Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 19:35
And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
35. And he is true ] Rather, He that hath seen hath borne witness and his witness is true (comp. Joh 1:19; Joh 1:32; Joh 1:34, Joh 8:13-14, Joh 12:17). Besides the change from ‘record’ to witness, for the sake of marking by uniform translation S. John’s fondness for this verb and substantive, the correction from ‘saw’ to hath seen must be noted. The use of the perfect rather than the aorist is evidence that the writer himself is the person who saw. If he were appealing to the witness of another person he would almost certainly have written, as the A. V., ‘he that saw.’ The inference that the author is the person who saw becomes still more clear if we omit the centre of the verse, which is somewhat parenthetical: ‘ He that hath seen hath borne witness, in order that ye all also may believe.’ The natural sense of this statement is that the narrator is appealing to his own experience. Thus the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel is again confirmed. (See Westcott, Introduction, p. xxvii.)
is true ] Not simply truthful, but genuine, perfect: it fulfils the conditions of sufficient evidence. (See on Joh 1:9 and comp. Joh 8:16, Joh 7:28)
saith true ] Better, saith things that are true. There is no tautology, as in the A. V. S. John first says that his evidence is adequate; he then adds that the contents of it are true. Testimony may be sufficient (e.g. of a competent eyewitness) but false: or it may be insufficient (e.g. of half-witted child) but true. S. John declares that his testimony is both sufficient and true; both althinos and alths.
that ye might ] Better, that ye also may; ye as well as the witness who saw for himself.
Why does S. John attest thus earnestly the trustworthiness of his narrative at this particular point? Four reasons may be assigned. This incident proved (1) the reality of Christ’s humanity against Docetic views; and these verses therefore are conclusive evidence against the theory that the Fourth Gospel is the work of a Docetic Gnostic (see on Joh 4:22): (2) the reality of Christ’s Divinity, against Ebionite views; while His human form was no mere phantom, but flesh and blood, yet He was not therefore a mere man, but the Son of God: (3) the reality of Christ’s death, and therefore of His Resurrection, against Jewish insinuations of trickery (comp. Mat 28:13-15): (4) the clear and unexpected fulfilment of two Messianic prophecies.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He that saw it – John himself. He is accustomed to speak of himself in the third person.
His record is true – His testimony is true. Such was the known character of this writer, such his sacred regard for truth, that he could appeal to that with full assurance that all would put confidence in him. He often appeals thus to the fact that his testimony was known to be true. It would be well if all Christians had such a character that their word would be assuredly believed.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 19:35
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true
The Gospel witness
I.
THE SIGHT–the whole crucifixion, but especially what constituted its essence as an evangelical fact, viz., the issue of blood and water, an emphatic testimony to the Redeemers death. This is one of the most important texts of the Bible. If no one saw Christ die, how can we be sure that He did die; and unless we are sure of His death we are left in uncertainty as to His atonement and resurrection, and consequently as to our salvation and futurity. John saw a sight
1. Most wonderful. Great is the mystery of godliness all through–nowhere more than here. That God should become incarnate is inexplicable, no less so that being incarnate He should die. Learn here
(1) The limits of human reason.
(2) The very manhood of Christ.
2. Most painful–to all whose feelings are not utterly brutalized. The death-bed of an ordinary friend, or even a stranger, under the best circumstances, is sufficiently painful; but what must such a man as John have felt as he saw such a Friend nailed to the cruel tree? Learn here
(1) The inhumanity of man.
(2) The feelings with which we should contemplate Christ crucified.
3. Most beneficent. Such a mysterious scene enacted, and such dreadful sufferings endured voluntarily, must have been for some adequate purpose. Martyrdom for truth falls far short of it. The only adequate motive is Joh 3:16; 1Jn 2:2. God incarnate was crucified to save a world.
II. THE TRUE RECORD.
1. Such an event actually took place.
(1) John could not have been mistaken; if the senses were deceptive here, when all was so striking, then they are trustworthy nowhere.
(2) John was not a madman–his Gospel and Epistles are a sufficient proof of that.
