Mat 3:16, Joh 16:8-9, Rom 1:4, 1Pe 3:18, 1Jo 5:6 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 16. Out of the water . This shows that he had descended to the river. It literally means, "he went up directly FROM the water ." The original does not imply that they had descended into the river. The heavens were opened unto him . This was done while he was praying, . The sacred ordinance of baptism he attended with prayer. The ordinances of religion will be commonly ineffectual without prayer. If in those ordinances we look to God, we may expect he will bless us; the heavens will be opened; light will shine upon our path; and we shall meet with the approbation of God. The expression "the heavens were opened," is one that commonly denotes the appearance of the clouds when it lightens. The heavens appear to open, or give way. Something of this kind probably appeared to John at this time. The same appearance took place at Stephen's death, . The expression means, he was permitted to see far into the heavens beyond what the natural vision would allow. To him . Some have referred this to Jesus, others to John. It probably refers to John. See . It was a testimony given to John that this was the Messiah. He saw . John saw. The Spirit of God . See . This was the Third Person of the Trinity, descending upon him in the form of a dove, . The dove , among the Jews, was the symbol of purity or harmlessness, ( ) and of softness, ( .) The form chosen here was doubtless an emblem of the innocence, meekness, and tenderness of the Saviour. The gift of the Holy Spirit, in this manner, was the public approbation of Jesus, ( ,) and a sign of his being set apart to the office of the Messiah. We are not to suppose that there was any change wrought in the moral character of Jesus, but only that he was publicly set apart to his work, and solemnly approved by God in the office to which he was appointed. (y) "Spirit of God" .

Matthew 3:16

Verse 16. Out of the water. This shows that he had descended to the river. It literally means, "he went up directly FROM the water." The original does not imply that they had descended into the river.

The heavens were opened unto him. This was done while he was praying, Lk 3:21. The sacred ordinance of baptism he attended with prayer. The ordinances of religion will be commonly ineffectual without prayer. If in those ordinances we look to God, we may expect he will bless us; the heavens will be opened; light will shine upon our path; and we shall meet with the approbation of God. The expression "the heavens were opened," is one that commonly denotes the appearance of the clouds when it lightens. The heavens appear to open, or give way. Something of this kind probably appeared to John at this time. The same appearance took place at Stephen's death, Acts 7:56. The expression means, he was permitted to see far into the heavens beyond what the natural vision would allow.

To him. Some have referred this to Jesus, others to John. It probably refers to John. See Jn 1:33. It was a testimony given to John that this was the Messiah.

He saw. John saw.

The Spirit of God. See Mt 3:11. This was the Third Person of the Trinity, descending upon him in the form of a dove, Lk 3:22. The dove, among the Jews, was the symbol of purity or harmlessness, (Mt 10:16) and of softness, (Ps 55:7.) The form chosen here was doubtless an emblem of the innocence, meekness, and tenderness of the Saviour. The gift of the Holy Spirit, in this manner, was the public approbation of Jesus, (Jn 1:33,) and a sign of his being set apart to the office of the Messiah. We are not to suppose that there was any change wrought in the moral character of Jesus, but only that he was publicly set apart to his work, and solemnly approved by God in the office to which he was appointed.

(y) "Spirit of God" Isa 11:2, 42:1, 61:1, Jn 3:34.

John 16:8-9

Verse 8. He will reprove. The word translated reprove means commonly to demonstrate by argument, to prove, to persuade anyone to do a thing by presenting reasons, It hence means also to convince of anything, and particularly to convince of crime. This is its meaning here. He will convince or convict the world of sin. That is, he will so apply the truths of God to men's own minds as to convince them by fair and sufficient arguments that they are sinners, and cause them to feel this. This is the nature of conviction always.

The world. Sinners. The men of the world. All men are by nature sinners, and the term the world may be applied to them all, Jn 1:10, 12:31, 1Jn 5:19.

