Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIII) 01/25/23

^5:9 We believe people who witness in our courts, and so unquestionably, we can believe whatever God declares. And God says that Jesus is His Son.

After sufficient examination of the Greek text, Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) states that since the threefold witness of which the Apostle John has spoken satisfies Torah’s conditions for valid human testimony, how much more than does the triune divine witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood meet all criteria. Thus, the witness concerning the Messiah is greater than the witness of men regarding its authority.[1] However, John’s form of argument is irregular. Instead of completing the sentence on the same type as he began, “We accept human testimony,” John states that which is the ground of this conclusion, “God’s testimony is greater.”

This triple witness looks backward and forward as a testimony of God concerning His Son: this is the final form of God’s witness. The witness was open and visible to the world about the Messiah’s death and the pouring out of the Spirit: so much was unquestionable. The first conjunction (because) does not give the ground of the divine witness’s superior authority, which is taken for granted, but the foundation for appealing to it. Such a witness is given, and therefore we appeal to it.^[2]

Like a spiritual farmer planting the seed of God’s Word, Henry A. Sawtelle (1832-1913) says it is only logical that if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is more significant. And therefore (argument from a minor to a major point) ought even more ready to be received, for this is God’s witness. More correctly is this rendering, “for the testimony of God is this.”[3] In the warmth of writing, John becomes length-wise compressed. “And why,” he says silently, “do I speak of the testimony of God? This is because this harmonious testimony of the water, blood, and Spirit is nothing short of being God’s testimony.” He has (an admitted and well-known fact) testified of (concerning) His Son. That testimony still (perfect tense) exists and calls for the implicit faith of all.^[4]

Noting the Apostle John’s doctrinal implications, John James Lias (1834-1923) suggests that the Apostle John’s words here in verse nine about God’s witness greater than man’s witness might, at first glance, be a reference to God’s testimony in heaven in verse seven. But further examination does not sustain such a view. Instead, the witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood is God’s witness of His Son while He was here on earth. Moreover, we are accustomed to receiving such testimony in earthly matters.[5] How much more then should we rest with confidence on the Divine testimony we find at work within us to specific spiritual facts?

There are three ways of translating the Greek pronoun hoytos (“that”) of the Sinaitic and Alexandrian Manuscripts. We may either (1) take KJV for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son, or (2) we may translate for this is the witness of God because He has witnessed concerning His Son, or (3) for the witness of God is this, that He has born witness concerning His Son. (1) and (2) would refer to what has gone before, while (3) refers to what follows. The best translators prefer example three. But the sense of the passage is, in the main, the same, whichever of them is taken. What the Apostle would say is this: that if we seek proof of the truth of our faith, it is to be found in the Presence of the Son, through the Spirit, within us. The commentators here have hardly kept in view the whole drift of the passage. John has passed from the idea of love in verse one to that of obedience in verse three.^[6]

Famous evangelist and publisher Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) says that someone might ask: “How am I to get a love-warmed heart?” The answer is simple, “by believing.” You did not receive the power to love and serve God until you believed.[7] Human interaction would grind to a standstill if we did not accept anyone’s word. How could we function in the regular communication of life, and how would commerce operate if we disregarded people’s evidence? Things social and commercial would result in a deadlock within forty-eight hours! This concept is the theme of John’s argument here. God is a witness to His Son Jesus the Messiah, and if we can accept the word of our fellowman who frequently tells untruths and whom we are constantly finding unfaithful, why should we not take God at His word and trust His testimony? Faith is a belief in testimony. It is not a leap in the dark, as some suggest. That would be no faith at all. God does not ask anyone to rely on His word without giving them something to hold on to. You might as well ask a person to see without eyes, to hear without ears, and walk without feet as to bid them to assume without giving them some reason.^[8]

A tried and tested biblical scholar who believes in the up-building of the Christian life, Robert Cameron (1839-1904) also addresses God’s threefold witness concerning His Son, which satisfies the conditions for human testimony. We accept human testimony out of the mouth of two or three. But human witnesses may be deceived, and they may mislead us. God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and he speaks through these things to us. Therefore, this witness of God is of greater authority than that of mankind. It was three-fold, was open and visible to the world, and the One whose mission was attested is a living power in the world today. It is God’s final testimony. If we receive the fallible witness of humans, what possible excuse can we give for refusing the infallible word of God?[9]

With his Spirit-directed calculating mind, Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) comments on the witness’s trustworthiness. It depends on two facts: (1) that it is God’s witness, and (2) that it is a witness concerning the Messiah. The consequence is that we should surrender ourselves to it with perfect confidence.

First, it concerns God’s Witness. This is the basis of our faith. We believe in Divine testimony. We even give credence to our fellowmen on points which we believe them to be well-informed. How much more should we believe in Him who cannot lie and be deceived? There can be no doubt, to those who do not willfully shut their eyes to facts, that it is a Divine witness. For not only are there the objective facts (1) of the resurrection of Christ, a fact which no human ingenuity has been able to disprove, and (2) of the marked change which from the date of that fact has come over the world, but there is also (3) the witness within, the consciousness that a Divine life is imparted to the soul, that it does convey a sense of pardon and joyous energy of resistance to the powers of evil, and a manifest fellowship in the Messiah, a fact of which we are hourly conscious when we are united to Him by faith.

Then, it concerns God’s witness for His Son. It is proven by the Divine characteristics displayed in the life of the Messiah – His power, in the realm (a) of nature, (b) of grace, His purity,[10] His authority,[11] and His love. Belief in the Son of God is the secret that overcomes the world.[12] And that rests upon a Divine testimony, outward, conveyed to us, that is, by others, and inward, borne in, that is, upon our own inward being to the Divine essence as visibly present to the world in Christ.

Finally, it concerns our depending on witnesses. This is John’s main object, to lead us to put our whole trust in the revelation of God in Jesus the Messiah. For this reason, he appeals to testimony. He bids us listen to the voice of the Spirit and points out the effects of reconciliation. John rests on the evidence that these things are supported by the Voice of God within us and the Presence of His Son around us. He gives us confidence amid all the doubts and distresses that assail us, all the temptations that beset us. Our trust is in God, and He will save those who put their trust in Him.^[13]

But Plummer has more to say. If we receive the witness of mortals, how much more should we receive the testimony of a God who so loved us that He gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for our sins?^[14]The argument reads like an echo of the Messiah’s words to the Pharisees, in your Law, we read, the testimony of two witnesses is a fact.”[15] So, how much more should we accept the witness of the Father and the Son? Nevertheless, something is evidently to be understood. His testimony consists of His having borne witness about His Son.

Here are some modern translations: “It is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son.” (NIV); “The testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.” (NASB); “Testimony that comes from God. And God has testified about His Son.” (NLT); “For this is God’s testimony which He gave about His Son;” (NJB). So, according to these various renderings about God’s witness, we should appeal to the testimony of God because He is God even though He testified about His Son. Moreover, the perfect tense of “He has witnessed” indicates the permanence of the testimony.^[16]

A prolific writer on the New Testament Epistles, George G. Findlay (1849-1919) believes that the Apostle John told us in verses six through eight that, to his mind, the proofs of the testimony of Jesus – evidence that must, in the end, convince and “overcome worldliness.”[17] So far as the general cause of Christianity is concerned, this is enough. But it involves each person to whom this evidence comes to realize for themselves the weight and seriousness of the testimony meeting him. The Apostle John points, with a sincere emphasis in verses nine and ten, to the Author of the threefold manifestation. The Gospel’s declaration brings every man who hears it face to face with God.[18] And of all subjects on which God might speak to people, of all revelations that He has made or might conceivably make, this, St John feels, is the supreme and critical matter ‒ “the testimony of God, that is to say, the fact that He has testified¹concerning His Son.” Apostle Paul’s words, the Gospel is “God’s good news about His Son.”[19]

---

[1] See John 5:36; cf. 3:20; 4:4

[2] Westcott, Brooke F., The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text with Notes, op. cit., pp. 185-186

[3] 1 John 5:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

[4] Sawtelle, Henry A., Commentary on the Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 57-58

[5] See John 5:31-47; 8:17

[6] Lias, John James: The First Epistle of St. John with Exposition, op. cit., pp. 385-388

[7] 1 John 5:9

[8] Moody, Dwight L: Way to God, op. cit., p. 46

[9] Cameron, Robert, The First Epistle of John (1899), op. cit. p. 235

[10] John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15

[11] Mark 1:27

[12] 1 John 5:5

[13] Lias, John James: The First Epistle of St. John with Homiletical Treatment, op. cit., pp. 383-386

[14] See 2 John 1:10

[15] John 8:17

[16] Plummer, Alfred: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, N. T., Vol. IV, p. 162

[17] 1 John 5:5

[18] Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13

[19] Romans 1:2-3

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LII) 01/24/23

^5:9 We believe people who witness in our courts, and so unquestionably, we can believe whatever God declares. And God says that Jesus is His Son.

With the zeal of an expert scripturla tex examiner William E. Jelf (1811-1875) comments that “the witness of God is greater” may be taken in two ways: It may express merely a general principle that men, who receive human testimony on any subject as a sufficient ground of belief, cannot consistently refuse to accept the testimony of God given by the three witnesses  because the point to which these provide witness objectively and subjectively to itself in every man’s heart. And this is the usual interpretation of the whole passage, but it seems relatively weak. A better explanation is to take the “witness of men” as the objective testimony, from whom the early Christians generally received the facts of our Lord’s baptism and crucifixion and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

John goes on to point out that this is not the only ground for the Christian’s belief, for he has a witness direct from God in his mental power molded as faith. His belief in Jesus the Messiah is evidence of the Messiah being the Son of God. The faithful Christian who is in the full possession of faith does not depend only or chiefly on the testimony of others, though, of course, he both needs and has this also. The more substantial evidence is a result of the lower, but still, something besides and beyond it. First, the grounds of faith are evident in our Lord’s life as the foundation of belief; and, secondly, experimental, in that the existence of this faith is “for this is the witness of God” gives the reason why John introduced the preceding clause about God’s testimony being superior. Therefore, “this” can refer to verse six, where the Messiah is called God’s Son.

John impressed this divine sonship of the Messiah, says Jelf, as a great truth with abundant proof. What some call experimental evidence except for the Messiah’s Divinity. For John’s readers to receive the Apostles’ evidence to the facts that testify that doctrine. It is in harmony with the general principles of psychology and the laws of belief, as with the standard mode of God’s dealings. Teachers used such instruments to influence people’s hearts rather than impressing the doctrine on their intellect. Thus, our Savior worked by miracles, God positioning the hearts of those in whom He agreed to work to receive the truth to which His wonders offered proof.

