THE GOSPEL AS A GOSPEL OF WITNESS; THE THREE WITNESSES— 1Jo
5:6-10
IT has been said that Apostles and apostolic men were as far as
possible removed from common sense, and have no conception of
evidence in our acceptation of the word. About this statement there
is scarcely even superficial plausibility. Common sense is the
measure of ordinary human tact among palpable realities. In relation
to human existence it is the balance of the estimative faculties;
the
instinctive summary of inductions which makes us rightly credulous
and rightly incredulous, which teaches us the supreme lesson of
life,
when to say "yes." and when to say "no." Uncommon sense is
superhuman tact among no less real, but at present impalpable
realities; the spiritual faculty of forming spiritual inductions
aright. So St. John, among the three great canons of primary truth
with which he closes his Epistle, writes—"we know that the Son of
God hath come and is present, and hath given us understanding, that
we know Him who is true." So with evidences. Apostles did not draw
them out with the same logical precision, or rather not in the same
logical form. Yet they rested their conclusions upon the same
abiding
principle of evidence, the primary axiom of our entire social life,
that there is a degree of human evidence which practically cannot
deceive. "If we receive the witness of men." The form of expression
implies that we certainly do. Peculiar difficulty has been felt in understanding the paragraph.
And
one portion of it remains difficult after any explanation. But we
shall succeed in apprehending it as a whole only upon condition of
taking one guiding principle of interpretation with us. The word witness is St. John’s central thought here. He is
determined
to beat it into our thoughts by the most unsparing iteration. He
repeats it ten times over, as substantive or verb, in six verses.
His
object is to turn our attention to his Gospel, and to this
distinguishing feature of it—its being from beginning to end a
Gospel of witness. This witness he declares to be fivefold. (1) The witness of the Spirit, of which the fourth Gospel is
preeminently full. (2) The witness of the Divine Humanity, of the God-Man, who is
not man deified, but God humanified. This verse is no doubt partly
polemical, against heretics of the day, who would clip the great
picture of the Gospel, and force it into the petty frame of their
theory. This is He (the Apostle urges) who came on the stage of the
world’s and the Church’s history as the Messiah, under the
condition,
so to speak, of water and blood; bringing with him, accompanied by,
not the water only, but the water and the blood. Cerinthus separated
the Christ, the divine Aeon, from Jesus the holy but mortal man. The
two, the divine potency and the human existence, met at the waters
of
Jordan, on the day of the Baptism, when the Christ united himself to
Jesus. But the union was brief and unessential. Before the
crucifixion, the divine ideal Christ withdrew. The man suffered. The
impassible immortal potency was far away in heaven. St. John denies
the fortuitous juxtaposition of two accidentally united existences.
We worship one Lord Jesus Christ, attested not only by Baptism in
Jordan, the witness of water, but by the death on Calvary, the
witness of blood. He came by water and blood, as the means by which
His office was manifested; but with the water and with the blood, as
the sphere in which He exercises that office. When we turn to the
Gospel, and look at the pierced side, we read of blood and water,
the
order of actual history and physiological fact. Here St. John takes
the ideal, mystical, sacramental order, water and blood—cleansing
and redemption—and the sacraments which perpetually symbolise and
convey them. Thus we have Spirit, water, blood. "Three are they who
are ever witnessing." These are three great centres round which St.
John’s Gospel turns. These are the three genuine witnesses, the
trinity of witness, the shadow of the Trinity in heaven. (3) Again the fourth Gospel is a Gospel of human witness, a
tissue woven out of many lines of human attestation. It records the
cries of human souls overheard and noted down at the supreme crisis
moment, from the Baptist, Philip, and Nathanael, to the everlasting
spontaneous creed of Christendom on its knees before Jesus, the cry
of Thomas ever rushing molten from a heart of fire—"My Lord and my
God." (4) But if we receive, as we assuredly must and do receive, the
overpowering and soul-subduing mass of attesting human evidence, how
much more must we receive the Divine witness, the witness of God so
conspicuously exhibited in the Gospel of St. John! "The witness of
God is greater, because this" (even the history in the pages to
which he adverts) "is the witness; because" (I say with triumphant
reiteration) "He hath witnessed concerning His Son." This witness
of God in the last Gospel is
given in four forms—by Scripture, by the Father, by the Son Himself,
by His works. (5) This great volume of witness is consummated and brought home
by another; He who not merely coldly assents to the word of Christ,
but lifts the whole burden of his belief on to the Son of God, hath
the witness in him. That which was logical and external becomes
internal and experimental. In this ever-memorable passage, all know that an interpolation has
taken place. The words—"in heaven the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear
witness in earth"—are a gloss. A great sentence of one of the first
of critics may well reassure any weak believers who dread the
candour
of Christian criticism, or suppose that it has impaired the evidence
for the great dogma of the Trinity. "If the fourth century knew that
text, let it come in, in God’s name; but if that age did not know
it,
then Arianism in its height was beaten down without the help of that
verse; and, let the fact prove as it will, the doctrine is
unshaken." The human material with which they have been clamped
should not blind us to the value of the heavenly jewels which seemed
to be marred by their earthly setting. It is constantly said—as we think with considerable
misapprehension—that in his Epistle St. John may imply, but does not
refer directly to any particular incident in, his Gospel. It is our
conviction that St. John very specially includes the
Resurrection—the central point of the evidences of
Christianity—among the things attested by the witness of men. We
propose in another chapter to examine the Resurrection from St.
John’s point of view.
|