(1) "reprove" or, "convince" Acts 2:37 Verse 9. Of sin. The first thing specified of which the world would be convinced is sin. Sin, in general, is any violation of a law of God, but the particular sin of which men are here said to be convinced is that of rejecting the Lord Jesus. This is placed first, and is deemed the sin of chief magnitude, as it is the principal one of which men are guilty. This was particularly true of the Jews who had rejected him and crucified him; and it was the great crime which, when brought home to their consciences by the preaching of the apostles, overwhelmed them with confusion, and filled their hearts with remorse. It was their rejection of the Son of God that was made the great truth that was instrumental of their conversion, Acts 2:22, 23, 37, 3:13-15, 4:10, 26-28; comp. Jn 16:31-33. It is also true of other sinners. Sinners, when awakened, often feel that it has been the great crowning sin of their lives that they have rejected the tender mercy of God, and trampled on the blood of his Son; and that they have for months and years refused to submit to him, saying that they would not have him to reign over them. Thus is fulfilled what is spoken by Zechariah, Zech 3:10: "And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and mourn." Throughout the New Testament this is regarded as the sin that is pre-eminently offensive to God, and which, if unrepented of, will certainly lead to perdition, Mk 16:16, Jn 3:36. Hence it is placed first in those sins of which the Spirit will convince men; and hence, if we have not yet been brought to see our guilt in rejecting God's tender mercy through his Son, we are yet in the gall of bitterness and under the bond of iniquity.

(e) "of sin" Rom 3:20, 7:9

Romans 1:4

Verse 4. And declared. In the margin, determined. τουορισθεντος. The ancient Syriac has, "And he was known to be the Son of God by might and by the Holy Spirit, who rose from the house of the dead." The Latin Vulgate, "Who was predestinated the Son of God," etc. The Arabic, "The Son of God destined by power peculiar to the Holy Spirit," etc. The word translated "declared to be" means, properly, to bound, to fix limits to, as to a field, to determine its proper limits or boundaries, to define, etc. Acts 17:26, "And hath determined the bounds of their habitation." Hence it means, to determine, constitute, ordain, decree; i.e., to fix or designate the proper boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; to distinguish its lines and marks from error; or to show or declare a thing to be so by any action. Lk 22:22, "The Son of man goeth as it was determined," as it was fixed, purposed, defined, in the purpose of God, and declared in the prophets. Acts 2:23, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel," the definite, constituted will, or design of God. Acts 4:28, Heb 4:7, "He limiteth a certain day," fixes it, defines it. In this sense it is clearly used in this place. The act of raising him from the dead designated him, or constituted him the Son of God. It was such an act as in the circumstances of the case showed that he was the Son of God in regard to a nature which was not "according to the flesh." The ordinary resurrection of a man, like that of Lazarus, would not show that he was the Son of God; but in the circumstances of Jesus Christ it did; for he had claimed to be so; he had taught it; and God now attested the truth of his teaching by raising him from the dead.

The Son of God. The word son is used in a great variety of senses, denoting literally a son, then a descendant, posterity near or remote, a disciple or ward, an adopted son, or one that imitates or resembles another. Mt 1:1. The expression sons of God, or son of God, is used in an almost equal latitude of signification. It is

(1.) applied to Adam, as being immediately created by God, without an earthly father, Lk 3:38.

(2.) It is applied to saints or Christians, as being adopted into his family, and sustaining to him the relation of children, Jn 1:12,13; 1Jn 3:1,2, etc. This name is given to them because they resemble him in their moral character, Mt 5:45.

(3.) It is given to strong men as resembling God in strength. Gen 6:2, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men," etc. Here these men of violence and strength are called sons of God, just as the high hills are called hills of God, the lofty trees of Lebanon are called cedars of God, etc.

(4.) Kings are sometimes called his sons, as resembling him in dominion and power, Ps 82:6.

(5.) The name is given to angels, because they resemble God; because he is their Creator and Father, etc., Job 1:6, 2:1, Dan 3:25.

