Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIII) 01/11/23

^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.

Here, however, says Morgan, we are met with an objection to the Trinity doctrine that is proper to notice before going further. It is said by some who do not receive this doctrine that it appears to them to involve an impossibility. They do not see, they tell us, how it can be said of one being, that is said to be three-in-one. In reply, we are wholly incompetent to speculate about the Godhead. It is not proper to say what is possible or impossible with God. There cannot, we admit, be a contradiction in the nature of the Godhead. But there is no contradiction in our view of the Trinity.

We can point in nature to such a plurality, notes Morgan, where there is such unity. We need not go beyond mankind. He is three and yet one. The prayer of the Apostle Paul for the Thessalonians is that they may be sanctified wholly “in soul, body, and spirit.” There is in mankind a body, visible; a spirit which animates that body, which he possesses in common with the inferior creation; and a soul superadded, rational, accountable, and immortal. There is, therefore, a trinity in the unity of humanity. There is no contradiction in its nature. It cannot be said with reason that the two ideas are incompatible. The fact of mankind’s nature is a plain contradiction to such a statement.

The whole subject of the Trinity simply becomes a question of evidence. Is it taught in the divine Word or not? The question is one of pure revelation. It is a subject on which we can have no knowledge, except as we are taught of God. We must investigate it in this spirit. We should come to the Scriptures resolved to have our judgment determined entirely by their testimony. Let us say now, “this will we do” with divine blessing. We come as learners to the sacred page, and our investigation is what is written upon it?

The best form in which we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion is historical. We will take the Scriptures and trace the growing light that emanates from them on this subject. For on it, like every other, we are responding to the urge of “searching the Scriptures.”[1] God saw the exercise as suitable for His children. He does not fully unfold any great truth in one place. It is announced in many places, with different measures of clearness, and in various connections. To rightly understand it, all must be consulted and studied. And it is when they are brought together and considered in harmony that we may hope to have just views of the great truth which they all conspire to reveal.^[2]

Thinking as a dispensationalist, Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945) notes that only in the Apostle John’s Gospel do we find an account of the opened side of our adorable Savior and that water and blood poured out of the pierced side.[3] The sinner needs a cleansing morally and purging from guilt. The water is for moral cleansing; the blood telling of repentance cleanses from guilt. For anyone to suppose here that the baptisms of water and blood imitate the Lord’s Supper is as false as it is ridiculous. It is purification and conciliation as accomplished and provided for in the death of the Messiah for the believer. That is why the Holy Spirit is here on earth.

Notice that the Apostle John does not present his testimony here in these verses, but the Holy Spirit witnesses it. He is on earth for this purpose to bear witness to the Messiah and His work. How awful is any rejection of the Spirit’s witness in the light of these words – that rejection so widespread and pronounced in antichristian modernism! The seventh verse has no business in our Bibles. It is an interpolation, and all historical evidence is against it. The oldest manuscripts do not contain the words we read in verses seven and eight. We notice the connection between verses six to eight by leaving out this inserted text. The Spirit is the abiding witness of accomplished redemption, and He dwells in the believer.^[4]

British military chaplain John Kelman (1864-1929) says these disputed verses provide one of the most significant and valuable changes in the habits of theological thinking from the deductive and metaphysical to inductive and psychological methods. In more straightforward language, it was formerly the custom to establish a doctrine apart from our human experience and then conform life and thought to the principle. The rule is to take our human experience with us when we try to adapt our doctrine to it. But it was not in this abstract fashion that the principle initially came. It did not rise from our text, or that text was absent from the original documents and did not appear till the fifth century. On the contrary, because people experienced the one God manifesting Himself to them in three ways, they tried to conceive and state their thoughts of Him accordingly.

Instead, the abstract formulations and controversies were drawn partly from Scripture, partially from the need to combat heresies that stated God’s being in terms that were not true to the Christian experience; and somewhat from the Greek spirit that sought to rationalize harmonize all human knowledge. But none of these was the source of the doctrine. Instead, it arose out of the deepest hours of communion between the souls of believers and God.