(3) John was not a deceiver; he suffered the loss of all things, and imperilled his life for the sheer sake of recording what he saw.
2. What took place John was bound to record.
(1) Not simply as an important historical fact, although he had responsibilities here.
(2) But as a display of Divine mercy, and the sole means of human salvation. Woe is me, he might have said, if I write not the gospel.
3. This record he knew to be true. Because
(1) He saw what he recorded.
(2) He knew that he was a truthful man.
(3) Reading what he had written he was sure that it was in accordance with the whole of the facts. Nothing essential was omitted; nothing false or superfluous was included.
III. THE EVANGELICAL PURPOSE.
1. Not personal display. John was a deep thinker and a graphic writer; but it was the furthest from his intention to pose as a philosopher, or to excite admiration as a rhetorician.
2. Not to excite emotion. How different the narrative from the scenic and heart-harrowing descriptions in books of devotion and pulpit declamations.
3. But to create belief. Hence the record is clear, earnest, tender, and full of subtle spiritual influence.
Learn the qualifications of a true Gospel witness.
1. He must have actually seen what he endeavours to describe. Theory and hearsay are worthless here. There must be clear, positive experience of Christ crucified.
2. Fidelity. He must confine himself to what he has seen–not his fancies or speculations, but what he knows of Christs love and salvation.
3. A sense of responsibility. He has a medicine that has cured him, and can cure every one. He is wicked therefore to keep it to himself.
4. A sincere and self-abnegating motive–not to court admirers but to win believers. (J. W. Burn.)
The evidences of truth
The truth we receive from another may either derive its authority from the teacher, or reflect on him the authority it contains. As the receiver of money may argue, either that money is good because it is an honest man who pays it, or that the man is honest because he pays good money, so in the communication of truth, it may be a valid inference, either that the doctrine is true because it is a trustworthy man who teaches it, or that the man who teaches it is a veracious and trustworthy because his doctrine is true. (J. Caird, D. D.)
Testimony dependent on the character of the witness
Dr. Weyland was once lecturing on the weight of evidence furnished by human testimony, and was illustrating its sufficiency for establishing the truth of miracles. But, said one of his students, what would you say, doctor, if I stated that as I was coming up College Street, I saw the lamp-post at the corner dance? I should ask you where you had been, my son, was the quiet reply.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 35. He that saw it] Most probably John himself, who must have been pretty near the cross to have been able to distinguish between the blood and the water, as they issued from the side of our blessed Lord.
And he knoweth] This appears to be an appeal to the Lord Jesus, for the truth of the testimony which he had now delivered. But why such a solemn appeal, unless there was something miraculous in this matter? It might appear to him necessary:
1. Because the other evangelists had not noticed it.
2. Because it contained the most decisive proof of the death of Christ: as a wound such as this was could not have been inflicted, (though other causes had been wanting,) without occasioning the death of the person; and on his dying for men depended the salvation of the world. And,
3. Because two important prophecies were fulfilled by this very circumstance, both of which designated more particularly the person of the Messiah. A bone of him shall not be broken, Ex 12:46; Nu 9:12; Ps 34:20. They shall look upon him whom they pierced, Zec 12:10; Ps 22:16.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Nor was this a fable, for John saw it, and bare record, and knew it to be true; and published it, that men might believe that it was him in whom all the legal types and figures had their completion.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