But the name THE Son of God is, in the New Testament, given by way of eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the common and favourite name by which the apostles designated him. The expression Son of God is applied to him no less than twenty-seven times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The expression my Son, and his Son, thy Son, etc., is applied to him in his peculiar relation to God, times almost without number. The other most common appellation which is given to him is Son of man. By this name he commonly designated himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that he was a man, that he sustained a peculiar relation to man, and that he chose to speak of himself as a man. The first, the most obvious, impression on the use of the name Son of man is, that he was truly a man; and it was used, doubtless, to guard against the impression that one who manifested so many other qualities, and did so many things like a celestial being, was not truly a human being. The phrase Son of God stands in contrast with the title Son of man; and as the natural and obvious import of that is that he was a man, so the natural and obvious import of the title Son of God is that he was Divine; or that he sustained relations to God, designated by the name Son of God, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name Son of Man. The natural idea of the term Son of God therefore is, that he sustained a relation to God in his nature which implied more than was human or angelic; which implied equality with God. Accordingly, this idea was naturally suggested to the Jews by his calling God his Father: Jn 5:18, "But said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm. Jn 5:19 and Jn 5:20-30. The same idea is also suggested in Jn 10:29,30,31,33,36, "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest: because I said I am the Son of God?" There is, in these places, the fullest proof that the title suggested naturally the idea of equality with God; or the idea of his sustaining a relation to God corresponding to the relation of equality to man, suggested by the title Son of man. This view is still further sustained in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, Heb 1:1,2. God hath spoken unto US BY HIS SON. He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, Heb 1:3. He is higher than the angels, and they are required to worship him, Heb 1:4,5,6. He is called God, and his throne is for ever and ever, Heb 1:8. He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is IMMUTABLY THE SAME, Heb 1:10-12. Thus the rank, or title, of the Son of God, suggests the ideas and attributes of the Divinity. This idea is sustained throughout the New Testament. See Jn 14:9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" Jn 5:23, "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the father." Col 1:19, "It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" Col 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Php 2:2-11, Rev 5:13,14; Rev 21:23. It is not affirmed that this title was given to the Second Person of the Trinity before he became incarnate, or to suggest the idea of any derivation or extraction before he was made flesh. There is no instance in which the appellation is not conferred to express the relation after he assumed human flesh. Of any derivation from God, or emanation from him in eternity, the Scriptures are silent. The title is conferred on him, it is supposed, with reference to his condition in this world as the Messiah. And it is conferred, it is believed, for the following reasons, or to denote the following thing, viz:

(1.) To designate his peculiar relation to God, as equal with him, (Jn 1:14,18, Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, 3:22, 2Pet 1:17;) or as sustaining a most intimate and close connexion with him, such as neither man nor angels could do--an acquaintance with his nature, (Mt 11:27,) plans, and counsels, such as no being but one who was equal with God could possess. In this sense I regard it as conferred on him in the passage under consideration.

(2.) It designates him as the anointed King, or the Messiah. In this sense it accords with the use of the word in Ps 82:6. See Mt 16:16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mt 26:63, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Mk 14:61; Lk 22:70, Jn 1:34, Acts 9:20, "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

(3.) It was conferred on him to denote his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Lk 1:35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, THEREFORE (διο) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

With power. ενδυναμει. By some, this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after his resurrection from the dead. It is said, that he was before a man of sorrows; now he was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office, or authority. It denotes physical energy and might--and this was bestowed on Jesus before his resurrection as well as after. Acts 10:38, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power." Rom 15:19, 1Cor 15:43. With such power Jesus will come to judgment, Mt 24:30. If there is any passage in which the word power means authority, office, etc., it is Mt 28:18, "All power in heaven and earth is given unto me." But this is not a power which was given unto him after his resurrection, or which he did not possess before. The same authority to commission his disciples he had exercised before this on the same ground, Mt 10:7,8. I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the expression means powerfully, efficiently; he was with great power, or conclusiveness, shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus the phrase in power is used to qualify a verb in Col 1:29, "Which worketh in me mightily"--Greek, in power i.e., operating in me effectually, or powerfully. The ancient versions seem to have understood it in the same way. Syriac, "He was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost." AEthiopic, "Whom he declared to be the Son of God by his own power, and by his Holy Spirit," etc. Arabic, "Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit."

According to the spirit of holiness. καταπνευμααγιωσυνης. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations.

(1.) It is not the Third Person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a different form. It is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost-- πνευμααγιον, or τοπνευματοαγιον; never the Spirit of holiness.

(2.) It stands in contrast with the flesh, Rom 1:3, "According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God." As the former refers doubtless to his human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to his superior or Divine nature.

(3.) The expression is altogether peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man?

(4.) It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God, (Acts 2:24,32, 3:15,26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30,33,34, 17:31, Rom 10:9; Eph 1:20,) or to the rather, (Rom 6:4,) or to Jesus himself, (Jn 10:18.) In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Ghost.

(5.) It indicates a state far more elevated than any human dignity, or honour. In regard to his earthly descent, he was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, he was the Son of God.

(6.) The word Spirit is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship, Jn 4:24.