So then, there are the “three witnesses” who were gathered “into one.” In the Apostle John’s experience, as testifying to the truth about the Messiah and His salvation: “the three,” John says, “agree in one,” or more strictly, “amount to the one thing” they converge to this single point. The baptism in Jordan’s river, on Calvary, and in the upper room in Jerusalem was the beginning and the end of Jesus the Messiah’s earthly course, and the new beginning which knows no end. His Divine life and words and works, His propitiatory death, the promised and perpetual gift of the Spirit to His Church ‒ these three cohere into one solid, imperishable witness. The Spirit of God demonstrates these alike in history and personal experience. They have one outcome, as they have one purpose, and it is this, “that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.”[5] The revelation of Jesus as the Son of God is complete from the day of Pentecost onwards. The Church from that day repeats the witness of John the Baptizer and John the Evangelist unwaveringly, with an ever-multiplying concert of voices, through the whole earth.[6] ^[7]

In reviewing what the Apostle John says in this verse, Archibald T. Robertson (1863-1934) notes that the Latin Vulgate inserts words in the Textus Receptus, which are missing in Greek manuscripts, except for two late copies (one hundred sixty-two) in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, (thirty-four) of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity, and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek manuscript had it, and 34 was produced with the insertion as if made to order. The spurious addition in verse seven is: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Then in verse eight, “and there are three that bear witness on earth.”

Perhaps, since the doctrine of the Trinity did not appear in scripture, some Latin scribe took Cyprian’s explanation and wrote it on the margin of his text. And so, it got into the Latin Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by Erasmus’ compromise. Verse eight reads that the Spirit, the water, and the blood are witnesses. The same three witnesses of verses six and seven repeated with the Spirit first. The resumptive article “Agree in one” was for the one thing, to bring us to faith in Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, the very purpose for which John wrote his Gospel.[8] ^[9]

Characteristically, Alan England Brooke (1863-1939) states that the witness of Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God, is trustworthy. It fulfills the conditions of legally valid witness, as laid down in Scripture.[10] The same interpretation must be given to the Spirit, the water, and the blood here as in the preceding verse. The Messiah “came” by water and by blood, and the Spirit bore witness to Him and His Mission. The witness of the Spirit is supported by the witness of the water and the blood. The means by which He accomplished His Mission are minor witnesses to its character. And the witnesses agree. As interpreted by the Spirit, the Spirit and the opening and closing scenes of the Ministry bear similar witness to the Messiah. They are, for one thing, trending in the same direction, exist for the same object. They all work towards the same result, the establishing of the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.^[11]

With an eye for detail, David Smith (1866-1932) sees verses seven and eight as the Water (the Lord’s consecrated spiritual and eternal Life) and the Blood (His sacrificial Death) are testimonies to the Incarnation, but they are insufficient. A third testimony of the Spirit is needed to reveal its significance and bring it home to our hearts. The wonder and glory of that incredible manifestation would stay hidden without His enlightenment. It will be as incomprehensible to us as “mathematics to a canine or music to a camel.” Revealing Jesus was the goal for which the Apostle John wrote his Gospel.[12] ^[13]

---

[1] John 5:39

[2] Morgan, James B., An Exposition of the First Epistle of John, op. cit., Lecture XLIII, pp. 426-428

[3] John 19:35

[4] Gaebelein, Arno C., The Annotated Bible, op. cit., pp. 158-159

[5] 1 John 5:11

[6] 1 John 1:34; 4:14

[7] Kelman, John: Ephemera Eternitatis, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1910, The Spiritual Doctrine of God, Preached on Trinity-Sunday, pp. 144-145, 149

[8] John 20:31

[9] Robertson, Archibald T., Word Pictures of the New Testament, op. cit., p. 1968

[10] Deuteronomy 19:15 Cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; John 8:17

[11] Brooke, Alan E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, op. cit., p. 137

[12] John 20:31

[13] Smith, David: Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1 John, op. cit., p. 195

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXII) 01/10/23

^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.

Thus, this same Spirit bears witness in the assemblies of the faithful and teaches that the Son of God is indeed the Redeemer of the world; He guides the arrow of God’s Word to penetrate the conscience of mankind. The Holy Spirit stimulates spiritually dead souls to yearn for peace and the need for salvation. It is the Holy Spirit. Who makes the Messiah present in the preaching of His Word and the Blessed Sacrament – it is the Spirit of truth. So, there are three which bear record on earth – the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and only in the power of the Spirit do the other witnesses come alive and convincing. Not only that, but “these three agree in one” – namely, they have one shared object: declaring Jesus the Messiah as God’s Son and Redeemer of the world.^[1]

A prolific writer on the New Testament Epistles, George G. Findlay (1849-1919), says that he dismisses, without misgiving or regret, the clause respecting the heavenly Trinity from verses seven and eight of the received text. The rejected sentence is a striking statement of the Trinitarian creed of the early Church, to which the Apostle John might have subscribed in due season and form. But it is irrelevant to this context and foreign to the Apostle’s mode of conception. What John asserts here and seeks to vindicate against the world is the Church’s victorious faith in God’s Son. To invoke witnesses for this “in heaven” would add nothing to the purpose. The contrast is not between “heaven” and “earth” as spheres of testimony but the various elements of the testimony. The passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is now on all hands, an admitted theological gloss. It first appears in two obscure Latin writings of the fifth century and made its way probably from the margin into the text of the Latin Version; no Greek codex of the Final Covenant exhibits it earlier than the fifteenth century.^[2]