Meanwhile, those whose souls, owing to their hardness of heart and obstinate refusal of God’s Spirit, are blinded to seeing the force of such miracles. It is not that the Christian believes without any external evidence, for this would be enthusiasm, but the external evidence finds they have a willing and favorable outlook. The objective or external evidence is enough to produce faith unless the hardness of the heart prevented the Jews from receiving the Messiah. But when objective proof in the eye creates trust, internal subjective evidence in the soul confirms, strengthens, and revitalizes it.^[1]

After observing the Apostle John’s attention to detail, John Stock (1817-1884) feels it is strange that human testimony is unconditionally accepted while questioning divine testimony. If someone without reason claims with self-revelation to be the Messiah’s representative on earth and sustains things altogether subversive of the truth, and at enmity with it, is subserviently listened to, reverenced, and obeyed: while the ever-blessed God, whose word alone is truth, and counter to which no doctrine is to be received or to be ordained, is not believed or enforced as necessary for salvation.  God was earnest when He said, “All day long, I stood ready to accept those who turned against Me. But they kept doing whatever they wanted, and everything they did was wrong.”[2]

Somehow, mankind favors what God prohibits and chooses it with no preference for God. They choose lies because living without God is their desire. But where a person’s testimony is good and just and is received as it should be, surely the same should apply to the greater witness of God. God is the embodiment of truth. God cannot lie; by excellent counsels, acts, and deeds, God has borne witness to the truth, who says, “Everything I said will happen just as I said it would.”[3] ^[4]

With an inquiring spiritual mind, Johannes H. A. Ebrard (1819-1893) asks, is it not a known fact that we (before a human tribunal) accept the testimony given by others? The Apostle John’s use of the first person “men” (KJV) plural serves to express the idea of the German word “menschen” (“people”). Granted, we are accustomed to receiving the testimony of people; how much more must we receive the testimony of God? God’s word is more excellent in value, dignity, and certainty. However, John expresses it concisely “God’s testimony is greater.” Therefore, we should prefer to receive and believe it rather than mankind’s word, which is prone to error.^[5]

After contemplating John’s train of thought, William Kelly (1822-1888) questions, what is so good, wise, and sure? What is as satisfying as God’s witness? So, if we accept the witness of ordinary people, the witness of God is more precious. After all, He knows all truth and has given His Son both to declare it and make us capable of receiving it in a new life; after redemption, His Spirit is divine power both to enjoy it and make it known to our fellowman. Therefore, one can understand the weight of such words as “the witness of God” is sufficient to handle all difficulties. This triple witness of God- Spirit, water, and blood, is that the guaranteed spiritual and physical death facing all humanity was taken by Him who drank the dregs of the bitter cup, thereby issuing life without sin for us. He did not need it Himself. That eternal life did not require any work on our part. Our state of sin and death needed His death for victory over all evil to God’s glory.

Jesus told the unbelieving Jews through Nicodemus, “You people do not accept our testimony.”[6] A person must be born anew; otherwise, they cannot learn anything about God’s kingdom. Faith in God’s Word alone leads to being taught about God. Like the Lord, the Church should have been a faithful and true witness. But, over time, its state has become such as to make it is untrustworthy. What unfailing comfort then, especially for the believer to have God’s witness “in themselves!” But here, there was an absolute need, whereby grace, we have “the witness of God.” So, how barefaced, and faithless it is for any Church to call on any soul to “hear our church!” The same Word of God, which shows the Church’s calling to be in the world, equally indicates that the Church would fall into all sorts of disorder.

How remarkable it is in the Apostle Paul’s the two Epistles to Timothy these two views are posted. In the first Epistle, the church is in order, “the pillar and pedestal of truth.”[7] In the second Epistle, the Church is in a state of sad disorder.[8] But the church is not the truth which the Christian is bound to hear and receive, though the corporate witness to it, like the Christian, is the individual witness. Both the Church and Christians are warned to hear nothing but the authoritative Word of God as the truth. In the second epistle, we learn that the Christian profession has become like a great house full of vessels to honor and dishonor.[9] Therefore, when the leaven was accepted and enforced instead of being eradicated,[10] it became a question of purging oneself out from these radically settled evils to be a vessel unto honor. Yet it is not for isolation, but “with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”^[11]

Familiar with John’s writing style, William B. Pope (1822-1903) points out that the three witnesses – Spirit, water, and blood – suggest the perfection of human testimony. The Apostle John supposes that we receive the testimony of credible witnesses as a general truth. But he does not set the Divine witness against mortals: the human and the Divine concur, the divine being “greater” as accompanying and rendering infallible the human witness to the Savior’s Messiahship and salvation. For, the entire series of attestations carried in the First Covenant and evangelists and apostles in the Final Covenant is one grand attestation of God, who witnesses one thing only, that all His witness by human agency is concerning His Son. But the Divine testimony is given through the Spirit; ‘we are witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Spirit concerning His Son is sublimely central. What the witness is we find afterward: here it is declared that all the objective testimony of revelation has but one object, the establishment of the claim of the Son of God to human faith.^[12]

With precise spiritual discernment, William Alexander (1824-1911) notes that the Apostle John says we do accept the testimony of another human, especially an eye-witness unless proven otherwise. But when it comes to God’s assurances, they are more significant because God doesn’t lie. Therefore, sending His Son with His personal message for unbelievers showed that He means what He says. An individual’s evidence is studied with the principle of rational, common sense. But the affirmation of the Gospel not only uses the same mental process but by being God’s child, we have the mind of the Messiah and the help of the Holy Spirit. Too often, something is accepted because it looks right or sounds good. But when it comes to the Bible, these things are secondary after it is proven to have God’s witness supporting it.^[13]

With holiness doctrine expertise, Daniel Steele (1824-1914) proclaims that here we have an echo of the Messiah’s words, “the witness of two is true.”[14] How credible, therefore, must the two witnesses be when they are Father and Son? The following clause should be reversed and connected with the pursuing verse thus: The witness of God is this: He that believes in the Son of God has the witness in Himself. To “believe on,” a phrase occurring nearly forty times in John’s Gospel and elsewhere in the Final Covenant only about ten times, expresses the most reliance and trust. We may believe a person’s word without trusting them, but we put our property or lives in their hands when we do.^[15]

---

[1] Jelf, William E., Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John, op. cit., pp. 73-74

[2] Isaiah 65:2; cf. Romans 10:21

[3] Isaiah 46:11

[4] Stock, John: An Exposition of the First Epistle General of St. John, op. cit., p. 424

[5] Ebrard, Johannes H. A., Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., pp. 331-332

[6] John 3:11

[7] 1 Timothy 3:15

[8] 2 Timothy 3:1-9

[9] Ibid. 2:20-21

[10] See 1 Corinthians 5

[11] Kelly, William: An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, op. cit., p. 373

[12] Pope, William B., The International Illustrated Commentary on the N. T., Vol. IV, op. cit., pp.38-39

[13] Alexander, William: The Holy Bible with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, Vol. IV, op. cit., p. 342

[14] John 8:17

[15] Steele, Daniel: Half-Hours with St. John’s Epistles, op. cit., p. 137

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LI) 01/23/23

^5:9 We believe people who witness in our courts, and so unquestionably, we can believe whatever God declares. And God says that Jesus is His Son.

Therefore, the testimony of the Spirit, water, and blood is open to the same criteria. So, how could those who saw what happened at His baptism and heard the voice from heaven[1] ever doubt that He was God’s Son? Furthermore, how could those who saw His death on the cross and witnessed the fantastic scenes which occurred there fail to join the Roman centurion in saying that this was “the Son of God?”[2] And those who’ve felt the influences of the Eternal Spirit on their heart, ever doubt that Jesus was God’s Son?[3] Any of these is sufficient to convince the soul, all combined on the same point and confirm it from age to age.^[4]

With impressive theological vision, Richard Rothe (1799-1867) notes that having shown how sure our faith foundation in the Messiahship of Jesus rests, the Apostle John now calls attention to the irresponsibility of those who, despite this confirmation, withhold such trust. This accountability is so great because of having God as a witness, who is such a convincing power. Dare we question God as a valid witness? Not to admit the validity of God’s evidence as a witness, under the same conditions we use to determine the authenticity of mankind’s testimony, is an insult to God. The question “Is God the witness?” John does not take time to validate because it’s obvious.

But it might not be evident to the reader how John could speak here of God as a witness, seeing that he has been silent on that point. Accordingly, in the last clause of this verse, John introduces the connecting thought by proving the assertion we have just been considering, an affirmation that would be far from evident. It is the case, John says, that the point in question is accepting God as a witness, for the actual witnesses to the Messiahship of Jesus are the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Indeed this, the general summing up, as it were, of all the testimonies of God to the Messiahship and Divine Sonship of Jesus, is the only witness of God. (Apart from the testimonies of God to Jesus, there are no direct testimonies of Himself in history) ^[5]

According to Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), Andrew Fausset (1821-1910), and David Brown (1803-1897) way of thinking, we should take note of the Apostle John’s We believe men who witness in our courts, and so unquestionably we can believe whatever God declares. And God proclaims that Jesus is His Son. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agree that we allow (and rightly so) the witness of credible individuals, fallible though they are much more ought we to accept the infallible witness of God. The testimony of God the Father is the basis of the Word, and the Holy Spirit’s testimony is the grounds for the evidence of the water and the blood. This principle applies in the present case. We read the oldest Greek manuscripts “because He has given testimony concerning His Son.” What that testimony is we find here in verses one and five. [6]

With noticeable spiritual comprehension, Henry Cowles (1802-1881) notes that following the course of thought in the context of verses six and eight, the “witness of God” must be especially that of the “Spirit” as seen emphatically after the Messiah’s ascension. Thus, God’s testimony through the Spirit concerning His Son should be described as more significant than that of any mortal. That includes all mankind, and its weight should prevent any resistance.^[7]

With an inquiring mind, Daniel D. Whedon (1808-1885) says that the certainty of God’s impressive witnessor testimony is far above all human testimony, just as God is above humanity. Scripture tells us that on the testimony of humans’ two or three unimpeachable oaths, we can take the life of a fellowman by the courts.[8] However, the witnesses are from God through the Spirit, water, and blood in this case. Thus, even under the law, they are superior to a dozen human witnesses. Sometimes, people are false witnesses, but God can never be a liaror perjurer.^[9]

In line with the Apostle John’s conclusions, Henry Alford (1810-1871) notes that in verse nine, an argument minori ad majus[10] grounded on mankind’s practice shows that we must believe God’s testimony if we receive as we do. It is to be given with approval to accept a person’s testimony in any given case. No extraordinary testimony need be suggested, as touching this present case: in general, “the testimony of God” supplied in the argument is more remarkable.

