SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
VERSE 9:
“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son”
Here we read of the “Witness of God”, as being “greater”, than any “witness of men”. This “Witness” in our present case, is that of God the Father, as it says that “He has testified concerning His Son”. It is a very specific “Witness”, and not spoken in general terms. One of the major teachings of this Epistle of the Apostle John, is to show that Jesus IS the Christ, and was born as the God-Man, and NOT as a mere man, upon Whom the divine Christ descended at His baptism, which was the current heresy being taught by the Ebionites, against whom the Apostle John directed this Epistle. This same Apostle wrote in his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). Where it is clear, that “the Word” is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 14 of this same chapter, we read: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. This is known as the Incarnation, where Almighty God, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, became man, while He remains to be God. He did NOT change from Deity to humanity, but, added a human nature to His divine nature. This truly is a mystery as no human mind can ever fathom this. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Christ Jesus, who, subsisting in the nature of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [humbled Himself], [by] taking the nature of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7). John writes at the opening verse of chapter 5 of his first Epistle, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”. It was THIS that God the Father was “Witnessing” to in verse 9, where John writes, “THIS is the Witness”. We have had the “Witness” of the Holy Spirit in verse 6, Who is in full agreement with the additional “witnesses” of the “water and blood”, in verse 7. Apart from the disputed words in verse 7, where we read of “the Father”, where else do we read of God the Father’s “Witness” to His Son Jesus Christ? This statement in verse 9 is incomplete without the reference of the Heavenly Witness in verse 7. Further, the Greek grammar is very clear to this. There has been a very subtle change (corruption) made to this verse, to try to remove the “Witness” of God the Father as being specific, and referring back to what is spoken of in verse 7, with the Witnesses of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”. Instead of “which” (Greek, “hen”, “for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son”), we have the Greek conjunction, “hoti”, which cannot be accounted for in this place, as it is WRONG GREEK. The reading with “hen”, naturally points “aute” (THIS), back to the already mentioned “Witnesses” in verse 7, which becomes an impossibility in the Greek grammar here, if “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, are removed from the text in verse 7. It has wrongly been suggested, that, because of the impossible reading “hoti” in this construction of the Greek text, that it was “corrupted” to “hen”, for which there is no grammatical objection and better suits the construction. This is pure conjecture, as there is NO evidence to back up this charge. The reading with “hen”, was clearly know to Tertullian writing in Latin as early as 2nd/3rd centuries, but used a Greek New Testament and translated himself into Latin. This shows without any doubt, that “hen” was part of this text in the Greek, at a very early time. Dr A T Robertson, in his Word Pictures of the New Testament, calls the Greek text with the reading “hoti”, “a harsh construction” (e-edition). Brooke Westcott in his commentary on John’s Epistle’s, says on the conjunction: “The second hoti is ambiguous” (e-edition). Its use instead of “hen” here cannot be accounted for in the Greek construction as we have it. As I have said before, God the Holy Spirit is the final Author of the entire Holy Bible, and there is no way that He would have inspired the Apostle John, or any other writer, to write what is inconsistent in the grammar, and which causes any problems, as the use of the conjunction here clearly does. Those who oppose the words in verse 7, of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, really do NOT have any “answers” to the problems caused in the entire passage of the Greek text, once these words are rejected. They then have to try their best to discredit the text, by supporting and suggesting things they normally would not do. There are NO objections that can be found in the Greek text, that very clearly show that the “Witness” of God the Father MUST refer to that already mentioned in verse 7, which can ONLY be found in the words: “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, where ONLY the Father is mentioned. The “Witness” CANNOT be taken to refer to that of “the Spirit, water and blood”, as there is NO mention of God the Father here. We must NOT make a passage of Scripture say what it does not, and accept its Teachings even when it goes against what we hold to. Just because the early SURVIUVING Greek manuscripts do not have the words, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, this must NOT make us conclude that ALL the other evidence, especially the Greek text, as we have seen, is ignored.
VERSE 10:
“He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony which God has given concerning His Son”
This verse is very similar to the previous, which also speaks of the “Witness” of God the Father. Here, like verse 9, we have “hen” (which) used, for which there is no objection to the Greek text. Not only does a person who is born-again by the Holy Spirit, have this “witness” in them, about the Lord Jesus Christ, but, there is also the “Witness” just mentioned of God the Father in verse 9, to which John here is referring. We now have the “Witness” by Two Persons of the Trinity to Jesus Christ, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, Who also gives us the internal assurance about Jesus Christ. Again, it must be asked, where other than verse 7 do we have the “Witness” of the Father?
All of the internal grammatical evidence points to the fact that the disputed words in verse 7 do form part of this Epistle of John.