With his stately speaking style, William Macdonald Sinclair (1850-1917), an eminent Anglican priest and author asserts that the text of verse eight is correct, “For there are three that bear witness; the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.” It is a repetition of verse six for emphasis. The fact that the three that bear witness are in the masculine gender bears out the interpretation given; they imply the Holy Spirit, the author of the Law, and the author of Redemption. It also explains how verse seven crept in as a gloss. John then adds that these three agree in one. – Literally, “make for the one.” The old dispensation, of which John the Baptizer’s preaching was the last message, had no other meaning than the preparation for the Messiah. The sacrifice on Calvary was the consummation of the Messiah’s mission; the kingdom of the Spirit, starting from that mission, was the seal of it. Now, these three witnesses to the Messiah have their counterparts in the Christian’s soul. First, baptism, which is not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Second, the “blood,” which purges our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. And thirdly, the “Spirit,” which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and with fire.”^[3] [4]

Undoubedly, says Charles Gore (1853-1932) we must say something about the unfortunate interpolation in verses seven and eight. In the standard authorized version (KJV), the text reads: “There are three that bear record [or “witness”] 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, and the water, and the blood.” The words in bold are an undoubted interpolation. They do not exist in the Greek manuscripts, except in two very late and worthless ones, apparently translated from Latin. They were not in Jerome’s Latin translation or the old versions. What happened was that the “three witnesses agreeing in one” suggested the idea of the Trinity.

This suggestion, probably first written on the margin, found its way into the text at the hands of a pious copyist, probably innocent of any intention to deceive. As a text of John’s epistle, its first occurrence is in the writings of Christian martyr Spaniard Priscillian (340-385 AD).[5] The inserted words are: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three which bear witness on earth.” These words passed from copy to copy of the Latin Bible as part of the authoritative text. But they interrupted the context and were not original.” So, the text says, “There are three which bear witness: the Spirit, the Water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.”[6]

Beyond any doubt, remarks Alonzo R. Cocke (1858-1901), it is useless to speak concerning this verse, save to say every available historical evidence proves it an interpolation. In verses seven and eight, these inserted words are not in ancient Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, or the early Greek Fathers. The Apostle John now condenses his statement. These three utter the same testimony and agree thoroughly. Neander gives a beautiful term to the Greek by his translation: “And the three have reference to the one.” They all speak of Jesus the Messiah, the fountain of eternal life.^[7]

Esteemed ministry veteran James B. Morgan (1859-1942) says that doubts have long been entertained respecting the authenticity of verses seven and eight. They are lacking in many of the early Greek manuscripts of the Final Covenant. He says we must wait for additional light before being convinced of its divine inspiration. As to the doctrine representing the three persons in the unity of the Godhead seen in these verses, there is a mass of scripture evidence to sustain it. Anyone receiving the Scriptures as the Word of God cannot reasonably dismiss it.

To summarize this argument as an outline, we must begin with the fact that the middle parts of verses seven and eight in the KJV) are spurious. A scribe added those words. Today, scholars agree that those omitted words are not part of the Bible. Therefore, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) accurately translates this scripture passage.

In 1 John 5, the Apostle John is trying to express and prove that Jesus is really the “Messiah”. He is the son of God.

The Spirit, the water, and the blood are three things that testify to this fact.  We can not rely on the testimonies of fault-prone humans to prove who Jesus is.  That is why John chose three things that are from God to be a witness of Jesus’ true identity. In this verse, John points out that they all say the same thing, “…and these three agree.”

The order in which John listed these is chronological. At his baptism, Jesus received the Holy Spirit. The water is relevant during His ministry; the blood came at the end of his life when Jesus sacrificed everything on the cross. Let’s look specifically at each one.

The Spirit: John refers to the Holy Spirit that swooped down like a dove and landed upon Jesus at His baptism.[8] From that point on, Jesus used the power of the Holy Spirit to perform miracles and proclaim God’s message. The descending of the Holy Spirit at His baptism marked the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

The Water: The water, in this case, does not refer to literal water. However, in scripture, water represents a cleaning agent that can bring salvation by cleansing our sins. Consider the following verses for how Jesus’ words brought this living water to the world during his ministry.[9] These scriptures show that “water” is the word that Jesus spoke during his time here on earth.