Therefore, much more weight be given to it. The testimony of God, spoken of here, is not any revelation, as do the prophecies concerning the Messiah, the witness of John the Baptizer, and other eyewitnesses to Him, or the Prophets, the Martyrs, and Apostles. It is general, as is the testimony of humans, with which it is compared.

The particular testimony pointed at by the general proposition is introduced in the last part of verse nine by the word “for.”[11] Here, there is an abbreviation: the testimony of God is this, that He hath borne testimony concerning His Son, namely, the testimony of God to which the argument applies is this, “God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son.”[12] The correction to the easier “which” in verse ten gives a wrong reference for “this” in verse eleven, referring to that mentioned in verses six through eight. It also throws a wrong shade of meaning over verse nine, making “the testimony of God” instead of general “witnessing” in John’s Gospel.[13] ^[14]

As a faithful and zealous scholar, William Graham (1810-1883) notes that the “certainty of the Gospel truth” is argued in verse nine on the grounds that the testimony of God is more worthy of credit than the testimony of mortals. That’s because God bears witness to the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus; therefore, we have every reason to believe it to be true. But how has God given testimony to His Son? In many ways and at different times. God arranged the emergence of the Church during the age of the Messiah. He also spoke through prophets and wise men of different ages to announce the advent of the coming Deliverer. The Jews and the Gentiles were to be united under one head, in one body, forever. Furthermore, He testified to the coming of His Son by a fore-ordained system of types and shadows, ceremonies, and sacrifices. Finally, it allowed the eye of faith and hope to look for the coming King, in whom the longings of the creation were to be satisfied.

When the Messiah came, God supported Him through His testimony and the ministry of angels, who appeared at His conception,[15] birth,[16] temptation,[17] agony in the garden,[18] resurrection,[19] and ascension from Mount Olivet.[20] God testified to His Son’s validity by the signs, wonders, and manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit, which He gave to the apostles and the Church. The Father supplied testimony to Jesus on the holy mount[21] and at His baptism)[22] with His voice from heaven, announcing and accrediting Him as his only-begotten and well-beloved Son, in whom He was well pleased. And, finally, He testified to His Son by raising Him from the dead and elevating Him to the throne of universal dominion. He ascended as God-man and Mediator, so that every creature in heaven and on earth should bow their knees in His name, and every tongue confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[23]

This mighty act of Yahweh in glorifying His Son is the public and universal testimony of the Creator to the character and faithfulness of the divine Redeemer. All of these give the soul a sure foundation to build on while looking forward to eternal joy. When we put complete confidence for time and eternity in the Messiah and His finished work, we are not building on the sand of man’s traditions and delusions, but upon the Rock of Ages, the sure foundation the Lord has laid in Zion.[24] There is no room for doubt. The facts of the Gospel history on which the Christian system is built are more firmly established than any other events in the history of mankind.

We have, for example, much more significant evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than that Marcus Junius Brutus assassinated Julius Cæsar in the Roman Senate chambers, the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in Belgium, or William Shakespeare ever existed as a person. If we believe man’s witness, the witness of God is superior, and this exceptional witness given concerning His Son means He cannot err nor deceive. His wisdom, power, goodness, and love are the sure guarantees to believe in His Son without shame.[25][26]

---

[1] Matthew3:16-17

[2] Mark 15:39

[3] Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:3

[4] Barnes, New Testament Notes, op. cit., 1 John 5, p. 4883

[5] Rothe, Richard: Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John, op. cit., The Expository Times, May 1895, p. 373

[6] Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Testament Volume, op. cit., p. 730

[7] Cowles, Henry: The Gospel and Epistles of John: with Notes, op. cit., p. 356

[8] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15

[9] Whedon, Daniel D, Commentary on the New Testament, op. cit., pp. 278-279

[10] Minori ad Majus is Latin for “minor to major”

[11] Cf. 1 John 5:7

[12] Op. cit., 5:11

[13] John 1:32; 13:21; 19:35; see also 1 John 5:6-7

[14] Alford, Henry: The Greek Testament, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 506

[15] Matthew 1:20

[16] Luke 2:13

[17] Matthew 4:1-11

[18] Luke 22:43

[19] Matthew 28:2

[20] Acts of the Apostles 1:8-12

[21] Matthew 17:5

[22] Ibid. 3:17

[23] Philippians 2:8-18

[24] Cf. Isaiah 28:16

[25] See Romans 10:11

[26] Graham, William: The Spirit of Love, op. cit., pp. 325-326

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson L) 01/20/23

^5:9 We believe people who witness in our courts, and so unquestionably, we can believe whatever God declares. And God says that Jesus is His Son.

From his strategic viewpoint as a biblical expositor and educational pioneer, William Burkitt (1650-1703) says that the Apostle John constructs his argument from the less to the greater. Thus, if believing anything is sufficient to have the testimony of two or three credible witnesses, surely the testimony of the faithful and infallible God is much more worthy of belief. God’s testimony concerning the Anointed One that He is His Son is the testimony of a faithful God that cannot lie. Therefore, after all the assurance God gave concerning His Son is the world’s Savior, those who reject and disown Him are accusing God of spreading lies. However, the person that believes in the Anointed One as God’s Son, and trustworthy Anointed One, is safe, having God’s testimony and the testimony of the Holy Spirit within them as the Spirit of holiness, wisdom, and power: Thus, we learn:

• Every testimony which God gives us is infallible.

• God has given us the testimony that His Son Jesus the Anointed One is the promised Anointed One and is confirmed far above and beyond other testimonies.

• Therefore, such as do not believe in our Lord Jesus the Anointed One as the world’s Savior, they disbelieve the most undoubted and infallible testimony of God and try to make Him out to be a liar.

My, Lord! What a bold, presumptuous, and daring sin is unbelief? It supposes that Satan, the father of lies, tells the truth, and the God of truth is telling lies.^[1]

With meticulous Greek text examination and confirmation, Johann Bengel (1687-1752) notes that the Apostle John takes a minor point that is undeniable and transitions to that which is eternal[2] [3] in administering the testimonies of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Although they do that by Divine inspiration and command, they continue as mortals,[4]  the witness of God the Father: whose Son is Jesus. Therefore, the divine testimonies and the mortal witness are the foundation of the Word and the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the testimony of the Spirit is joined with water and blood and proves much more worthy of acceptance.[5] Therefore, Bengel proposes that the heavenly affirmations of Jesus being the Anointed One are a pedestal on which to build the earthly confirmation statue.

The sum of the things presented is this: Greek copies containing the Epistles are neither of such number nor of such antiquity that they ought to prevent the reception of the verse respecting the Three, which bear witness in heaven since it stands altogether upon a peculiar footing. This verse rests upon the authority of the Latin translator, and that almost alone; but he is an authority of the greatest antiquity and genuineness: and he is followed from the first by many fathers, through a continuing series of ages, in Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Italy, accompanied with an appeal to the reading of the Arians, which concurs with it. In fact, the context itself confirms this verse as the center and sum of the whole Epistle.  Is altogether engaged in [completely turns on] this.^[6]

With scholarly contemplation, James Macknight (1721-1800) says that the Apostle John alludes to the Anointed One’s words recorded in his Gospel. [7] It is also written in your text that the testimony of two people is valid.[8] Yet, the heavenly witness of God is more significant. In verse seven, His witness joins other witnesses – the Word and the Spirit ‒ but not the water and the blood on earth. Altogether, it is the witness of God because in witnessing, they all act in subordination to Him and agree with Him in detecting the great truth mentioned in verse eleven, namely, that He promised to give us eternal life through His Son. This witness of God is more remarkable, that is, more certain and worthy of credit than the numerous or respectable witnesses of men, no matter how understanding and full of integrity and assurance they may be.^[9]

After skillfully scrutinizing the Apostle John’s theme, John Brown of Haddington (1722-1787) wants us to consider this: If we depend on the testimony of two or three credible witnesses for the crucial things in life, how much more should we rely on the testimony of three divine persons that Jesus the Anointed One is God’s only begotten and eternal Son.^[10]

At age fifteen, a potential young theologian who was preaching and leading cottage prayer meetings, Joseph Benson (1749-1821) comments on the offices of the Anointed One, exhibited symbolically by water and blood, and of the witnesses in heaven and earth that bear testimony to Him and His salvation. According to the law of Moses, the testimony of two or three credible witnesses was sufficient to prove any fact; indeed, human affairs in general, even the most important, are conducted and determined by depending on the testimony of credible witnesses. Therefore, not only do we accept the testimony of eyewitnesses when they swear to tell the truth before a judge. But we also rely on one another’s word from time to time, sometimes concerning things of great moment.

That’s why God’s testimony is more significant, valid, of higher authority, and much more worthy to be received than the witness of mere mortals, no matter how many or respectable they are because of their integrity so that we can rely on their word with great assurance. Therefore, the testimony of the Father, the Word, the Spirit, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, is a six-fold divine testimony. First, as the true Anointed One, the Savior of the world, able to save, even to the uttermost, all that come to God by Him; and saving all that believe in Him with upright hearts.^[11]

Considering everything the Apostle John has said so far, Adam Clarke (1774-1849) wonders if we accept human witnesses of men as sufficient testimony to supply the facts in numberless cases, the witness of God is greater since He can neither be deceived nor deceive.^[12]

In his captivating teaching style, Jewish convert Augustus Neander (1789-1850) notes that the Apostle John shows how much is involved in this divine witness.  In the emphatic words in verse nine: “We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son.” That which John calls the witness of the Spirit is here designated God’s divine testimony, contrasted with all human testimony, which is often misleading. If we receive anything as accurate, based on the testimony of mortals, we have reason to believe; we can do no less but follow this infallible witness of God. So, is this continuous divine witness, extending through all times, more reliable than human testimony?

