translated from the order,'' the oti,cr "the historical e.nd ob- Vulgate), nor a.re quoted by e. single Greek jecti'l"e order," and that "the fir,;t is e.p- Father during the whole of the Trinite.rian propriatdy ndop!ed in the Epistle, the controversy, nor a.re found in any authority second in the Gospel," we a.re not at the until late ill the fifth century, cannot be end of our difficulties. If St. John is here genuine. referring to the effusions from Christ's dead Ver. 8.- When all three witnesses are body, what ce.n be the meaning of" not in enumerated t.ogether, the Spirit naturally we.ter onl'I", bnt in water and blood"? It comes first. He is a living e.nd a Divine WW! the water, not the blood, tbe.t was witness, independent of the two facts of the specially astonishing. And "in" in this baptism and the Passion, which concur with case seems a. strange expression to UBe. ,ve him in testifying ibat the Son of God is should have expected rather, "not shedding Jesus Christ. blood only, but blood and water." More- Ver. 9.-An argument a jo,·tiori. If we over, bow can blood and water flowing from receive expresses no doubt, but states an the Lord's body be spoken of his "coming admitted fact gently (see on eh. iv. 11 ; and througli water and blood"? The simplest comp. John vii. 23; x. 35; xiii. 14). "If interpretation is tLat which refers v6wp to we accept human witness [and, of course, we the baptism of water to which he himself do], we must accept Divine witness [and, submitted, and which he enjoined upon his therefore, must believe that the Son of GOll dioci r,ks, and cl/La: to the baptism of blood is Jesus Christ); for the witness of God to \\li:d1 be himsdf suhmittecl, and which consists in this, that he has borne witness raised the h~ptism of water from a sign into concerning his Son." Note the pertinacious " sacrament. John came baptizing in water repetition of the word" witness," thoroughly only, iv i!lia.,., f',a.,,..,./(wv (John i. 31, Si). in St. John's style. The perfect (!'</Lap• Jesus Cl.true be.ptizing- in water and blood, .,.{,pTJK<) indicates that the witness still i.e. in water wbicL washed away sin through continu~e. the efficacy of his blood. This interpretation Ver. 10.-Hath the witness in him. This explains the marke<l cbe.uge of prnpo,ition. rendering is to be preferred to either "in Jc.us effected his work through the baptisms Him," i.e. God, or" in himself." The former of water and blood; and it is by baptism in is obscure in meaning; the latter, though these elements that he comes to his followel'l!. probably correct as an interpretahon, is in- Moreover, thiB interpretation harmonize■ accurate 1M1 a translation, for the bett.ei  OJI. v, 1-21.] THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 141