“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son”
Here we read of the “Witness of God”, as being “greater”, than any “witness of men”. This “Witness” in our present case, is that of God the Father, as it says that “He has testified concerning His Son”. It is a very specific “Witness”, and not spoken in general terms. One of the major teachings of this Epistle of the Apostle John, is to show that Jesus IS the Christ, and was born as the God-Man, and NOT as a mere man, upon Whom the divine Christ descended at His baptism, which was the current heresy being taught by the Ebionites, against whom the Apostle John directed this Epistle. This same Apostle wrote in his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). Where it is clear, that “the Word” is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 14 of this same chapter, we read: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. This is known as the Incarnation, where Almighty God, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, became man, while He remains to be God. He did NOT change from Deity to humanity, but, added a human nature to His divine nature. This truly is a mystery as no human mind can ever fathom this. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Christ Jesus, who, subsisting in the nature of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [humbled Himself], [by] taking the nature of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7). John writes at the opening verse of chapter 5 of his first Epistle, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”. It was THIS that God the Father was “Witnessing” to in verse 9, where John writes, “THIS is the Witness”. We have had the “Witness” of the Holy Spirit in verse 6, Who is in full agreement with the additional “witnesses” of the “water and blood”, in verse 7. Apart from the disputed words in verse 7, where we read of “the Father”, where else do we read of God the Father’s “Witness” to His Son Jesus Christ? This statement in verse 9 is incomplete without the reference of the Heavenly Witness in verse 7. Further, the Greek grammar is very clear to this. There has been a very subtle change (corruption) made to this verse, to try to remove the “Witness” of God the Father as being specific, and referring back to what is spoken of in verse 7, with the Witnesses of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”. Instead of “which” (Greek, “hen”, “for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son”), we have the Greek conjunction, “hoti”, which cannot be accounted for in this place, as it is WRONG GREEK. The reading with “hen”, naturally points “aute” (THIS), back to the already mentioned “Witnesses” in verse 7, which becomes an impossibility in the Greek grammar here, if “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, are removed from the text in verse 7. It has wrongly been suggested, that, because of the impossible reading “hoti” in this construction of the Greek text, that it was “corrupted” to “hen”, for which there is no grammatical objection and better suits the construction. This is pure conjecture, as there is NO evidence to back up this charge. The reading with “hen”, was clearly know to Tertullian writing in Latin as early as 2nd/3rd centuries, but used a Greek New Testament and translated himself into Latin. This shows without any doubt, that “hen” was part of this text in the Greek, at a very early time. Dr A T Robertson, in his Word Pictures of the New Testament, calls the Greek text with the reading “hoti”, “a harsh construction” (e-edition). Brooke Westcott in his commentary on John’s Epistle’s, says on the conjunction: “The second hoti is ambiguous” (e-edition). Its use instead of “hen” here cannot be accounted for in the Greek construction as we have it. As I have said before, God the Holy Spirit is the final Author of the entire Holy Bible, and there is no way that He would have inspired the Apostle John, or any other writer, to write what is inconsistent in the grammar, and which causes any problems, as the use of the conjunction here clearly does. Those who oppose the words in verse 7, of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, really do NOT have any “answers” to the problems caused in the entire passage of the Greek text, once these words are rejected. They then have to try their best to discredit the text, by supporting and suggesting things they normally would not do. There are NO objections that can be found in the Greek text, that very clearly show that the “Witness” of God the Father MUST refer to that already mentioned in verse 7, which can ONLY be found in the words: “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, where ONLY the Father is mentioned. The “Witness” CANNOT be taken to refer to that of “the Spirit, water and blood”, as there is NO mention of God the Father here. We must NOT make a passage of Scripture say what it does not, and accept its Teachings even when it goes against what we hold to. Just because the early SURVIUVING Greek manuscripts do not have the words, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, this must NOT make us conclude that ALL the other evidence, especially the Greek text, as we have seen, is ignored.
VERSE 10:
“He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony which God has given concerning His Son”
This verse is very similar to the previous, which also speaks of the “Witness” of God the Father. Here, like verse 9, we have “hen” (which) used, for which there is no objection to the Greek text. Not only does a person who is born-again by the Holy Spirit, have this “witness” in them, about the Lord Jesus Christ, but, there is also the “Witness” just mentioned of God the Father in verse 9, to which John here is referring. We now have the “Witness” by Two Persons of the Trinity to Jesus Christ, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, Who also gives us the internal assurance about Jesus Christ. Again, it must be asked, where other than verse 7 do we have the “Witness” of the Father?
All of the internal grammatical evidence points to the fact that the disputed words in verse 7 do form part of this Epistle of John.