(7.) The word Spirit is applied to the Messiah in his more elevated or Divine nature. 1Cor 15:45, "The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." 2Cor 3:17, "Now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit." Heb 9:14, Christ is said to have "offered himself through the eternal Spirit." 1Pet 3:18, he is said to have been "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1Timm 3:16, he is said to have been "justified in the Spirit." In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between his flesh, his human nature, and his other state, which occurs in Rom 1:3,4. In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of him as a man, and as something more than a man; he was one thing as a man; he was another thing in his other nature. In the one, he was of David; was put to death, etc. In the other, he was of God; he was manifested to be such; he was restored to the elevation which he had sustained before his incarnation and death, Jn 17:1-5, Php 2:2-11. The expression, according to the spirit of holiness, does not indeed of itself imply Divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which he possessed as distinguished from the human. What that is, is to be learned from other declarations. This expression implies simply that it was such as to make proper the appellation, the Son of God. Other places, as we have seen, show that that designation naturally implied Divinity. And that this was the true idea couched under the expression, according to the spirit of holiness, appears from those numerous texts of Scripture which explicitly assert his Divinity. See Jn 1:1, etc., and Jn 1:1.

By the resurrection from the dead. This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word by--εξ--denotes AFTER. He was declared to be the Son of God in power after he rose from the dead; that is, he was solemnly invested with the dignity that became the Son of God after he had been so long in a state of voluntary humiliation. But to this view there are some insuperable objections.

(1.) It is not the natural and usual meaning of the word by.

(2.) It is not the object of the apostle to state the time when the thing was done, or the order, but evidently to declare the fact, and the evidence of the fact. If such had been his design, he would have said, that previous to his death he was shown to be of the seed of David, but afterwards that he was invested with power.

(3.) Though it must be admitted that the preposition by εξ sometimes means AFTER, (Mt 19:20, Lk 8:27, 23:8) yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing. Mt 1:3,18, 21:25, Jn 3:5, Rom 5:16, Rom 11:36. "Of him are all things." 1Cor 8:6, "One God, the Father, of whom are all things," etc. In this sense I suppose it is used here; and that the apostle means to affirm that he was clearly or decisively shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. But here it will be asked, how did his resurrection show this? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? And did not many saints rise also after Jesus? And were not the dead raised by the apostles, by Elijah, by the bones of Elisha, and by Christ himself? And did their being raised prove that they were the sons of God? I answer, that the mere fact of the resurrection of the body proves nothing in itself about the character and rank of the being that is raised. But in the circumstances in which Jesus was placed it might show it conclusively. When Lazarus was raised, it was not in attestation of anything which he had taught or done. It was a mere display of the power and benevolence of Christ. But, in regard to the resurrection of Jesus, let the following circumstances be taken into the account.

(1.) He came as the Messiah.

(2.) He uniformly taught that he was the Son of God.

(3.) He maintained that God was his Father in such a sense as to imply equality with him, Jn 5:17-30; 10:36.

(4.) He claimed authority to abolish the laws of the Jews, to change their customs, and to be himself absolved from the observance of those laws, even as his Father was, Jn 5:1-17; Mk 2:28.

(5.) When God raised Him up, therefore, it was not an ordinary event. It was a public attestation, in the face of the universe, of the truth of his claims to be the Son of God. God would not sanction the doings and doctrines of an impostor. And when, therefore, he raised up Jesus, he, by this act, showed the truth of his claims, that he was the Son of God. Further; in the view of the apostles, the resurrection was intimately connected with the ascension and exaltation of Jesus. The one made the other certain. And it is not improbable that, when they spoke of his resurrection, they meant to include not merely that single act, but the entire series of doings of which that was the first, and which was the pledge of the elevation and majesty of the Son of God. Hence, when they had proved his resurrection, they assumed that all the others would follow. That involved and supposed all And the series, of which that was the first, proved that he was the Son of God. See Acts 17:31: "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given ASSURANCE, unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The one involves the other. See Acts 1:6. Thus Peter, (Acts 2:22-32) having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds, Acts 2:33, "THEREFORE being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this," etc.; and Acts 2:36, "THEREFORE let all the house of Israel KNOW ASSUREDLY, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Both LORD AND CHRIST."

This verse is a remarkable instance of the apostle Paul's manner of writing. Having mentioned a subject, his mind seems to catch fire; he presents it in new forms, and amplifies it, until he seems to forget for a time the subject on which he was writing. It is from this cause that his writings abound so with parentheses, and that there is so much difficulty in following and understanding him.