This factual witness of God, everywhere seen in the practical workings of the Gospel, shows us the same image of His Son delineated in the Gospel narrative. Thus, it attests it to be accurate, beyond all reach of doubt. It testifies of the same Anointed One mirrored in the Gospel history. It is, as John says, the Father’s witness of the Son. We see that in the preceding passage, it belonged to the present. Now it is spoken of as something completed, the witness that the Father has already given of the Son. Looking back on these operations of the Spirit, John regards them as a testimony already closed. But as extending into his time, they are a present witness. From the standpoint of our age, we may acknowledge it as something at once past and present.^[13]

After spiritually analyzing the Apostle John’s comclusions, Gottfried C. F., Lücke (1791-1855) sees verse nine as a reassembled puzzle. Suppose we are supposed to accept as valid the testimony of mortals[14] (the declaration of two or three witnesses). How much more must we then receive the testimony of God (being tripled) as being more reliable? But if we receive God’s testimony, we must believe that Jesus is the Anointed One, the Son of God. For this, God’s affidavit asserts.^[15]

Without using complicated language, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) states the obvious; we receive other people’s witnesses in the courts of justice and the ordinary daily life transactions. We are constantly acting on the belief that what others are saying is accurate; that what the members of our families and neighbors say is accurate; that what is reported by travelers is correct; that what we read in books is authentic. We could not get along a single day if we did not act on this belief, nor are we accustomed to questioning it unless we have reason to suspect it is false. The mind must credit the testimony of others. If this ceased even for a single day, the world’s affairs would come to a grinding halt.

Since God’s witness is rated higher, it is more worthy of belief because God is more trustworthy, wise, and honest than mortals. People may be deceived and may undesignedly bear witness to that when it is not genuine – We can never accuse God of using any intention to deceive. People may act from partial observation, from rumors unworthy of belief – God never can. People may desire to garner attention by doing something marvelous – God never can. People may try to deceive – God never has. There are many instances where we are not confident that the testimony given by others is honest, yet we are always sure that God gives false witness. The only question that may cause the mind to hesitate is whether the witness can prove their testimony or be confident they know what they are talking about. When that is ascertained, the human mind is so made that it cannot believe that God would deliberately deceive a world.[16]

---

[1] Burkitt, William: Expository Notes, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 737

[2] In Latin this is called Argumentum a fortiori 

[3] John 8:17

[4] Ibid. 5:34; 3:31

[5] Ibid. 5:36

[6] Bengel, Johann: Gnomon of the New Testament, op. cit., Vol. 4, p.

[7] John 8:17

[8] Ibid. 8:18

[9] Macknight, James: Apostolic Epistles with Commentary, Vol. VI, p. 113

[10] Brown of Haddington, John: Self-Interpreting Bible, N.T., Vol. IV, p. 506

[11] Benson, Joseph: Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, op. cit., 1 John 5

[12] Clarke, Adam: Wesleyan Heritage Commentary, op. cit., Hebrews-Revelation, p. 397

[13] Neander, Augustus: The First Epistle of John, Practically Explained, op. cit., pp. 292-293

[14] Cf. John 11:11, 32-33

[15] Lücke, Gottfried C. F., A Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 275

[16] Hebrews 6:18; cf Titus 1:2

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIX) 01/19/23

^5:9 We believe people who witness in our courts, and so unquestionably, we can believe whatever God declares. And God says that Jesus is His Son.

The Psalmist David recognized that friendship builds on fellowship. He says that God reserves friendship for those who reverence Him. With them alone, Yahweh shares the secrets of His promises.^[1] David passed on this idea to his son, Solomon, who wrote: “Don’t walk around spoiling for a needless fight. Don’t try to be like those who keep pushing people around on their way through life. Don’t be a copycat. The LORD detests such low-minded people but gladly offers His friendship to the godly.”^[2]

The Apostle John presents three witnesses to the truth in verse eight. 1) the Holy Spirit, 2) the water baptism of the Anointed One, and 3) the substitutionary death of the Anointed One by His shed blood. These three testimonies to the Anointed One are here on earth. The “Spirit’s” ministry of the Holy Spirit is through His revelation in the First and Final Covenants convicting individual sinners. As such, the Spirit personalizes truth to our experience. “Water” refers to the baptism of the Anointed One. “Blood” refers to the sacrificial death of the Anointed One for our sins. Jesus fully and finally paid for our sins. Therefore, no further suffering for them is necessary. 

Now, these three witnesses agree on the truth of Jesus being the Son of God, the Anointed One. Two witnesses to the Anointed One are historical and personal. All three witnesses present the Anointed One in one harmonious context. Consequently, the consensus of these concurring witnesses converges on the centrality of the person and work of the Anointed One. God’s Son came to destroy the devil’s empire and save the world from sin’s punishment.[3] The Spirit proves this point in verses nine to twelve. The principle here is that the Holy Spirit moves us toward making Jesus the Anointed One an integral part of our life. The Holy Spirit applies to our hearts the reality of the Anointed One and His ministry to us. Jesus’ blood frees us from the penalty of sin. He wants us to be more than religious spectators.

COMMENTARY AND HOMILETICS

This verse has comments, interpretations, and insights of the Early Church Fathers, Medieval Thinkers, Reformation Theologians, Revivalist Teachers, Reformed Scholars, and Modern Commentators.

With a studious monk’s spiritual insight, Bede the Venerable (673-735 AD) states that if Jesus were not the truth, the Spirit would not have descended on Him at His baptism. The water and the blood bore witness that Jesus is the truth when they flowed from His side at His crucifixion. That would not have been possible if He had not had a genuine human nature. All three are independent witnesses from each other, but their testimony is the same. It’s because the Anointed One’s divinity is not to be believed apart from His humanity, nor is His humanity to be accepted apart from His divinity. All three witnesses are present in us, not in their natural form but by the spiritual union of our souls with Him. The Spirit makes us children of God by adoption, the water of the sacred font cleanses us, and the blood of the Lord redeems us. They are invisible in themselves, but they are made visible for our benefit in the sacraments.[4]  

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) addresses whether God created angels in grace. Some conclude that God did not create angels with grace. For example, Augustine says that the angelic nature was first made without form and was called “heaven:” but afterward, it received its form and was then called “light.”[5] But such formation comes from grace. Therefore, they were not created by grace.

Furthermore, grace turns the rational creature towards God. Therefore, angels created in grace would never turn away from God.  In addition, grace comes midway between nature and glory. As such, any beatification of angels did not occur in their creation. Therefore, such elevation was not the fruit of grace but part of nature but of grace.  “On the contrary, who wrought the goodwill of the angels? Who, save Him Who created them with His will, that is, with the pure love wherewith they cling to Him, at the same time building up their nature and bestowing grace on them?”[6]

With a model teacher’s precision, Aquinas says there are conflicting opinions on this point, some holding that the angels were created only in a natural state. In contrast, others maintain that God created them by grace. Yet, it seems more probable, and more in keeping with the sayings of holy men, that God created angels in sanctifying grace. We see things being created by the work of Divine Providence, in the process of time, were produced by the operation of God, making embryos in seedlike forms, such as trees, animals, and the rest. Hence, it is evident that sanctifying grace bears the same relation to blessedness as the seedlike form in nature does to the natural effect; thus, kindness is called the “seed” of God. Then, it is contended that the seedlike forms of all biological products were implanted in the creature when corporeally created, so straightway from the beginning, the angels were created in grace.[7]

As a firm spiritual disciplinarian, John Owen (1616-1683) states that faith, love, obedience, etc., are peculiarly and distinctly yielded by the saints to Him for our heavenly Father. He is peculiarly manifested in those ways as acting peculiarly towards them: which should draw them and stir them up to obedience and love. In verse nine, God gives testimony to His Son and bears witness to Him. When He provides testimony (which He does as the Father to His Son), His word is to be received by faith. And this is affirmed in verse ten.

To believe in God’s Son is to receive our Lord the Anointed One as His Son given to us, for all the ends of the Father’s love, upon the credit of the Father’s testimony; therefore, faith is immediately acted on by the Father. So, it follows in the next words, “Those who do not believe God” (that is, the Father, who bears witness to His Son) “has made Him out to be a liar.” “Believing in God,” says our Savior,[8] that is, the Father as such, for he adds, “Believe also in Me;” or, “If you believe in God; you must also believe in me.” God founds His authority on Prima Veritas,[9] by which all divine faith is operational. It is not to be considered a “person of the trinity,” as peculiarly expressive of any person but comprehending the whole Godhead, which is the prime object undividedly. But in this particular case, we fix our faith on the testimony and authority of the Father – which, if it were not so, the Son could not add, “Believe in Me.”^[10]

Respected Reformation writer, Matthew Poole (1624-1679) says that what the Apostle John says here in verse nine concerning God’s testimony is above exception, being wholly Divine, as John argued in his Gospel.[11] ^[12]

In his fiery manner, John Flavel (1627-1691) comments that receiving the Anointed One implies the acceptance of truths revealed in the Gospel – His person, nature, offices, incarnation, death, and redemption. Though it is not saving faith, it is its foundation. The soul can’t receive and embrace what the mind does not accept as true and infallible. True faith rests upon the testimony of God as unquestionable. This acknowledgment of faith allows us to receive God’s witness and our seal that God is faithful.[13] Divine reality is the very object of faith: into this, we resolve our faith. “Thus says the Lord” is the firm foundation upon which we build our consent.

Consequently, we see a good reason to believe those profound mysteries of the incarnation of the Anointed One; the union of the two natures in His wonderful person; and the union of the Anointed One and believers, though we cannot understand these things because of our ignorant minds. It satisfies the soul to find these mysteries in the written word; upon that foundation, it firmly builds its consent; without such an affirmation of faith, there can be no embracing of the Anointed One. Without permission, all acts of faith and religion are, but so many arrows shot at random into the open air; they signify nothing for want of a fixed, determinate object.^[14]

Influenced by his Arminian view of salvation, Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) says the Apostle John’s words, “If we receive the witness of men,” are assurances to humans, and the three heavenly testimonies are reassurances to God. On the contrary, John intended to signify we had more significant reason to believe the witnesses in heaven than those on earth. The Spirit’s testimony of Jesus as the Anointed One is of equal certainty and validity as John the Baptizer’s witness,[15] and His baptism is from God and not from mankind.[16] The importance of these words is this: If the testimony of two or three people is sufficient to affirm any matter in courts, indeed, the testimony of God, who cannot lie or deceive us,[17] must be of greater force and strength to produce faith in us.^[18]

---

[1] Psalm 25:14

[2] Proverbs 3:30-32

[3] Isaiah 53:4-6

[4] Bede the Venerable, Ancient the Anointed One’s Commentary, Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., Vol. XI, p. 224

[5] Augustine: Literal Commentary on Genesis, Vol. I, Paulist Press, 1982, Chap 3:8-9

[6] Augustine: City of God, Book XII, Chap. 9

[7] Aquinas, Thomas: Summa Theologica, op cit., Vol. 1, pp. 734-735

[8] John 14:1

[9] Prima Veritas is a Latin term meaning, “first truth or truth first.”