35. And he that saw it barerecordhath borne witness.
and his witness is true, andhe knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believeThissolemn way of referring to his own testimony in this matter has noreference to what he says in his Epistle about Christ’s “comingby water and blood” (see on 1Jo5:6), but is intended to call attention both to the fulfilment ofScripture in these particulars, and to the undeniable evidence he wasthus furnishing of the reality of Christ’s death, andconsequently of His resurrection; perhaps also to meet the growingtendency, in the Asiatic churches, to deny the reality of our Lord’sbody, or that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1Jo4:1-3).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he that saw it, bare record,…. Meaning himself, John the evangelist, the writer of this Gospel, who, in his great modesty, frequently conceals himself, under one circumlocution or another; he was an eyewitness of this fact, not only of the piercing of his side with a spear, but of the blood and water flowing out of it; which he saw with his eyes, and bore record of to others, and by this writing; and was ready to attest it in any form it should be desired:
and his record is true; though it is not mentioned by any of the other evangelists, none of them but himself being present at that time:
and he knoweth that he saith true; meaning either God or Christ, who knew all things; and so it is a sort of appeal to God or Christ, for the truth of what he affirmed, as some think; or rather himself, who was fully assured that he was under no deception, and was far from telling an untruth; having seen the thing done with his eyes, and being led into the mystery of it by the Divine Spirit; see 1Jo 5:6 wherefore he could, and did declare it with the strongest asseverations:
that ye might believe; the truth of the fact, and in Christ, both for the expiation of the guilt of sin, and cleansing from the filth of it; both for sanctifying and justifying grace, which the water and the blood were an emblem of.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He that hath seen ( ). Perfect active articular participle of . John the Apostle was there and saw this fact (still sees it, in fact). This personal witness disproves the theory of the Docetic Gnostics that Jesus did not have a real human body.
He knoweth ( ). That is John does like 9:37. It is possible that may be a solemn appeal to God as in 1:33 or Christ as in 1Jo 3:5. Bernard argues that the final editor is distinguishing the Beloved Disciple from himself and is endorsing him. But the example of Josephus (War. III. 7, 16) is against this use of . John is rather referring to himself as still alive.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He that saw it bare record [ ] . Rev., rendering the perfect tense in both verbs, he that hath seen hath born witness. This can refer only to the writer of this Gospel. Compare 1Jo 1:1.
True [] . Genuine, according to the true ideal of what testimony should be. See on 1 9.
And he [] . This pronoun is urged by some as a reason for regarding the witness as some other than John, because it is the pronoun of remote reference. But Joh 9:37 shows clearly that a speaker can use this pronoun of himself; and it is, further, employed in this Gospel to indicate a person “as possessing the quality which is the point in question in an eminent or even exclusive degree” (Godet). See Joh 1:18; Joh 5:39.
True [] . Literally, true things. As distinguished from false. Thus, by the use of the two words for true, there are brought out, as Westcott remarks, “the two conditions which testimony ought to satisfy; the first, that he who gives it should be competent to speak with authority; and the second, that the account of his experience should be exact.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And he that saw it bare record,” (kai ho heorakos memartureken) “And the one who saw it has witnessed,” and does witness, John himself, Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24; Though modestly, he did not call his own name.
2) “And his record is true:” (kai alethine autou estin he marturia) “And his witness, record, or testimony is true,” or trustworthy, 1Jn 1:1-2.
3) “And he knoweth that he saith true,” (kai ekeinos oiden hoti alethe legei) “And that one knows that what he says is true,” 1Jn 1:3-4; 1Jn 5:6-8. Nothing can be more trustworthy evidence than that of a reliable eyewitness.
4) “That ye might believe.” (hina kai humeis pisteuete) “In order that you all may believe or trust,” that you may believe both the facts of His death and in Him, Joh 20:30-31; 1Jn 5:9-13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(35) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true.Comp. Joh. 1:7. It may be better to render the word here, as elsewhere, by witness, in order that we may get the full force of its frequent recurrence. The writer speaks of himself in the third person (comp. Introduction, p. 375), laying stress upon the specially important fact that it was an eye-witnesshe that saw itwho testified to the fact, and one who therefore knew it to be true. The word rendered true in this clause is the emphatic word for ideally true, which is familiar to the readers of this Gospel. (Comp. Note on Joh. 1:9.) It answers to the idea of what evidence should be, because it is the evidence of one who himself saw what he witnesses.