(1) "declared" or "determined" (e) "to be the Son" Acts 13:33,34, Rev 1:18 (f) "to the spirit" Heb 9:14

1 Peter 3:18

Verse 18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins. Comp. 1Pet 2:21. The design of the apostle in this reference to the sufferings of Christ, is evidently to remind them that he suffered as an innocent being, and not for any wrong-doing, and to encourage and comfort them in their sufferings by his example. The reference to his sufferings leads him (1Pet 2:18-22) into a statement of the various ways in which Christ suffered, and of his ultimate triumph. By his example in his sufferings, and by his final triumph, the apostle would encourage those whom he addressed to bear with patience the sorrows to which their religion exposed them. He assumes that all suffering for adhering to the gospel is the result of well-doing; and for an encouragement in their trials, he refers them to the example of Christ, the highest instance that ever was, or ever will be, both of well-doing, and of suffering on account of it. The expression, "hath once suffered," in the New Testament, means once for all; once, in the sense that it is not to occur again. Comp. Heb 7:27. The particular point here, however, is not that he once suffered; it is that he had in fact suffered, and that in doing it he had left an example for them to follow.

The just for the unjust. The one who was just, (δικαιος) on account of, or in the place of, those who were unjust, (υπεραδικων;) or one who was righteous, on account of those who were wicked. Comp. Rom 5:6; 2Cor 5:21; Heb 9:28. The idea on which the apostle would particularly fix their attention was, that he was just or innocent. Thus he was an example to those who suffered for well-doing.

That he might bring us to God. That his death might be the means of reconciling sinners to God. Comp. Jn 3:14; Jn 12:32. It is through that death that mercy is proclaimed to the guilty; it is by that alone that God can be reconciled to men; and the fact that the Son of God loved men, and gave himself a sacrifice for them, enduring such bitter sorrows, is the most powerful appeal which can be made to mankind to induce them to return to God. There is no appeal which can be made to us more powerful than one drawn from the fact that another suffers on our account. We could resist the argument which a father, a mother, or a sister would use to reclaim us from a course of sin; but if we perceive that our conduct involves them in suffering, that fact has a power over us which no mere argument could have.

Being put to death in the flesh. As a man; in his human nature. Comp. Rom 1:3,4. There is evidently a contrast here between "the flesh" in which it is said he was "put to death," and "the spirit" by which it is said he was "quickened." The words "in the flesh" are clearly designed to denote something that was peculiar in his death; for it is a departure from the usual method of speaking of death. How singular would it be to say of Isaiah, Paul, or Peter, that they were put to death in the flesh! How obvious would it be to ask, In what other way are men usually put to death? What was there peculiar in their case, which would distinguish their death from the death of others? The use of this phrase would suggest the thought at once, that though, in regard to that which was properly expressed by the phrase, "the flesh," they died, yet that there was something else in respect to which they did not die. Thus, if it were said of a man that he was deprived of his rights as a father, it would be implied that in other respects he was not deprived of his rights; and this would be especially true if it were added that he continued to enjoy his rights as a neighbour, or as holding an office under the government. The only proper inquiry, then, in this place is, What is fairly implied in the phrase, the flesh? Does it mean simply his body, as distinguished from his human soul? or does it refer to him as a man, as distinguished from some higher nature, over which death had no power? Now, that the latter is the meaning seems to me to be apparent, for these reasons:

(1.) It is the usual way of denoting the human nature of the Lord Jesus, or of saying that he became incarnate, or was a man, to speak of his being in the flesh. See Rom 1:2: "Made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Jn 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh." 1Timm 3:16: "God was manifest in the flesh." 1Jn 4:2: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God." 2Jn 1:7: "Who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

(2.) So far as appears, the effect of death on the human soul of the Redeemer was the same as in the case of the soul of any other person; in other words, the effect of death in his case was not confined to the mere body or the flesh. Death, with him, was what death is in any other case--the separation of the soul and body, with all the attendant pain of such dissolution. It is not true that his "flesh," as such, died without the ordinary accompaniments of death on the soul, so that it could be said that the one died, and the other was kept alive. The purposes of the atonement required that he should meet death in the usual form; that the great laws which operate everywhere else in regard to dissolution, should exist in his case; nor is there in the Scriptures any intimation that there was, in this respect, anything peculiar in his case. If his soul had been exempt from whatever there is involved in death in relation to the spirit, it is unaccountable that there is no hint on this point in the sacred narrative. But if this be so, then the expression "in the flesh" refers to him as a man, and means, that so far as his human nature was concerned, he died. In another important respect, he did not die. On the meaning of the word flesh in the New Testament, see Rom 1:3.