[10] Owen, John: Of Communion with God, Vol. 3, Chap. 2, op. cit., pp. 16-17

[11] John 5:36,37 8:13,14,17,18

[12] Poole, Matthew. Commentary on the Holy Bible – Book of 1st, 2nd & 3rd John (Annotated), Kindle Edition

[13] John 3:33

[14] Flavel, John: The Method of Grace: How the Spirit Works, op. cit., Ch. 6, p. 105

[15] John 1:6

[16] Matthew 21:25

[17] Numbers 23:19

[18] Whitby, Daniel: Critical Commentary and Paraphrase, op. cit., p. 471

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVIII) 01/18/23

^5:7-8 So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at the Anointed One’s baptism, and the voice before He died. And they all say the same thing: Jesus the Anointed One is God’s Son.

When inserting such a passage, the textual evidence from the manuscripts makes it stick out like a sore thumb. It no doubt assures us. Evangelical Christians may not know much about these passages, but many religious people who don’t believe in the Trinity (such as Jehovah’s Witness) know the textual issues around this passage. Therefore, if you bring up this verse to support your position, they will show you how this passage doesn’t belong in the Bible. It may get some thinking, “Well, maybe the Trinity isn’t true. Maybe Jesus isn’t God. Maybe it’s just the invention of people who would try to change the Bible.” But it can result in actual damage. So, a passage like this warns us that when it comes to such matters, God doesn’t need our help. The Final Covenant is acceptable, just like God inspired it. It doesn’t need our improvements. Teaching these added words is valid; they shouldn’t be here because we should not add to the Bible and claim they are God’s words.^[1]

Prophetically speaking, Ken Johnson (1965) describes the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit as three persons in the one Godhead. This Trinity from heaven testifies to believers the truth of the Gospel. Unbelievers should see the validity of the Gospel by looking at “the water and the blood.” Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of baptism into the priesthood,[2] in (water), and dying on the cross (blood).[3] The Scriptures prophesied the exact day of His death![4] Some commentaries and study Bibles will mention that most ancient Bible manuscripts omit verse seven but not tell you that the most ancient manuscripts, like the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are full of spelling errors and missing verses. These date to about AD 350. The ancient church fathers quote this verse in full. In Unity of Church, dated 250 AD, Cyprian quotes this passage. So, verse seven was included in the regular reading more than one hundred years before the most ancient corrupt manuscripts.^[5]

In his unorthodox Unitarian way, Duncan Heaster (1967) points out that “the Spirit is truth” is included in some manuscripts. The Spirit joins the water and blood as a witness in verse seven. John began in chapter four writing on how to tell whether a teacher was a genuine the Anointed One’s. Then he discusses our assurance that we are God’s children to whom He sent the Comforter to empower individual believers as witnesses.[6]Once we comprehend that our witness to the Lord is certified and backed up by the action of the Spirit, we know that we are of God and have indeed received the Spirit which abides in us.

God sent the Spirit because of Jesus’ return to heaven.[7] John was an example of this, having based his testimony on his experience: “I saw all this myself and have given an accurate report so that you also can believe.”[8] This testimony was a gift from God, and the disciples also testified. Their testimony/witness was the same as the witness of the Spirit.[9] Thus, John linked the water, blood, and the Spirit’s testimonies. “The Spirit is truth” clearly references the Comforter as “the spirit of truth.”[10] In verse six, John spoke of discerning “the spirit of truth” and “the spirit of error.” All true Christians had “the spirit of truth,” and the Judaist infiltrators, with their false claims of Spirit gifts, had “the spirit of the devil.”^[11]

Bright seminarian Karen H. Jobes (1968) mentions that the three heavenly witnesses were an invention of that culture,[12] leading to its insertion known as the Johannine Comma. It appears in Latin manuscripts but not in Greek parchments earlier than the fourteenth century. While modern English uses the word “comma” to refer to a punctuation mark, it relates to a phrase in earlier English. The Johannine comma is an additional phrase inserted between 5:7 and 5:8 that still appears in Bibles that use the Greek text from which the King James Version translators used in 1611. It reads (additional phrase in italics): For there are three who testify in heaven: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit; and these three are one; and there are three who testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree as one.

While it is inevitable that John did not write this additional phrase, it represents an interpretation that captures the unity of the Godhead concerning salvation reflected in the earthly life of the incarnate Son and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in human lives.^[13]

^5:9 We believe people when they say something is true. But what God says is more significant. And this is what God told us: He told us the truth about His Son.

EXPOSITION

Just in case there may be some doubters out there reading this epistle, John offers this insight. First, he recites an accepted custom in his day and that a person’s word was their bond.  It was what Moses told his people about making promises: “If a person makes a special promise to the Lord or makes a promise with an oath, they must not break their promise. Instead, they must do everything they said they would do.”^[14] So, John introduces his fifth test, the Test of God’s Son.

There are few higher honors than becoming known as a person of their word. But it seems that Jesus had trouble convincing His opponents.  He tells us, “If I tell people about myself, they cannot be sure that what I say is true.”^[15] The problem was not in Jesus telling the truth but in the refusal of those listening to accept the facts.  So, Jesus tells them, “But if I do what my Father does, you should believe in what I do. You might not believe in me, but you should believe in the things I do.”^[16] But they were equally unwilling to even consent to that. This failure to believe is the case of people who’ve made up their minds, and nothing will change it, not even one miracle or a dozen.  But if they won’t believe a human messenger, they can see; John points and asks about an unseen God being the messenger.

This is what Jesus said to His detractors. If you’re not going to believe me, “There is someone else who tells people about Me, and I know that what He says about Me is true.”^[17] Not only that, but Jesus points to another source. “You say that you carefully study the Scriptures, and you think that they give you eternal life. But these same Scriptures are talking about Me!”^[18] So then, as far as Jesus was concerned, their argument was not with Him but with His Father and His Father’s Word.

Even John the Baptizer was irritated by those who wouldn’t accept Jesus after His baptism. So, John the Baptizer scolded them: This man has come from heaven and is more significant than anyone else. I am of the earth, and my understanding is limited to earthly things. The Anointed One tells what He has seen and heard, but how few of you believe what the Anointed One tells you? Those who believe in Him discover that God is a fountain of truth. This one – sent by God – speaks God’s language, for God’s Spirit is upon Him without any limitations.^[19]

Later, Jesus validated what John the Baptizer said about Him. He told the skeptics, “I can’t do a solitary thing on My own: I listen, then I decide. You can trust My decision because I’m not out to get My way but only to carry out orders. If I were speaking on My account, it would be an empty, self-serving witness. But an independent witness confirms Me, the most reliable Witness of all.”[20]

Furthermore, you all saw and heard John the Baptizer giving expert and reliable testimony about Me, right? But my purpose is not to get your vote and not to appeal to any human’s testimony. I’m speaking to you because I want you to receive salvation. John the Baptizer was a torch, blazing and bright, and you were glad enough to dance for an hour or so in his bright light. But I have a greater witness than John the Baptizer. I refer to the miracles I do; the Father has assigned these to Me, proving that the Father sent Me.^[21]

Then Jesus turns to His detractors and points out that even their laws say that if two people agree on something that has happened, their witness is accepted as fact. I am one witness, and my Father who sent Me is the other.^[22] When they didn’t seem to be pleased or open to what Jesus said, He continued: I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, “I tell you – you are gods.” If God called your ancestors ‘gods’ – the Scriptures do not lie – why do you yell, Blasphemer! Blasphemer’ at the unique One the Father consecrated and sent into the world, just because I said, “I am God’s Son?”

If I don’t do the things my heavenly Father does, well and good, don’t believe me. But if I do His work, believe in the evidence of the miracles I’ve performed, even if you don’t believe me. Then you will understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.^[23] When all three witnesses are enumerated together, the Spirit naturally comes first. He is a living and Divine witness, independent of the two facts of the baptism and the Passion, which concur with him in testifying that the Son of God is Jesus the Anointed One.

---

[1] Guzik, David: Enduring Word, 1,2, & 3 John & Jude, op. cit., pp. 92-94

[2] Matthew 3:13-17

[3] Ibid. 28:1-8; 16-20

[4] Daniel 9:24-26

[5] Johnson, Ken. Ancient Epistles of John and Jude, op. cit., pp. 82-83

[6] John 15:26-27

[7] Ibid. 7:39

[8] Ibid. 19:35

[9] Ibid 15:26-27

[10] Ibid. 16:13

[11] Heaster, Duncan. New European Christadelphian Commentary: op. cit., The Letters of John, pp. 70-72

[12] Cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1

[13] Jobes, Karen H., 1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament Series Book 18), op. cit., p. 222

[14] Numbers 30:2

[15] John 5:32

[16] Ibid. 10:38

[17] Ibid. 5:32

[18] Ibid. 5:39

[19] Ibid. 3:31-33

[20] Ibid. 8:28; 12:49

[21] Ibid. 5:30-36

[22] Ibid. 8:17-19

[23] Ibid. 10:34-38

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVII) 01/17/23

^5:7-8 So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at the Anointed One’s baptism, and the voice before He died. And they all say the same thing: Jesus the Anointed One is God’s Son.

With her crafted spiritual insight, Judith Lieu (1951) supposes that the next move appears to be provoked less by clear logic than by a prior association of images. The water and blood now join the Spirit as the source of testimony. Some interpreters refer to these as baptism, and eucharist, along with the gift of the Spirit, mediate and make real for believers the salvation brought by Jesus, God’s Son. However, it remains unlikely that blood would bear a Eucharistic reference, and a more persuasive solution would allow some continuity with the meaning that water and blood carry in verse six.