The Blood:  The blood here is for Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. There, He gave His life as a ransom for mankind to pay for our sins. The writer of Hebrews tells us that “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.”[10] John supports this with “the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.”[11]

The Apostle John chose the Spirit, the water, and the blood as three iconic properties to prove, from a heavenly standpoint, that Jesus was the son of God.[12]

Unfortunately, in many churches today, these significant points are skipped over in favor of emotionalism and a “feel better” popular theology. For instance, seeing a sizeable priceless diamond on a ring in the jewelry store may evoke exclamations like “Oh, that is so beautiful” or “My goodness, I’d love to have that on my finger.”  However, had you been with the miner and observed all the work involved in getting to that diamond, your appreciation would rise even higher.

The same is true when you fully understand the role of water and blood in our salvation and granting of eternal life. But, sadly, for many, it is a case of “let’s get this over with” when it comes to baptism and communion. Jesus, forgive us for such an attitude regarding your priceless gifts from the Cross, the Grave, from Heaven, through Your divine messenger, the Holy Spirit.

---

[1] Dryander, Ernst von: A Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John in the Form of Addresses, op. cit., XV, The Invulnerability of Faith, p.201

[2] Findlay, George G: Fellowship with the Life Eternal: An Exposition of the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., pp. 380, 388

[3] Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16

[4] Sinclair, William M., New Testament Commentary for English Readers, Charles J. Ellicott (Ed.), op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 491

[5] Priscillian was an early Christian bishop who was the first heretic to receive capital punishment. A rigorous ascetic, he founded Priscillianism, an unorthodox doctrine that persisted into the sixth century. His teaching was much the same as Gnosticism and Manichaeism in its dualistic belief that matter was evil and the spirit good. He also taught that angels and human souls emanated from the Godhead, that bodies were created by the devil, and that human souls were joined to bodies as a punishment for sins. These beliefs led to a denial of the true humanity of the Messiah.

[6] Gore, Charles: The Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 198

[7] Cocke, Alonzo R: Studies in the Epistles of John; or, The Manifested Life, op. cit., p. 127

[8] Matthew 3:16-17

[9] Isaiah 12:3; John 4:9-14; 7:37-39; 15:3

[10] Hebrews 9:22

[11] 1 John 1:7

[12] Provided by Chicago Bible Students

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXI) 01/09/23

^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: that Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son.

Internal evidence, however, does not support the retention of the words concerning the falsity of verse seven. The Apostle John’s subject is the inner witness for Christianity in the heart of the believer. That inward witness is the Spirit who manifests Himself by His effects in the human spirit of the Messiah, which He came to impart. Moreover, the introduction of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, bearing witness in heaven to the Savior’s work on earth, introduces an altogether foreign element into the argument.

It is, of course, that submitting such a consideration is not impossible. But anyone accustomed to the subtle laws of logic involving John’s thoughts, and his invariable custom of repeating in a slightly modified form propositions of importance, will feel that this passage is no more entitled to recognition as a part of the Epistle on internal than it is on external grounds. So, this passage should read: “For they who are bearing witness are three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three speak as one.” The words amplify and explain John’s saying that Jesus the Messiah comes “not by water only, but by water and blood.” Thus, he proceeds, “and it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth.”

The witnesses converge toward one goal we possess in Jesus the Messiah’s eternal life and even more.  The witnesses not only testify to us of the fact. They concur in producing it – the inward work of the Spirit, the cleansing from sin, and participation in God’s Son’s spiritual and eternal Life. Another point is the word “witness” in the present tense. The three bear witness in each believer’s heart. It is not merely that it is the custom of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood to bear witness. They are always active, energizing witnesses for the Living God and His Eternal Son, as ever-existent principles, to each human heart capable of receiving their testimony.^[1]

A tried and tested biblical scholar who believes in the up-building of the Christian life, Robert Cameron (1839-1904), now addresses these three witnesses – the Spirit, the water, and the blood – giving a testimony. What is their testimony? What have they to say? They all agree and make for one end. They converge on Christ is come in the flesh with the gift of life to impart to us. The whole Gospel, on which they concentrate in their witness, stands for three aspects of the one truth. This truth is (1) that Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh of man; (2) that the life of the ages can find no channel in which it comes to our hearts except through the death of this Son; and (3) that this life comes to us only when we, owning the depth of our sin, receive this Son of God, whose resources are equal to our imperative and varied needs.