And he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.The witness was ideally true, and therefore the things witnessed were actually true. He cannot doubt this, and he testifies it in order that others may find in these truths ground for, and the confirmation of, their faith.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. He that saw The apostle, speaking of himself in the third person, and solemnly asseverating his own truth and accuracy. But what is the point which the Evangelist here designs so strongly to attest? Plainly the double fact by which the predictions in Joh 19:36-37 are fulfilled: namely, the fact that no bone was broken, but that the side was pierced.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true, and he knows that he says what is true that you also may believe. For these things came about that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ‘A bone of him shall not be broken’. And again another Scripture says, They shall look on him whom they pierced’.’
If we compare the first two phrases with Joh 21:24 we get the impression that this witness is the disciple whom Jesus loved, in other words John. So John bears personal testimony to what he saw and he confirms its truth. He saw Him die, he saw that no bone was broken, he saw Him pierced, so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.
‘A bone of him shall not be broken’. In Exo 12:46 and Num 9:12 it was stressed that not a bone of the Passover lamb should be broken. It had to be partaken of whole and complete. It is clear that John sees Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Compare also Psa 34:20 where the unbroken bones are the sign of one who is righteous. Thus are His purity and His sacrificial death confirmed.
‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced.’ See Zec 12:10. This was the day of the piercing of God’s anointed. It was the day for the opening of a fountain for sin and uncleanness (Zec 13:1) which followed the day when the Spirit of grace and supplication was poured out (Zec 12:10). Thus again we have the water and the blood mingled.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 19:35 . After a comma only should be placed, and nothing should be put within a parenthesis, neither (van Hengel), nor . (Schulz), since the discourse progresses simply and without interruption by .
.] placed first with great emphasis; the correlate has subsequently the like emphasis. He who has seen it , not heard only from others, but himself has been an eye-witness, has testified it (herewith, Joh 19:34 ), namely, this outflow of blood and water. This was indeed the apparently so incredible thing, not also the omission of the leg-breaking. When in the third person, in which John here speaks of himself while passing over His name, commentators have found the diversity of the writer and the witness betrayed (Weisse, Schweizer, Kstlin, Hilgenfeld, Tobler, Weizscker), this was simply a misapprehension, running counter to , . . ., of the circumstantially solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon. The , that is to say, is the speaking subject himself presented objectively, identical therefore with the , which clearly appears from the context by the pres. , and the final clause . . ., especially also by the correlation of with the subject. Comp. on Joh 9:37 . Hence we are by no means to assume that the secretary of the apostle speaks of him by as of a third person (Ewald, Jahrb . 10, p. 88), but the apostle himself presents himself objectively as the ille , like a third person; he may at the same time have employed another as amanuensis (which does not follow even from chap. 21) or not; comp. Joh 21:24 .
] placed with emphasis at the head of the clause ( has then the next emphasis); not, however, equivalent to , as is usually assumed, contrary to the constant usage of John (and the moment of first follows afterwards), but: a true testimony is his witness, which corresponds in reality to the idea of a namely, for the very reason that he himself has seen what he testifies. Comp. on Joh 8:16 .
] Neither to be taken as dependent on . . (Lcke), nor as independently: “and therefore should,” etc. (De Wette), but, as the position of the words requires, stating the purpose of : he knows that he says true, says that you also (his readers) may believe , as he himself has believed through means of that miraculous appearance, namely, on Jesus the Son of God . As frequently in John (comp. on Joh 2:11 ), is also here not first the entrance into faith, but a higher and stronger degree of faith , which one experiences, the in a new and exalted potency. Comp. Joh 21:2 . Others, as Baeumlein, still have incorrectly referred . merely to what was last mentioned as object, whereby in truth the comparison with John himself, which lies in , would not be at all appropriate, because John has seen (not merely believed) what took place. The solemn absolute , with its destination of purpose, makes the assumption of special designs in view, which have been ascribed to John in his testimony of the outflow of blood and water, appear unwarranted, namely, that he desired to prove the actual death of Jesus (Beza, Grotius, and many others), especially in opposition to docetic error, Hammond, Paulus, Olshausen, Ammonius, Maier, and several others. Doubts of a naturalistic and docetic kind might rather have derived support than have been precluded by the enigmatic outflow, which excited the derision of Celsus, in Or. 2:36. The Valentinians maintained: , , Exc. ex Theod . 62.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
Ver. 35. And he that saw it, &c. ] Nothing so sure as sight. One eyewitness is more than ten ear-witnesses. a It is probable that the apostles that were so conversant with our Saviour had their dairies, wherein they recorded his daily oracles, and other occurrences, and out of which they compiled the Gospels.