Spiritual life symbolized by water, and forgiveness, represented by the blood, are given by God, and experienced as realities in the lives of those who believe. But they are no less grounded in the life and death of the Son God sent. Each represents a particular and necessary aspect, yet they are not independent of one another, nor can one be affirmed without the others. John describes them as resulting in one thing; it is the testimony they gave, not what they are in themselves.^[1]

Contextual interpretation specialist Gary M. Burge (1952) states that he urged a controversy fueled by spiritual (or charismatic) impulses elsewhere. Teachers claiming anointing by the Holy Spirit were pressing their views on the community.[2] It was the spiritual terrain familiar to the Johannine churches. John, therefore, adds yet another component to his list of witnesses. In verse seven, John adds “Spirit” to “water” and “blood” in verse eight. It reaffirms that all three shared the same view. What did John have in mind? The doctrine of salvation was his chief concern, so he may be thinking of the one whose testimony at the foot of the cross anchors its historical significance by emphasizing its centrality.[3] If the Spirit testifies – and if the beloved disciple is the community’s premier witness – then indirectly, verse eight argues that John’s eyewitness account is Spirit-inspired. The Spirit conveys the truth; the beloved disciple conveys the reality. Therefore, what the Beloved Disciple has said comes from the Spirit.^[4]

Emphasizing the Apostle John’s call to the Anointed One’s fellowship, Bruce B. Barton (1954) reiterates that this famous passage, called “the heavenly witnesses,” has been the object of much discussion. It came from a gloss on 1 John 5:8 that explained that the three elements (water, blood, and Spirit) symbolized the Trinity. Somehow, this gloss ended up in the text. The passage has a Latin origin. Its first appearance was in the work of Priscillian, a fourth-century Spanish heretic. It appeared in the writings of the Latin fathers from the fifth century onward and found its way into more and more copies of the Latin Vulgate. But the phrase cannot be found in any Greek manuscript before the eleventh century and was never cited by any Greek father. Erasmus did not include “the heavenly witness” passage in the first two editions of his Greek New Testament. He was criticized for this by defenders of the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus, in reply, said that he would include it if he could see it in just one Greek manuscript. Erasmus kept his promise and had it in the third edition. It became part of the Textus Receptus used in the KJV and NKJV English translations.^[5]

As a scholar who truly inspires the Anointed One’s missionaries, Daniel L. Akin (1957), tells us that the first witness the Apostle John calls to testify is Jesus. The word “water” occurs four times in verses six through eight. Some see this as a reference to the water of physical birth, the water that flowed from our Lord’s side when pierced on the cross,[6] or even the two sacraments or ordinances of baptism (water) and the Lord’s Supper (blood). Both Martin Luther and John Calvin held this last perspective. However, the historical context of refuting the false teachings of Cerinthus, who said the Anointed One’s spirit descended on the man Jesus at His baptism but abandoned Him on the cross, points strongly in the direction that John had the baptism of Jesus in mind. The second witness the Apostle calls to the stand is the Anointed One, represented by the “blood,” which occurs three times in verses six through eight.

Therefore, our Savior’s ministry was initiated at His baptism and finished with His bloody death on the cross. Did not Jesus say from the cross, “It is finished?”[7] The Apostle John’s third witness to testify concerns Jesus’ divine sonship with God. He is referenced three times in verses six through eight. In verse six, the Bible says the Spirit provides a consistent and continuous witness that Jesus is the Anointed One, and He does so because “the Spirit is the truth.” Jesus said the same thing about the Holy Spirit.[8] ^[9]

With a classical thinkng aproach to understanding the Scriptures, Bruce G. Schuchard (1958) proposes that the Apostle John’s interest in the assurance of defining “testimony” is at the center of this last passage in verses one to twelve and continues in verse seven because those who testify are three.[10] The second of three references in verses five to nine to “testifying” indicates that, in fact, not one, not the Spirit alone, but three testify. “Those who” mark John’s personification of the water and the blood for having them serve here also as “witnesses along with the Spirit.” Thus, the clause intends to show that the evidence for the assertions just given is beyond any legal doubt. John’s three witnesses attend Jesus’ coming to mark reliably and inform finally and fully not only the identity of Jesus’ person but also the essence of his accomplishment. Therefore, in this trinity of witnesses, each testifies in association with the others. None adequately testifies apart from the rest.

The three witnesses – Spirit, water, and blood – offer testimonies to the person’s significance and the work of the coming One. First, they provide a necessary understanding of Jesus’ suffering and death. According to the Apostle John, Jesus was no mere man;[11] Jesus’ death was no meager execution of a condemned throne-pretender.[12] Instead, Spirit, water, and blood identify Jesus as One who came from heaven above.[13] As one whose being is both divine and human, Spirit, water, and blood inform not just the manner but also the significance of his accomplishment, of giving Himself as the one and only Son[14] who “takes away the sin of the world.”[15] Thus, the Spirit, water, and blood define the life Jesus sacrificed that is ours through Him, namely, the water and blood. So, now we live the life He gave us for Him, like Him, and for others. So, follow His example in His living, loving, suffering, and dying for all.

The baptismal gift of “having our bodies washed with pure water”[16] signifies that our reception of the Spirit through Jesus’ baptism[17] is impossible apart from the cleansing flow of Jesus’ blood.[18] So likewise, birth from above[19] through water is impossible apart from giving up Jesus’ human spirit unto death on the cross,[20] not only concerning our but also those of the whole world.[21]

Furthermore, none of His gifts are impossible apart from the offering of His flesh and the spilling of His blood, given and shed for us poor sinners to eat and drink.[22] Thus, Jesus’ suffering and death, the tearing of His flesh, and the spilling of His blood are inseparable from baptism and communion. By this, Jesus gave His flesh as food and His blood as drink to forgive our sins.^[23]

Great expositional teacher David Guzik (1961) reiterates that the words in question in verses seven and eight occurred in no Greek manuscript until the fourteenth century, except for one in the eleventh century and one twelfth-century manuscript and added to the margin by another hand. In the first few hundred years of Christianity, there were many theological debates regarding the exact nature and understanding of the Trinity. No one quoted these words in question in all those debates. If John originally wrote them, it seems strange that no early Church fathers would have mentioned them. Though none of the ancient scholars quote from this verse, several of them do quote them. Why skip verse seven, especially if it is such a great statement of the Trinity? All ancient translations exclude this disputed passage – Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc. Only in the Latin Vulgate does it appear.

There is no explicit statement of the Trinity woven into the fabric of the Final Covenant. Instead, we find the Father, Son, and Spirit working together as equals, yet distinct personalities.[24] Bible Scholars call this passage found in only three Greek manuscripts “Johannine Comma.”[25] First, the Codex Guelpherbytanus appeared in the seventeenth century. [We know this manuscript is from the seventeenth century because it contains a quote from a book written in the seventeenth century]. Second, the Codex Ravianus or Berolinensis. Second, [a copy of a text printed in 1514 because it repeats the same typographical mistakes]. And third, a manuscript “discovered” in the days of Erasmus, the Codex Montfortii. The Greek text of the Final Covenant that Erasmus printed became one of the Greek texts used to make the King James Bible.

---

[1] Lieu, Judith: A New Testament Library, I, II, & III John, op. cit., p. 214

[2] 1 John 2:27; 4:1-6

[3] John 19:35

[4] Burge, Gary M., The Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary), op. cit., pp. 203-204

[5] Burton, Bruce B., 1, 2, & 3 John (Life Application Bible Commentary), op. cit., pp. 110-111

[6] John 19:34-35

[7] Ibid. 19:30

[8] Ibid. 15:26

[9] Akin, Dr. Daniel L., Exalting Jesus in 1,2,3 John (the Anointed One-Centered Exposition Commentary), op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Edition

[10] See Deuteronomy 19:15; 17:6; John 8:17

[11] John 1:13-14

[12] Ibid. 19:19

[13] Ibid. 3:13

[14] 1 John 4:9; see also Jn 1:14,18; 3; 16,18

[15] John 1:29; see also 1 John 1:7,9; 2:1-2

[16] Hebrews 10:12

[17] John 1:33

[18] 1 John 1:7

[19] John 3:3

[20] Ibid. 19:30; cf. Jn 11:33

[21] 1 John 2:2

[22] John 6:27,32-33.35,48-51, 53-58

[23] Schuchard, Bruce G., Concordia Commentary, 1-3 John, op. cit., pp. 534-537

[24] Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 1:33-34; 14:16; 16:13-15; 20:21-22; Acts of the Apostles 2:33-38; Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; 13:34; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 3:14:16; 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2

[25] The inserted words in verses seven and eight

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVI) 01/16/23

^5:7-8 So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at the Anointed One’s baptism, and the voice before He died. And they all say the same thing: Jesus the Anointed One is God’s Son.

(2) The second significant approach is that of the Protestant reformers and some modern commentators. They link water and blood to baptism and communion. In some detail, Calvin pursues this line of thought, joining the two elements as components of purification and sacrifice under the First Covenant system. The difficulty with this view is that the symbols are entirely inappropriate, for while water obviously may signify baptism, blood does not represent the Lord’s Supper. Instead, it is one of the elements (and even then, only one)?

(3) The third and probably most satisfactory solution is to take “water” as a reference to Jesus’ baptism and “blood” to His death. It is true, that “water” and “blood” remain strange and surprising word symbols for these events. But because they are unknown to us does not mean they were necessarily unfamiliar to John’s readers. Indeed, from his use of them, it appears they were not.

(4) Even though the third of these explanations fits the context well and is otherwise commendable, it is possible that still another view is involved. It must be remembered that in this context, John is talking about the witness of the Father to Jesus, much as Jesus does to Himself in the discourse recorded in John’s Gospel.[1] It is hard to see how this can be adequately done without reference to the Scriptures in which that testimony is given most completely. If this is so, we must ask ourselves at what place such a witness is involved and answer that the only place it can be applied is in the word “water,” which is used as a symbol for the Word of God elsewhere.[2] ^[3]

Expositor and systematic theologist Michael Eaton (1942-2017) notices that the Apostle John’s next point is that these three events witness the nature of Jesus as the Son of God. Verse one says: For there are three that testify, and verse eight continues, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three agree. There are some disputed words in the KJV of the latter part of verse seven and the beginning of verse eight, “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three unanimously agree.” These implanted words are missing in any respected Greek manuscripts!

They were taken from a Latin composition (not a biblical text) by a fourth-century Spanish monk and inserted into the Final Covenant manuscripts. In about 800 AD, they became part of the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the medieval church. Later, after the fourteenth century, the words were translated from Latin to Greek and included in a few inferior Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, who first published a printed Greek New Testament, was forced against his will by his opponents to have them in his third edition of the Greek New Testament. So, they appeared in the text used by the KJV translators; they are certainly not original to the Apostle John. The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on this verse alone. Readers of the KJV should ignore the extra words.

I learned this lesson in 1962 when stationed in the German Secret Service troops’ previous headquarters next door to the Dachau concentration camp. At that time, I was teaching myself by reading one chapter a day out of twelve different books on religion and philosophy. I also included the number of verses in the whole Bible and the New Testament twice in various English Bible translations, calculated to finish in a year.

At that time, I was reading the New American Standard Bible (NASB), published just two years earlier. When I got to 1 John 5:7-8, I immediately noticed that the last part of verse seven and the first part of verse eight was missing. So, I wrote a letter to the publisher, the Lockman Foundation, to see if it was a typo. They graciously wrote back and told much of what was said above. You can imagine my surprise when I discovered this had been known for centuries! I realized then you can learn a lot about today by looking back in time.