But quickened. Made alive-- ζωοποιηθεις. This does not mean kept alive, but made alive; recalled to life; reanimated. The word is never used in the sense of maintained alive, or preserved alive. Compare the following places, which are the only ones in which it occurs in the New Testament: Jn 5:21, twice; Jn 6:63; Rom 4:17, 8:11, 1Cor 15:36,45, 1Timm 6:13, 1Pet 3:18; in all which it is rendered quickened, quicken, quickeneth, 1Cor 15:22, be made alive; 2Cor 3:6, giveth life; and Gal 2:21, have given life. "Once the word refers to God, as he who giveth life to all creatures, 1Timm 6:13; three times it refers to the life-giving power of the Holy Ghost, or of the doctrines of the gospel, Jn 6:63, 2Cor 3:6, Gal 3:21; seven times it is used with direct reference to the raising of the dead, Jn 5:21, Rom 4:17, 8:11; 1Cor 15:22,36,45, 1Pet 3:18". See Biblical Repos., April, 1845, p. 269. See also Passow, and Robinson; Lex. The sense, then, cannot be that, in reference to his soul or spirit, he was preserved alive when his body died, but that there was some agency or power restoring him to life, or reanimating him after he was dead.

By the Spirit. According to the common reading in the Greek, this is τωπνευματι -- with the article the--"the Spirit." Hahn, Tittman, and Griesbach omit the article, and then the reading is, "quickened in spirit;" and thus the reading corresponds with the former expression, "in flesh" (σαρκι,) where the article also is wanting. The word spirit, so far as the mere use of the word is concerned, might refer to his own soul, to his Divine nature, or to the Holy Spirit. It is evident

(1.) that it does not refer to his own soul, for,

(a.) as we have seen, the reference in the former clause is to his human nature, including all that pertained to him as a man, body and soul;

(b.) there was no power in his own spirit, regarded as that appertaining to his human nature, to raise him up from the dead, any more than there is such a power in any other human soul. That power does not belong to a human soul in any of its relations or conditions.

(2.) It seems equally clear that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person of the Trinity, for it may be doubted whether the work of raising the dead is anywhere ascribed to that Spirit. His peculiar province is to enlighten, awaken, convict, convert, and sanctify the soul; to apply the work of redemption to the hearts of men, and to lead them to God. This influence is moral, not physical; an influence accompanying the truth, not the exertion of mere physical power.

(3.) It remains, then, that the reference is to his own Divine nature--a nature by which he was restored to life after he was crucified; to the Son of God, regarded as the Second Person of the Trinity. This appears, not only from the facts above stated, but also

(a.) from the connexion. It is stated that it was in or by this spirit that he went and preached in the days of Noah. But it was not his spirit as a man that did this, for his human soul had then no existence. Yet it seems that he did this personally or directly, and not by the influences of the Holy Spirit, for it is said that "he went and preached." The reference, therefore, cannot be to the Holy Ghost, and the fair conclusion is that it refers to his Divine nature.

(b.) This accords with what the apostle Paul says, (Rom 1:3,4,) "which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,"--that is, in respect to his human nature,--"and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness,"--that is, in respect to his Divine nature,--" by the resurrection from the dead." See Notes on that passage.

(c.) It accords with what the Saviour himself says, Jn 10:17,18: "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." This must refer to his Divine nature, for it is impossible to conceive that a human soul should have the power of restoring its former tenement, the body, to life. See Notes on the passage. The conclusion, then, to which we have come is, that the passage means, that as a man, a human being, he was put to death; in respect to a higher nature, or by a higher nature, here denominated Spirit, (πνευμα,) he was restored to life. As a man, he died; as the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah, he was made alive again by the power of his own Divine Spirit, and exalted to heaven. Comp. Robinson's Lex. on the word πνευμα.

(a) "Christ also" 1Pet 2:21 (b) "just for unjust" 2Cor 5:21 (a) "death" Rom 4:25

1 John 5:6

Verse 6. This is he. This Son of God referred to in the previous verse. The object of the apostle in this verse, in connexion with 1Jn 5:8, is to state the nature of the evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. He refers to three well-known things on which he probably had insisted much in his preaching--the water, and the blood, and the Spirit. These, he says, furnished evidence on the very point which he was illustrating, by showing that that Jesus on whom they believed was the Son of God. "This," says he, "is the same one, the very person, to whom the well-known, and important testimony is borne; to him, and him alone, this undisputed things appertain, and not to any other who should claim to be the Messiah; and they all agree on the same one point," 1Jn 5:8.