His record is true ] The gospel is called the testimony, Isa 8:20 , because it beareth witness to itself. The law is called light ( lex, lux ), because by itself it is seen to be of God, as the sun is seen by its own light.
a Plus valet oculatus testis unus quam auriti decem. Ex quibus postea Historia Evangelica est contexta. Scult. Annal.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
35. ] This emphatic affirmation of the fact seems to regard rather the whole incident than the mere outflowing of the blood and water. It was the object of John to shew that the Lord’s Body was a real body , and underwent real death . And both these were shewn by what took place: not so much by the phnomenon of the water and blood, as by the infliction of such a wound, after which, even had not death taken place before, there could not by any possibility be life remaining. So Lcke: except that he seems to refer more to the whole circumstances of the death of Jesus.
The third person gives solemnity. [It is, besides, in accordance with St. John’s way of speaking of himself throughout the Gospel.]
Meyer is for keeping here to its strict sense, not true , but genuine, real . Perhaps the best account to be given of the word is to be found in the use of immediately afterwards of the matter of the testimony. The things related are : the narrative of them is , a narrative of truth.
Some have fancied that by the use of here, the narrator necessarily signifies not himself, but some third person. But it has been shewn above (see note on ch. Joh 7:29 ) that St. John constantly uses merely as emphatically taking up again the main subject of the sentence. The use of in John makes it probable that he lays the weight on the proof of the reality of the death, as above. The depends on the three preceding clauses, without any parenthesis, as the final aim of what has gone before: in order that; not, ‘ so that .’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 19:35 . When he goes on to testify, it is not the phenomenon of the blood and water he so emphatically certifies, but the veritable death of Christ. To one who was about to relate a resurrection it was a necessary preliminary to establish the bona-fide death. That John here speaks of himself in the third person is quite in his manner. Here, as in chap. 20, he shows that he understood the value of an eye-witness’s testimony. It is that which constitutes his as , it is adequate. Besides being adequate, its contents are true, . “Testimony may be sufficient ( e.g. , of a competent eye-witness) but false; or it may be insufficient ( e.g. , of half-witted child) but true. St. John declares that his testimony is both sufficient and true.” Plummer. The reason of his utterance, or record of these facts, is , “that ye might believe,” first, this record, and through it in Jesus and His revelation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
saw. Greek. horao. App-133.
bare record. Greek. martureo.
record. Greek. marturia. Both these are characteristic words in this Gospel. See note on Joh 1:7, and p. 1511.
true = reliable, genuine. See App-175and p. 1511.
true = true to fact. See App-175and p. 1511.
believe. App-150.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
35.] This emphatic affirmation of the fact seems to regard rather the whole incident than the mere outflowing of the blood and water. It was the object of John to shew that the Lords Body was a real body, and underwent real death. And both these were shewn by what took place: not so much by the phnomenon of the water and blood, as by the infliction of such a wound,-after which, even had not death taken place before, there could not by any possibility be life remaining. So Lcke: except that he seems to refer more to the whole circumstances of the death of Jesus.
The third person gives solemnity. [It is, besides, in accordance with St. Johns way of speaking of himself throughout the Gospel.]
Meyer is for keeping here to its strict sense, not true, but genuine, real. Perhaps the best account to be given of the word is to be found in the use of immediately afterwards of the matter of the testimony. The things related are : the narrative of them is , a narrative of truth.