Dedicated Great Commission enthusiast David Jackman (1945) points out that the three witnesses assembled in verse seven agree with verse eight. It is an essential ingredient in our confidence in their accuracy. Verse seven begins with “Because” (“For” KJV). It is because there are three witnesses, so united, that we can have certainty since this would provide the most substantial evidence of truth in any court of law. Two or three witnesses were necessary to file a case under Jewish law.[4] It was a principle recognized by Jesus,[5] who supported the ministry of John the Baptizer and the Father who sent Him as authentication of His witness and claims.

Even God wants “to confirm the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of His promise,” with an oath involving two unchangeable things in which God cannot lie.[6] Here, the three witnesses agree that Jesus is the Son of God, just as John testified at His baptism[7] and the centurion testified at His death.[8] So, whenever that same Spirit brings the truth to light in our lives today, we must confess Jesus as Savior, Lord, and God. Yet human witness is less significant than God’s divine witness of the Spirit, who is Truth.^[9]

Some deny the nature of the Holy Trinity simply because the word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in the biblical narrative. However, this is merely a word used to refer to the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, described many times in Scripture. Verse seven is one of these. John again refers to witnesses to the nature and work of Jesus the Anointed One. By referring to all three persons of the Trinity, John states that God is a witness to the truth of Jesus. The nature and glory of God are vastly beyond the greatest of our imaginings, yet God has revealed Himself to us in some ways that we can understand.  God reveals parts of Himself in each person of the Trinity so that we can turn to Him in faith and have a relationship with Him for which He created us. Again, John is stating that God bears witness to the truth of the identity and purpose of Jesus the Anointed One.

After studying the context surrouding this verse, John W. (Jack) Carter (1947) says that using the same logical structure, John continues to gather witnesses to the true nature of Jesus the Anointed One. When John writes in his Gospel about Jesus’s character, he states, “We beheld His Glory.”[10]  Many Apostles and disciples witnessed the life and ministry of Jesus, the Anointed One. The heretics who were teaching a different gospel did not personally know Jesus.  However, John reminds us that many did. They saw the birth and baptism of Jesus and witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit through Him.  They witnessed His death and resurrection from the grave and his last forty days of ministry that preceded their witness of His ascension into heaven. John is one of those many people, though probably few remain, who had a first-hand witness of Jesus the Anointed One, yet that witness still exists.^[11]

A man passionate about sharing God’s Word, Robert W. Yarbrough (1948), sees the Apostle John stating the basis for commending to his readers this Jesus, the Anointed One, came by water and blood and was testified to by God’s Spirit. The opening of verse seven with the word “For” signals the explanatory nature of the two-verse unit. John is backing up what he just wrote, not breaking new ground. Although “water and blood” refer to past events, John should use the present participle construction “witness” to describe them since their testimony is ongoing and current in conjunction with the Spirit. Readers cannot evade the Anointed One’s relevance for them because authoritative attestation to his rule is not a relic of the past but a component of the present due to the persistence of testimony to it.^[12]

Skilled in Dead Sea Scroll interpretation and New Testament exposition, Colin G. Kruse (1950) notes that in both Covenants, important issues were decided with the testimony of two or three witnesses.[13] Here in this context, the Apostle John cites three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to the truth he affirms. What it means here for the Spirit to testify seems reasonably clear. First, the Spirit confirms to believers the validity of the message about Jesus that they heard from the beginning.[14]

It is more difficult to discern how the water and the blood make up the second and third witnesses. Usually, it is one witness’ word concerning another. However, in the Fourth Gospel, when people would not accept Jesus’ testimony about Himself, He points them to His works, for these, too, bears witness, though silent witness, to the truth about Him.[15] It may be, then, that in this verse, the author is suggesting that alongside the Spirit’s witness concerning Jesus, there stands the silent witness of Jesus’ work as the baptizer and the one who made an atoning sacrifice – the witness of the “water” and the “blood.”^[16]

Believing that Christians can fall away from the faith, Ben Witherington III (1951) comments on the Apostle John’s three witnesses, not just two (as would be required if “water and blood” refer to the death of Jesus) seems decisive against such a correlation with what John said in his Gospel.[17] Here in verse eight, we are told that “the three are for the One.” It is an all-for-one kind of statement. There is one particular the Anointed One’s truth to which these three witnesses are testifying. The idea is not that simple unanimity in the witnesses’ word, but their convergence on the one Gospel of “the Anointed One is come in the flesh,” which is eternal life.[18]

---

[1] Ibid. 5:16-45

[2] Psalm 119:9; Ephesians 5:26; John 15:3

[3] Boice, James Montgomery: The Epistles of John, An Expository Commentary, op. cit., pp. 132-134

[4] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15

[5] John 5:31-37

[6] Hebrews 6:17-18

[7] 1 John 1:34

[8] Matthew 27:54

[9] Jackman, David: The Message of John’s Letters, op. cit., p. 150

[10] John 1:14

[11] Carter, Dr. John W. (Jack). 1,2,3, John & Jude: (The Disciple’s Bible Commentary Book 48), op. cit., pp. 122-124

[12] Yarbrough, Robert W., 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), op. cit., pp. 283-284

[13] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:6; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28

[14] Cf. 1 John 2:24-27

[15] Cf. John 5:36; 10:25

[16] Kruse, Colin G., The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary). op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Edition

[17] John 19:34-35

[18] Witherington Ben III, Letters, and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Edition

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXV) 01/13/23

^5:7-8 So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at the Messiah’s baptism, and the voice before He died. And they all say the same thing: Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son.

As a seasoned essayist on the Apostle John’s writings, John Painter (1935) says that the reference to the Spirit bearing witness at this point lends some weight to the view that water refers to the baptism of Jesus. Although the Apostle John does not describe the baptism, he alludes to the sign of the descent and abiding of the Spirit on Jesus at His baptism and to the witness of John the Baptizer identifying “the coming one.”[1] The Spirit of Truth is also referred to as a witness in John’s Gospel.[2] The witness of the disciples is also Spirit-inspired.[3] Here the Spirit is described as the truth. Both the Spirit and the truth are given the definite article, unlike the assertions “God is Spirit;”[4] “God is light;”[5] and “God is love.”[6]

Probably this is a variation on the theme of “the Spirit of Truth” and is related to the view that the Spirit is the agent of God’s revealing witness. That witness is to the truth “that Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh.” Those making this confession manifest the Spirit of Truth[7] expand from a single witness to three. This act reflects obedience to the testimony law.[8] Witnesses or evidence could be inanimate objects such as a heap of stones[9] or heaven and earth.[10] In John’s Gospel,[11] Jesus’ works bear witness to Him.^[12]

Identifying the Spirit, the water, and the blood as three witnesses undermines the attempt to make “water and blood” refer to a single event. Thus, accepting the baptism of Jesus and His death united with the Spirit serves as a witness to His coming in the flesh.[13] The agreement of the witnesses was crucial. Where witnesses disagreed, their testimony was undermined and invalidated.[14] In early Church history, the threefold reference to “the Spirit. the water. and the blood” gave rise to a symbolic interpretation that moved the witnesses out of the context of the ministry of Jesus into the life of the Church.

Thus, with philosophic-theologic intensity, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 AD) says in verse six, “There are three that give testimony: the Spirit which is life, the water which is regeneration and faith, and the blood which is knowledge.” A trinitarian interpretation in North Africa identified God as Spirit from the third century on.[15] The Spirit is symbolized by the water flowing in John,[16] and blood comes from the side of the Son. Further, verses eight and nine below mention God the Spirit and the Son. Thus, Spirit signifies the Father, “water” represents the “Spirit,” and “blood” denotes the Son. The Latin trinitarian interpretations arise from affirming that “the three are one.”[17]

Constant searcher for truth and experience of holiness Henry E. Brockett (1936-1994), discussing the purity of the blood of the Anointed One, says that he felt hindered by a theory that the “cleansing from sin” related only to his “standing “before God justified. There was no actual inner cleansing of their heart. According to this theory, the Anointed One’s blood is not applied to the believer’s heart to cleanse away sin. This theory prevented him from seeing the glory of the fullness and depth hidden in that precious phrase, “the blood of Jesus the Anointed One, His Son, cleanses us from all sin.” He prayed earnestly for further insight on this matter, and one morning at about two o’clock, he woke up with the following words powerfully impressed on my mind: “There are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”^[18]

In a flash, enlightenment came to him, and he experienced that peculiar unction and blessedness which he felt was of the Spirit. He saw that he could not dissociate the blood of Jesus from the work of the Spirit and the water, which he took to mean the Word of God, as all three agreed in one. The blood of the Anointed One purified the heart because the Spirit of God applied the blood through faith in the truth contained in the Word. That is how that verse spoke to his heart. On the same day, while he was out for a walk, the Spirit of God impressed verse seven on his mind and in his heart in great power. The Spirit gave him such a sweet, blessed assurance that the precious blood of the Anointed One was applied to his heart in all its extraordinary cleansing power that tears of joy came into his eyes.^[19]

Ministry & Missions Overseer Muncia Walls (1937) finds that most Bible commentators agree that verse seven (b) and verse eight (a) are missing in original Greek writings. For instance, a man dedicated to freeing Greek texts from corruption, English classical scholar Richard Porson (1759-1808) wrote; “In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all visible Greek manuscripts except two (that of Dublin and the forged one found at Berlin), one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, even from many of the best and oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth, and of most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine; and Satan has been permitted for many centuries miraculously to banish the ‘finest passage in the New Testament,’ as Martin calls it, from the eyes and memories of almost all the the Anointed One’s authors, translators, and transcribers.” The decision as to whether this verse is authentic or not will have to wait until that day when we “shall know even as we known. Until that day, we shall line up on either side of this verse, one group denying its authenticity, while the other argues for its authenticity.’’[20]

The Trinitarian sees a trinity statement here. The Oneness camp sees the Oneness of the Godhead in this verse. The Trinitarian wants the verse to say, “these three persons are one God.” The Oneness view is that John is not referring to three “persons,” but to three witnesses, or manifestations, of the one God. These three, Father, Word, and Spirit, are manifestations of the one God.

We should repeat what the Lord is communicating to us through the pen of John. Some choose to interpret what John says refers to the Anointed One’s baptism, the manifestation of the miracle of the incarnation of the Anointed One, and communion. However, in these two verses, John continues his argument of the three witnesses he employed in verse six. In verse seven, John emphasizes God’s manifestations to bring about mankind’s salvation. As Father, He created man to enjoy fellowship with things eternal. As the Word manifested in the flesh, John highlights the sacrifice the Anointed One made to bring about our redemption and bring us back into fellowship with Himself.