That came. οελθων. This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work. An ambassador might be said to come with credentials; a warrior might be said to come with the spoils of victory; a prince might be said to come with the insignia of royalty; a prophet comes with signs and wonders; and the Lord Jesus might also be said to have come with power to raise the dead, and to heal disease, and to cast out devils; but John here fixes the attention on a fact so impressive and remarkable in his view as to be worthy of special remark, that he came by water and blood.

By water. There have been many opinions in regard to the meaning of this phrase. See Pool's Synopsis. Compare also Lucke, in loc. A mere reference to some of these opinions may aid in ascertaining the true interpretation.

(1.) Clement of Alexandria supposes that by water regeneration and faith were denoted, and by blood the public acknowledgment of that.

(2.) Some, and among them Wetstein, have held that the words are used to denote the fact that the Lord Jesus was truly a man, in contradistinction from the doctrine of the Docetae; and that the apostle means to say that he had all the properties of a human being--a spirit or soul, blood, and the watery humours of the body.

(3.) Grotius supposes that by his coming "by water," there is reference to his pure life, as water is the emblem of purity; and he refers to Eze 36:25, Isa 1:16, Jer 4:14. As a sign of that purity, he says that John baptized him, Jn 1:28. A sufficient objection to this view is, that as in the corresponding word blood there is undoubted reference to blood literally, it cannot be supposed that the word water in the same connexion would be used figuratively. Moreover, as Lucke (p. 287) has remarked, water, though a symbol of purity, is never used to denote purity itself, and therefore cannot here refer to the pure life of Jesus.

(4.) Many expositors suppose that the reference is to the baptism of Jesus, and that by his "coming by water and blood," as by the latter there is undoubted reference to his death, so by the former there is reference to his baptism, or to his entrance on his public work. Of this opinion were Tertullian, Ecumenius, Theophylact, among the fathers, and Capellus, lieumann, Stroth, Lange, Ziegler, A. Clarke, Bengel, Rosenmuller, Macknight, and others, among the moderns. A leading argument for this opinion, as alleged, has been that it was then that the Spirit bare witness to him, (Mt 3:16,) and that this is what John here refers to when he says, "It is the Spirit that beareth witness," etc. To this view, Lucke urges substantially the following objections:

(a.) That if it refers to baptism, the phrase would much more appropriately express the fact that Jesus came baptizing others, if that were so, than that he was baptized himself. The phrase would be strictly applicable to John the Baptist, who came baptizing, and whose ministry was distinguished for that, (Mt 3:1;) and if Jesus had baptized in the same manner, or if this had been a prominent characteristic of his ministry, it would be applicable to him. Comp. Jn 4:2. But if it means that he was baptized, and that he came in that way "by water," it was equally true of all the apostles who were baptized, and of all others, and there was nothing so remarkable in the fact that he was baptized as to justify the prominence given to the phrase in this place.

(b.) If reference be had here, as is supposed in this view of the passage, to the "witness" that was borne to the Lord Jesus on the occasion of his baptism, then the reference should have been not to the "water" as the witness, but to the "voice that came from heaven," (Mt 3:17,) for it was that which was the witness in the case. Though this occurred at the time of the baptism, yet it was quite an independent thing, and was important enough to have been referred to. See Lucke, Com. in loc. These objections, however, are not insuperable. Though Jesus did not come baptizing others himself, (Jn 4:2,) and though the phrase would have expressed that if he had, yet, as Christian baptism began with him; as this was the first act in his entrance on public life; as it was by this that he was set apart to his work; and as he designed that this should be always the initiatory rite of his religion, there was no impropriety in saying that his "coming," or his advent in this world, was at the beginning characterized by water, and at the close by blood. Moreover, though the "witness" at his baptism was really borne by a voice from heaven, yet his baptism was the prominent thing; and if we take the baptism to denote all that in fact occurred when he was baptized, all the objections made by Lucke here vanish.

(5.) Some, by the "water" here, have understood the ordinance of baptism as it is appointed by the Saviour to be administered to his people, meaning that the ordinance was instituted by him. So Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Beausobre, Knapp, Lucke, and others understand it. According to this the meaning would be, that he appointed baptism by water as a symbol of the cleansing of the heart, and shed his blood to effect the ransom of man, and that thus it might be said that he "came by water and blood;" to wit, by these two things as effecting the salvation of men. But it seems improbable that the apostle should have grouped these things together in this way. For

(a.) the "blood" is that which he shed; which pertained to him personally; which he poured out for the redemption of man; and it is clear that, whatever is meant by the phrase "he came," his coming by "water" is to be understood in some sense similar to his coming by "blood;" and it seems incredible that the apostle should have joined a mere ordinance of religion in this way with the shedding of his blood, and placed them in this manner on an equality.