Some have fancied that by the use of here, the narrator necessarily signifies not himself, but some third person. But it has been shewn above (see note on ch. Joh 7:29) that St. John constantly uses merely as emphatically taking up again the main subject of the sentence. The use of in John makes it probable that he lays the weight on the proof of the reality of the death, as above. The depends on the three preceding clauses, without any parenthesis, as the final aim of what has gone before: in order that; not, so that.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 19:35. , he that saw it) viz. John, in his character as an apostle.[395]-, hath testified it) viz. John, in his character as an evangelist. He saw it, whilst it was being done: therefore, after that he had quickly taken and received the mother of Jesus into his own house, John had returned to the cross, thereby obtaining the benefit of this remarkable spectacle.-, and) and so, and therefore.-, true) irrefragable among all men.-, and he) He who saw it, knows that he is speaking the truth.-, knows) being sure, even in the Spirit too, not merely in sense.[396]-) he saith, by word of mouth, and in writing. Comp. ch. Joh 21:24, This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things.-, that) This sets forth the end for which the strong affirmation is made: , that, depends on , hath testified.-) ye, to whom this book is read: ch. Joh 20:31, These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, etc.-, ye might believe) not merely, that these things are true; but that Jesus is the Christ. The correlatives are, testified and true: knows and believe. He knows that he saith true, and declares that he saith truth, that ye also may believe.
[395] Whose peculiar office was to be witness of the death and resurrection of Jesus: Act 1:21-22.-E. and T.
[396] By the teaching of the infallible Spirit, as well as by the evidence of sense.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 19:35
Joh 19:35
And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.-John the writer was an eyewitness of the occurrences and states them as he saw them. [It is conceded that John the apostle was this eyewitness and that modesty kept him from identifying himself plainly. What he saw establishes the death of Christ. His testimony kills the argument of modern skepticism that Jesus fainted and was taken from the cross and restored by his disciples.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
he that: Joh 19:26, Joh 21:24, Act 10:39, Heb 2:3, Heb 2:4, 1Pe 5:1, 1Jo 1:1-3
that ye: Joh 11:15, Joh 11:42, Joh 14:29, Joh 17:20, Joh 17:21, Joh 20:31, Rom 15:4, 1Jo 5:13
Reciprocal: Zec 13:1 – a fountain Joh 12:17 – bare Act 20:26 – I take 2Ti 1:8 – the testimony 1Jo 5:6 – is he 1Jo 5:11 – this 3Jo 1:12 – and we Rev 1:2 – bare
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
This verse is virtually the same as Joh 21:24, which lets us know that it means John. He knew that his record was true, not only because he was an eye witness (Joh 19:26), but was one of the inspired apostles and wrote by the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 19:35. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. It is of himself that the Evangelist speaks: compare 1Jn 1:1-3. The witness that he bears is true. The word differs from that which is used in the second member of this verse and in Joh 21:24 (We know that his witness is true). It designates the testimony as genuine and real. Not only is it truthful, but it is all that testimony can be: the witness will not deceive, butmore than thisin regard to the matter which he here attests he cannot have been deceived or mistaken. See the notes on chaps, Joh 4:37, Joh 8:16. The object of this solemn testimony is that they may believe; not simply may believe the facts, but may rest in a true and settled faith upon Him of whom these wonders can be related. The significance belonging to the facts thus solemnly commemorated is now further illustrated (Joh 19:36-37): they are the fulfilment of the Divine counsels expressed in Scripture.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 35-37. And he who saw it has borne witness, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he says true, that you also may believe. 36. For these things came to pass that the Scripture might be fulfilled: No one of his bones shall be broken. 37. And another word also says: They shall look on him whom they pierced.