Finally, the Spirit emphasizes the operation in this dispensation, which brings about the new birth experience through which God deals with mankind today. These three elements are present in humans and necessary for them to experience spiritual birth at a natural birth. One without the others would not produce physical or spiritual life. Therefore, the Spirit speaks of the infilling of the Holy Spirit; the water speaks to us of baptism in the Name of Jesus the Anointed One, and the blood talks to us of the cleansing and sustaining element needed to experience the new birth and continue victorious living.^[21]

As an articulate spokesman for the Reformed Faith movement, James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) concludes that verse eight introduced one important legal maxim into John’s argument: the principle that a point of fact is to be established by the agreeing testimony of two or three witnesses. Here he introduces another: the witness’ character. It is an essential principle in any system of law. Still, it was imperative in Judaism, where it took the form of a listing of those who were unqualified to bear testimony because of their professions or questionable actions. In this list are found thieves, shepherds (because they seem to have let their sheep graze on other people’s land), violent persons, and everyone suspected of financial dishonesty, including tax collectors and customs officials. The Babylonian Talmud contains a passage about ineligible witnesses.[22]

Boice then offers the following: (1) The reference to water and blood most naturally reminds the student of a similar instance in John’s Gospel in which “blood and water” flowed from the Anointed One’s side after it was pierced with a spear by a soldier at the time of the crucifixion. If the Gospel of John is allowed to interpret the Epistles of John, as it has on other occasions, this would be the logical place to start. Moreover, there are significant similarities at once. In both passages, John seems to put evidence on the blood and water; for another, the idea of testimony is prominent.[23]

---

[1] John 1:33

[2] Ibid. 15:26

[3] Ibid. 15:27

[4] Ibid. 4:24

[5] 1 John 1:5

[6] Ibid 4:8, 16

[7] Ibid. 4:2-3, 6

[8] Cf. Deuteronomy 17:16; 19:15; See John 8:17

[9] Genesis 31:45-48

[10] Deuteronomy 31:28

[11] John 5:36; 10:25

[12] Painter, John. Sacra Pagina: 1, 2, and 3 John: Volume 18, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Edition

[13] 1 John 4:2-3, 6

[14] See Mark 14:56, 59

[15] John 4:24

[16] Ibid. 7:38-39; 19:34

[17] Painter, John. Sacra Pagina: 1, 2, and 3 John: Volume 18, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Edition

[18] 1 John 5:8

[19] Brockett, Henry E., The Riches of Holiness, op. cit., pp. 56-58

[20] For the details of the memorable controversy on the passage, the student may consult Frederick Henry Scrivener, “Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament;” Samuel P. Tregelles, “An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament;” John Selby Watson, “The Life of Richard Porson;”  Professor Ezra Abbot, “Orme’s Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John 5:7;” Charles Foster, “A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses,” or “Porson’s Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined,” Cambridge, 1867

[21] Walls, Muncia: Epistles of John and Jude, op. cit., pp. 85-87

[22] Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 26b

[23] John 19:35

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIV) 01/12/23

^5:7-8 So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at the Messiah’s baptism, and the voice before He died. And they all say the same thing: Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son.

As a spiritual mentor, Ronald A. Ward (1920-1986) touches on the controversial section about the six witnesses, three in heaven and three on earth, in favor of Jesus being God’s Son and His Messiah. First, he remarks that the words “in heaven” in verse seven (KJV) and “in earth” in verse eight are not part of the original Greek manuscripts. Instead, they appear to have originated in the Latin Version and began showing up in late Greek manuscript copies in the margin and then in the text. As such, we must not use them as evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Ward then addresses the subject of the water and the blood and the temptation to see in them as a reference to the two sacraments of water baptism and communion. So, why does John not say “water and wine” instead?[1]

There are many opinions on this. Some people attempt to identify the connection between baptism and communion with the blood and water flowing out of Jesus’ side after being pierced on the cross by the soldier’s spear.[2] However, Jesus’ water baptism occurred at the beginning of His ministry, and the blood flowed at the end. Therefore, it would be wrong to interpret the blood (His death) as coming before the water (His baptism). Blood and water are figures of speech and could apply to cleansing through His blood and consecration through His baptism.

Furthermore, Dr. Neil Lightfoot (1920-2012), a New Testament professor at Abilene Christian College, gives this evidence: “The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7. Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was copied from a late Latin Vulgate version.”^[3]

In a spirited confrontational way, Peter S. Ruckman (1921-2016) expresses that Jesus the Messiah had two natures, including six components. Jesus the Messiah, as “Son of God,” had a divine SOUL,[4] a divine SPIRIT,[5] and a heavenly BODY.[6] In addition to that (as “son of man”), He had a human BODY,[7] a human SPIRIT,[8] and a human SOUL.[9] [10] Some of the scriptural references made by Ruckman may be more of a personal interpretation than many orthodox and evangelical scholars.

With academic precision, Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) says that the Apostle John now enlarges on the character of the spiritual witness to the truth about the divinity and humanity of Jesus. To do this, he appeals to a threefold testimony, “the Spirit, the water, and the blood.” John has earlier referred to the single witness of the Spirit in verse six as the “one who bears witness.” His present reference to “three witnesses” need not be regarded as a contradiction or interpolation; instead, the support for further and associated testimony is now being sought. The opening with “For” in verse seven resumes the thought stated in verse six and is used for emphasis. The Spirit bears witness, John appears to be saying, but He is not alone in this. “For” (in the sense of “indeed”), there are three witnesses (the present tense of “the ones bearing witness” suggests a continuous testimony to Jesus.^[11]

An insistent believer in God’s amazing grace, Zane Clark Hodges (1932-2008) states that the object of faith must always be the One who came by water and blood – Jesus the Messiah. It is simplest to take the term “water” as a reference to the baptism of Jesus by which God initiated His public ministry.[12] “Blood” would then refer to His death that terminated His earthly mission. John’s insistence that He did not come by water only, but by water and blood, suggests that he was refuting a false notion of the type held by Cerinthus. Cerinthus taught that the divine Messiah descended on the man Jesus at His baptism and left Him before His crucifixion.

Thus, he denied that one Person, Jesus the Messiah, came by water and blood. Cerinthus was doubtless not alone in such views, which John regarded as utterly false and contrary to the true testimony of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, three testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three agree. The Spirit’s witness may be thought of as coming through the prophets (including John the Baptist). Then, the Spirit’s witness was augmented by the historical realities involved in “the water” and “the blood.” Both the baptism and the crucifixion of Jesus are strongly attested to historical facts.[13] All three witnesses – “water,” “blood,” and “Spirit” (are personified) agree that a single divine Person, Jesus the Messiah, was involved in these events.^[14]

As a capable scripture analyst, Ian Howard Marshall (1934-2015) points out that the Apostle John has spoken of one witness, the Spirit.[15] Now, he introduces a corrective. There are, in fact, three witnesses. These are identified in the next verse as the Spirit, the water, and the blood. But users of the Authorized Version will be aware of a form of text which speaks first of three witnesses in heaven and then of three witnesses on earth. The former three are the members of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, while the latter three are the Spirit, the water, and the blood.

This form of wording appears in no reputable modern version of the Bible as the actual text; most editions adopt the same practice as in the NIV of relegating the extra words to a footnote, while some (such as the RSV and NEB) ignore them. The words occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks on heretics. These words probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of his copy of 1 John. Later they were erroneously regarded as part of the text. Beyond any shadow of any doubt, the wording of the NIV text represents what John wrote. We must, therefore, confine our attention to the three witnesses of whom John did write, the Spirit, the water, and the blood.^[16]

As a capable scripture analyst, Ian Howard Marshall (1934-2015) says it is hard to see why past events cannot continue to bear witness, in the same way as the First Covenant Scriptures can still bear witness to Jesus; we may perhaps compare Abel who “still speaks, even though he is dead.”[17] We would, therefore, maintain that in this verse, the water and the blood have the same meaning as in verse six. Some commentators who think that the present tense excludes this interpretation maintain that John refers to the Christian sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These sacraments may be regarded as abiding witnesses to the historical baptism and death of Jesus respectively; through them, the saving power of the Son of God is mediated to believers, and thus, they find confirmation in their experience of the truth about the person of Jesus.

Such a view is open to the objection that there is nothing to indicate a change of meaning from verse six. It is also possible to complain that using “blood” to mean the Lord’s Supper is unparalleled. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how Christian baptism testifies to the reality of Jesus’ baptism. There are thus difficulties with this view, although the fact that it has such widespread support among commentators prevents us from ruling it out altogether as a possible interpretation. John was possibly speaking of the historical water and blood of Jesus’ baptism and death, symbolized in the water of Christian baptism and the wine of the Lord’s Supper.^[18]

With a Jewish convert’s enthusiasm for the Christian Messiah, Messianic writer David H. Stern (1935) states that a person cannot claim to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit if they reject the witness of the water and the blood to the true character of Yeshua, as outlined in verse six. Following the Textus Receptus, the KJV has: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood: these three agree in one.” Concerning this uniquely clear reference to the Trinity,

The quintessential Presbyterian elder, scholar, and gentleman, Bruce M. Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the foremost New Testament textual critics of the 20th century and writes: “That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the Final Covenant is certain.”[19] His reasons: (1) the passage is absent from all but four Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the fourteenth century AD, (2) it was unknown to the Greek fathers, who would otherwise have seized on it in the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies, (3) it is not found in versions or quotations of any kind prior to the fourth century, (4) if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, and (5) the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.^[20]

---

[1] Ward, Ronald A., The Epistles on John and Jude, op. cit., pp. 54-55

[2] John 19:34

[3] How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot: Published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1963, pp. 100-101

[4] God the Father; cf. Acts 2:31; see Psalm 16:10

[5] John 3:34; Hebrews 1:9

[6] John 3:13; 6:19; Acts of the Apostles 2:31

[7] John 4:6; 19:20-21; Hebrews 5:7-8

[8] John 11:33; Mark 2:8; see Luke 23:46

[9] Matthew 26:38; Isaiah 53:10-11; see Luke 23:46

[10] Ruckman, Dr. Peter S., General Epistles Vol. 2 (1-2-3 John, Jude Commentary), op. cit., loc. cit. Kindle Edition

[11] Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51, 1,2,3 John, op. cit., p. 281

[12] Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22

[13] Cf. John 1:32-34; 19:33-37

[14] Hodges, Zane C. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 901

[15] 1 John 4:2-3

[16] Marshall, Ian Howard: The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), op. cit., pp. 235-236

[17] Hebrews 11:4

[18] Marshall, Ian Howard: The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), op. cit., pp. 237-239

[19] Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, New York: United Bible Societies, Corrected Edition 1975, pp. 715-717

[20] Stern, David H., Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Edition.