(b.) It cannot be supposed that John meant to attach so much importance to baptism as would be implied by this. The shedding of his blood was essential to the redemption of men; can it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that baptism by water is equally necessary?

(c.) If this be understood of baptism, there is no natural connexion between that and the "blood" referred to; nothing by which the one would suggest the other; no reason why they should be united. If he had said that he "came" by the appointment of two ordinances for the edification of the church, "baptism and the supper," however singular such a statement might be in some respects, yet there would be a connexion, a reason why they should be suggested together. But why should baptism and the blood shed by the Saviour on the cross be grouped together as designating the principal things which characterized his coming into the world?

(6.) There remains, then, but one other interpretation; to wit, that he refers to the "water and the blood" which flowed from the side of the Saviour when he was pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier. John had himself laid great stress on this occurrence, and on the fact that he had himself witnessed it, Jn 19:34, (Jn 19:35;) and as, in these epistles, he is accustomed to allude to more full statements made in his gospel, it would seem most natural to refer the phrase to that event as furnishing a clear and undoubted proof of the death of the Saviour. This would be the obvious interpretation, and would be entirely clear, if John did not immediately speak of the "water" and the "blood" as separate witnesses, each as bearing witness to an important point, as separate as the "Spirit" and the "water," or the "Spirit" and the "blood ;" whereas, if he refers to the mingled water and blood flowing from his side, they both witness only the same fact, to wit, his death. There was no special significance in the water, no distinct testifying to anything different from the flowing of the blood; but together they bore witness to the one fact that he actually died. But here he seems to suppose that there is some special significance in each. "Not by water only, but by water and blood." "There are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one." These considerations seem to me to make it probable, on the whole, that the fourth opinion, above referred to, and that which has been commonly held in the Christian church, is correct, and that by the "water" the baptism of the Saviour is intended; his baptism as an emblem of his own purity; as significant of the nature of his religion; as a rite which was to be observed in his church at all times. That furnished an important attestation to the fact that he was the Messiah, (comp. Mt 3:15,) for it was by that that he entered on his public work, and it was then that a remarkable testimony was borne to his being the Son of God. He himself "came" thus by water as an emblem of purity; and the water used in his church in all ages in baptism, together with the "blood" and the "Spirit," bears public testimony to the pure nature of his religion. It is possible that the mention of the "water" in his baptism suggested to John also the water which flowed from the side of the Saviour at his death, intermingled with blood; and that though the primary thought, in his mind was the fact that Jesus was baptized, and that an important attestation was then given to his Messiahship, yet he may have instantly adverted to the fact that water performed so important a part, and was so important a symbol through all his work; water at his introduction to his work as an ordinance in his church, as symbolical of the nature of his religion, and even at his death, as a public attestation, in connexion with flowing blood, to the fact that he truly died, in reality, and not, as the Docetae pretended, in appearance only, thus completing the work of the Messiah, and making an atonement for the sins of the world. Comp. Jn 19:34, Jn 19:35.

And blood, referring, doubtless, to the shedding of his blood on the cross. He "came" by that; that is, he was manifested by that to men, or that was one of the forms in which he appeared to men, or by which his coming into the world was characterized. The apostle means to say that the blood shed at his death furnished an important evidence or "witness" of what he was. In what way this was done, 1Jn 5:8. Not by water only, but by water and blood. John the Baptist came "by water only;" that is, he came to baptize the people, and to prepare them for the coming of the Messiah. Jesus was distinguished from him in the fact that his ministry was characterized by the shedding of blood, or the shedding of his blood constituted one of the peculiarities of his work. And it is this Spirit. Evidently the Holy Spirit. That beareth witness. That is, he is the great witness in the matter, confirming all others. He bears witness to the soul that Jesus came "by water and blood," for that would not be received by us without his agency. In what way he does this, 1Jn 5:8.

Because the Spirit is truth. Is so eminently true that he may be called truth itself, as God is so eminently benevolent that he may be called love itself. 1Jn 4:8.

(a) "came by" Jn 19:34