Some (Weisse, Schweizer, Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Keim, Baumlein, Reuss, Sabatier) claim that in these words of Joh 19:35 the author of the Gospel expressly distinguishes himself from the apostle, and that he professes to be only the reporter of the oral testimony of the latter. He declares to the readers of the Gospel that John the apostle saw this, that he bore witness of it, and that he had the inward consciousness of saying a true thing in relating this fact. Thus these words, which have always been regarded as one of the strongest proofs of the Johannean composition of our Gospel, are transformed into a formal denial of its apostolic origin. We have already examined this question in theIntroduction, Vol. I., pp. 193-197. We will also present here the following observations:
1. As to the school of Baur, which asserts that the author all along wishes to pass himself off as the apostle, it should evidently have been on its guard against accepting this explanation. It has not been able, however, to refrain from catching at the bait; but it has clearly perceived the contradiction into which it is brought thereby; see the embarrassment of Hilgenfeld with respect to this question, Einl., p. 731. In fact, if the author wishes throughout his entire work to pass himself off as the apostle John, how should he here openly declare the contrary? The reply of Hilgenfeld is this: He forgets (falls out of) his part (p. 732). A singular inadvertence, surely, in the case of a falsarius of such consummate skill as the one to whom these critics ascribe the composition of our Gospel!
Other critics, such as Reuss, find themselves no less embarrassed by the apparent advantage which they yet try to derive from these words. In fact, there exists in ch. Joh 21:24 an analogous passage in which the depositaries of our Gospelthose who received the commission to publish itexpressly attest the identity of the redactor of this work with the apostle-witness of the facts, with the disciple whom Jesus loved. How can we explain such a declaration on the part of the depositaries of the work, if the author had in our passage himself attested his non-identity with the apostle, the eye-witness? Do they knowingly falsify? Reuss does not dare to affirm this. Are they mistaken? It would be necessary to conclude from this that those who published the book had themselves never read the work to which they give the attestation in opposition to his. Still more, if they received from the author his book to be published, they must have known him personally; moreover, it is from the personal knowledge which they have of him and his character that they come forward as vouchers for his veracity. How, then, could they be deceived with respect to him?
2. And on what reasons are suppositions so impossible made to rest? Above all, the pronoun is alleged, by which the author designates the apostle, distinguishing him from himself. But throughout the whole course of our Gospel we have seen this pronoun employed, not to oppose a nearer subject to a more remote subject, but in an exclusive or strongly affirmative sense, with the design of emphasizing somewhat the subject to which it refers; comp. Joh 1:18, Joh 5:39, Joh 7:20, John 9:51, Joh 19:37, etc., and very particularly Joh 9:37, where we see that when the one who speaks does so by presenting himself objectively and speaking of himself in the third person, he can very properly use this pronoun. Being forced to speak of himself in this case, John uses this pronoun, because he had alone been witness of the special fact which he relates.
3. Keim no longer insists on this philological question; he makes appeal to rational logic, which does not allow us to hold that a writer describes himself objectively at such length. But comp. St. Paul, 2Co 12:3! And it is precisely rational logic which does not allow us to ascribe to another writer, different from John, the affirmation: And his testimony is true. A disciple of John declaring to the Church that the apostle, his master, did not falsify or was not the dupe of an illusion! The first of these attestations would be an insult to his master himself; the second, an absurdity; for has he the right of affirming anything respecting a fact which he has not seen and which he knows only by the testimony of John himself?
4. Reuss rests upon the perfect , has borne witness. The narrative of the witness, according to this, is presented as a fact which was long since past. But comp. Joh 1:34, where the: I have borne witness, applies to the declaration which John the Baptist has just uttered at the very moment. The same is the case here; this verb applies to the declaration which the author has just made in the preceding lines respecting the fact related: It is said; the testimony is given and it continues henceforth; such is the sense of the perfect.
5. It seems to me that we must, above all, take account of the expression: He knows that he says true. Here is the meaning which we are forced to give to these words: The witness from whom I have the fact knows that he says true. But by what right can the writer bear testimony of the consciousness which this witness has of the truth of what he says? One testifies as to one’s own consciousness, not that of another.
6. Hilgenfeld, Keim, Baumlein, Reuss, Sabatier, cite as analogous Joh 21:24. This is the disciple (the beloved disciple) who testifies these things and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But the very similarity in the expressions makes us perceive so much more clearly the difference between them. The attestants say, not as in our passage: he knows () that he says true, but: we know () that he says true; they do what the evangelist should have done in our passage, if he had, like them, wished to distinguish himself from the apostle; they use the first person: we know.
