The act of “bearing witness” or “testifying” (martyrein) is an important one for John. He uses it thirty-three times in the Gospel,29 ten times in his epistles,30 and four times in Revelation.31 The use of the nouns “witness” or “testimony” (martyria) also show the same interest.32 The idea behind the word, whether in form of a verb or noun, is that of passing on one’s experience to others for the purpose of having the readers or hearers stand with the testimony bearer on something that matters. In law courts for example, one who bears witness seeks to convince the judge and others who may be listening that the position the witness bearer takes on the matter is true. The fact that the English word “martyr” comes from it means that what one testifies to be true can also be costly. Within such a context, deep conviction precedes the testifying. This is not to say that there are no false witnesses. Most of those, however, do not bear witness on basis of deep conviction but as an act of pretense. John belabors the point to assert that the witness borne here is true. As Lieu observes, the experience of the “we” gives them the authority to proclaim to the “you” in this epistle.33
The act of announcing (apangellein) moves that personal experience to the public arena. Stott puts it well when he says that “to bear witness” carries with it “authority of experience” and “to announce” the “authority of commission.”34 As will be pointed out below, John’s personal experience (and that of other apostles) is not for private custody but for public utilization. It is for all to read and enjoy its blessings. In the present context, it bears full authority for public consumption in that it is not only true (shown by his use of different senses in establishing the matter, as will be shown below) but also its bearer has been commissioned.35 John sees it as the will of God that his readers will know the truth of his message and join the fellowship in which God the Father and the Son are a part of (1:3). John endeavors to accomplish this act of bearing witness and announcing by way of putting into writing what we have in this epistle (1:4). The acts of “bearing witness,” “announcing,” and “writing” are all expressed using the present tense.36
The acts of bearing witness and announcing are expressed using the first person plural “we” also.37 This could mean that John is including other apostles in the team. If this is so, we need to remember that John is doing so in their absence, as all of the apostles except John had died by this time.38 John could also be using the editorial “we” so as to avoid a display of “self” more than necessary.39 However, given that one of his chief concerns is to show that what he writes is reliable,40 the plural to convey plurality of witnesses is more likely. The principle of two or three witnesses in matters of importance (Deut 17:6; 19:15) was something he was aware of.41 His point is that what is borne witness of and announced, as he writes this epistle, is something beyond doubt. The guide provided on such matters has been followed and so the matter established. It is left to the hearers themselves to accept or not accept the well-established fact.
John uses four sensory verbs, covering three senses (seeing, hearing, and touching) to assure the readers that the witness comes from deep personal experience. Three times (1:1, 2, 3) he uses heōrakamen (a perfect tense, “we have seen”) and in one of them (1:1) adds tois ophthalmois hēmōn (“with our eyes”); the dative tois ophthalmois serving as dative of means and emphasizing that the witness is beyond doubt.42 The other three sensory verbs are akēkoamen (also a perfect, “we have heard”) which he uses twice (1:1, 3), etheasametha (an aorist, “we beheld”) found in 1:1, and epsēlaphēsan (an aorist, “they touched”) in 1:1. The subject of the act of touching is hai cheires hēmōn (“our hands”), again added for emphasis. The witness is firsthand. It is “our eyes” that saw and it was “our hands” that touched.
A question that arises naturally is why John uses two different tenses: perfect tense for hearing (akēkoamen) and seeing (heōrakamen43) but aorist tense for beholding (etheasametha) and touching (epsēlaphēsan). Some have seen some significance in this change. Stott, for example, views the perfect verbs as “suggesting the abiding possession which results from the hearing and seeing” while the aorist verbs “seem to refer to a particular time” specifically after the resurrection.44 It is doubtful, however, that apostle John lays different weight to the two pairs of verb tenses. They may be understood the same way (as perfects) if the two aorist forms are viewed as resultative aorist.45 This is why the NIV, for example, renders the four verbs as “have heard,” “have seen,” “have looked at,” and “have touched.”46 The four actions have abiding result in the production of witnesses who not only saw but also heard and who not only beheld but also touched. All that is needed for a reliable witness is there. In addition, the witness is not by one person but by many as the use of the “we” and “our” communicate.
John uses two different verbs here to present the sense of sight. He uses horan three times (1:1, 2, 3) and theasthai once (1:1). It is possible that theasthai has some nuances that horan does not have. Burdick, for example, says that theasthai was brought into the picture here so as “to emphasize the careful, inspective kind of seeing with which the disciples examined the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.”47 The difference, however, is not to be stressed to the degree that the act of seeing (horan) becomes of less significance in contributing to the witness here.48 The act of seeing (horan) cannot be devoid of careful examination in this context. It is who/what they saw (heōrakamen) that they proclaim (1:3). It cannot be less than accurately determined person and message.
The person and message they bear witness concerning, and announce, is presented as having been “from the beginning” (ēn ap’ archēs) in 1:1, “with the Father” (ēn pros ton patera) in 1:2, and “revealed” (ephanerōthē—stated twice in 1:2). This kind of description gives the impression that John is here talking about Jesus, who is second Person of the Trinity.49 If so, it raises the question why John uses the neuter pronoun ho rightly translated as “what” instead of the masculine hos (who). The more common view is that John uses the neuter relative so that he captures all that is included—combining the person, his message, and everything else about him together.50 If the masculine hos was used, it would limit the reference to the person. If the feminine relative pronoun hē was used, it would limit it to the message (angellia). John chooses to use the neuter so that it would be all inclusive of the person and the message. Jobes’ suggestion that the neuter may be used because the author is thinking of euangelion (gospel), which is neuter, or “the more abstract idea of the significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection”51 could also be a possibility if it were not for the difficulties it faces as to how such would be seen and touched. The object of the verbs seem to be more personal than non-personal.
The two descriptions: “was from the beginning” (1:1) and “was with the Father” (1:2) place the person and message in eternity while “was revealed” (1:2) places the same in history. The person and message are both eternal and part of human history.
The “beginning” (archē) in question here precedes the beginning of Gen 1:1 (beginning of creation).52 It parallels the beginning of the Gospel of John 1:1. It is a beginning that relates the existence of Jesus and all that his person entails with the existence of God. In other words, it is a beginning that moves out of history into eternity. On the other hand though, the eternal one was made manifest. It was in his state of “having been manifested” that John and his associates had the privilege of exercising their senses in knowing about him. Before they had contact with him he “was” already, and in their contact with him, he was “real.” He is eternal God who became incarnate. John is not making these statements for the fun of it. He is cutting the roots of false teachers among his readers, as it will become clearer when he brings in the need of confession that Jesus is Son of God become flesh (2:22–23).53
The use of the imperfect ēn in the two phrases “was from the beginning” and “was with the Father” is significant from two fronts. First, the use of einai (of which ēn is an imperfect form) is generally distinct from ginesthai. While the latter carries with it the idea of a beginning or coming into existence,54 einai assumes existence. Secondly, the tense used here is imperfect whose exegetical significance is “continuance