The adjective does not here, any more than elsewhere, mean true (); the meaning is: a real testimony, which truly deserves the name, as announcing a fact truly seen. , you also: you who read, as well as I who have seen and testified. The question is not of belief in the fact reported, but of faith in the absolute sense of the word, of their faith in Christ, which is to derive its confirmation from this fact and from those which are mentioned afterwards, as it was these facts which had already confirmed the faith of the author himself. It is not only from the fact of the outflowing of the blood and water that this result is expected. The for of Joh 19:36 proves that the question is of the way in which the two prophecies recalled to mind in Joh 19:36-37 were fulfilled by the three facts related in Joh 19:33-34.
The first prophecy is taken from Exo 12:46 and Num 9:12; not from Psa 34:21, as Baumleinand Weiss think; for this last passage refers to the preservation of the life of the righteous one, not to that of the integrity of His body. The application which the evangelist makes of the words implies as admitted the typical significance of the Paschal lamb; comp. Joh 13:18, a similar typical application.
The Paschal lamb belonged to God and was the figure of the Lamb of God. This is the reason why the law so expressly protected it against all violent and brutal treatment. It is also the reason why the remains of its flesh were to be burned immediately after the supper.
As the prophecy was fulfilled by what did not take place with reference to Jesus (the breaking of the legs), it was also fulfilled at the same time by what did take place in relation to Him (the thrust of the lance), Joh 19:37. Zechariah (Joh 12:10) had represented Jehovah as pierced by His people, in the person of the Messiah. The action of the Jews in delivering Jesus up to the punishment of the cross had fully realized this prophecy. But this fulfilment must take a still more literal character (see on Joh 12:15, Joh 18:9, Joh 19:24). The meaning of the Hebrew term , they have pierced, was considerably weakened by the LXX, who undoubtedly deemed this expression too strong as applied to Jehovah, and rendered it by , they insulted, outraged God by idolatry. The evangelist goes back to the Hebrew text; comp. also Rev 1:7. The term they shall look on, , refers to that which will take place at the time of the conversion of the Jews, when in this Jesus, rejected by them, they shall recognize their Messiah. The look in question is that of repentance, of supplication, of faith, which they will then cast upon Him ( ); a striking scene magnificently described in the same prophetic picture, Zec 12:8-14.
In order to understand clearly what John felt at the moment which he here describes, let us imagine a believing Jew, thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament, seeing the soldiers approaching who were to break the legs of the three condemned persons. What is to take place with regard to the body of the Messiah, more sacred even than that of the Paschal lamb? And lo, by a series of unexpected circumstances, he sees this body rescued from any brutal operation! The same spear-thrust which spares it the treatment with which it was threatened realizes to the letter that which the prophet had foretold! Were not such signs fitted to strengthen his faith and that of the Church? This is what John had experienced as an eye-witness and what he meant to say in this passage, Joh 19:31-37.
The entombment of Jesus: Joh 19:38-42. Here, as in the preceding passage, John completes the narrative of his predecessors. He makes prominent the part which was taken by Nicodemus in the funeral honors paid to Jesus, and sets forth clearly the relation between the advanced hour of the day and the place of the sepulchre where the body was laid. He thus accounts for facts whose relation the Synoptics do not indicate.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Lest the reader miss the point of Joh 19:34, John explained that he had personally witnessed what he narrated and that he was not lying. Furthermore the purpose of his reliable eyewitness testimony was that his readers might believe what he wrote and what it meant, namely, that Jesus was God’s Son (cf. Joh 20:30-31; Joh 21:24).
Some commentators suggested that the eyewitness was someone different from John. Suggestions range from the soldier who pierced Jesus’ side, to an unknown eyewitness whom John did not identify, to an unknown editor, to Jesus, and to God the Father. However the most probable solution is to identify John himself as the eyewitness in view of the context and the parallel statements that follow (Joh 20:30-31; Joh 21:24; cf. Joh 1:14; Joh 12:23).