This is the witness which God gives concerning his Son. It is three-fold and satisfies the condition of human testimony. We receive human testimony out of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Human witnesses may be deceptive, 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 man. 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. This is God’s final testimony. If we receive the fallible testimony of man, what possible excuse can we give for refusing the infallible testimony of God?^[2]

As a secular and sacred Law enforcer, Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918) figures that the water of John 3:5 must have the same significance as the water of 1 John 5:6, 8. And let us not forget the following words: “There are three who bear witness ‒ the Spirit, the water, and the blood.” What, then, does the water signify? No mind steeped in sacramentalism can imagine that in the three-fold “witness of God,” baptism is sandwiched between the Holy Spirit and the blood of the Messiah.

And the attempt to explain the words by the fact recorded in John 19:34 savors of materialism wholly foreign to Christianity. Such an explanation, moreover, is utterly inadequate. Its forceful language states that water and blood characterized the mission and ministry of the Messiah. It was not that at the death of the Messiah, blood and water flowed from His pierced side, but that His coming, regarded as a whole, was “with water and blood.” So, the translators changed the preposition in verse six from “through” in (Greek) to “by” (in our English translation), making it plain and sure.[3] ^[4]

With his Spirit-directed calculating mind, Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) says that if there is one thing that is certain in textual criticism, it is that this famous passage in verse seven is not genuine. The Revisers have only performed an imperative duty in excluding it from both text and margin. External and internal evidence are alike overwhelmingly against the passage. But there are three facts, which everyone should know alone, to show that the words are an interpolation. (1) They are not found in a single Greek manuscript earlier than the fourteenth century. (2) Not one of the Greek or Latin Fathers who conducted the controversies about the doctrine of the Trinity in the third, fourth, and first half of the fifth centuries ever quotes these words. (3) The words occur first towards the end of the fifth century in Latin and are found in no other language until the fourteenth century. Therefore, the only words which are genuine in this verse are, for there are three that bear record, or more accurately, For those who bear witness are three: “three” is the predicate; for “witness.”[5]

But when it comes to verse eight, Plummer notes, “there are three that bear witness on earth.” These words also are part of the spurious insertion. The text of verses seven and eight runs: “For those who bear witness are three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.” John says, “those who bear witness,” not simply “witnesses.” They are not witnesses who might be called once to testify but perpetually deliver their testimony. The masculine verb “witness” is evidence of the personality of the Spirit. The Apostle is answering the misgivings of those who imagined that when the last Apostle died, the Church would possess only second-hand evidence and a tradition growing fainter about the Person and Mission of the Messiah. Not so, says John; first-hand evidence is ever-present, and each believer has it in themselves.[6] It is uncertain whether the Trinity is even remotely symbolized. Perhaps John wishes to give the full complement of evidence recognized by law.[7]

Controversies about the doctrine of the Trinity in the third, fourth, and first half of the fifth centuries always quote these words. The words first occurred towards the end of the fifth century in Latin and were found in no other language until the fourteenth century. The only words which are genuine in this verse are, “For there are three that bear record,” or more accurately, For those who bear witness are three: “three” is the predicate for “witnesses,” the Spirit, water, and blood.[8] These, of course, have the same meaning as the Messiah’s Baptism and Death.

The real value of our Lord’s baptism and death, says Plummer, can fully realize the consequences if neither of these took place. That our Lord appeared on His mission without openly professing His reason for coming was for God by submitting to the baptism of John, or He died without notice as others do. The three witnesses agree as one; literally, are united into one or are for the same object of establishing this truth about Jesus. It means either that they joined to become one witness or cooperate in producing one result.

For sure, the trinity of witnesses furnishes one testimony.[9] We should also note that “to become one” or “to turn into one” occurs nowhere in the Final Covenant.  The copyist who wrote this uses the Greek “the one” here as an argument for the genuineness of verse seven. Some say that “the one” plainly implies that “one” has preceded. But this becomes absurd by making “the one” in verse eight mean the same as “the one” in verse seven. Verse seven means “one Substance,” the “Unity in Trinity.” But in what sense can “The spirit, the water, and the blood agree in the Unity in Trinity yield?”^[10]

With regal etiquette, Ernest von Dryander (1843-1922) comments that the fact remains that the “water and the blood,” “baptism and death” of our Savior, were not understood. Even for His disciples, His death was something not only terrible but also incomprehensible. That was until that third Witness came – the Witness to Whom our Lord pointed – the Witness Who was to abide with the disciples, who was to bring “all things to their remembrance,”[11] and “guide them into all truth;”[12] – the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Apostle John adds: “It is the Spirit that bears witness because the Spirit is truth.”

So, it is through the Spirit of God that the dead seed in the Apostles comes alive; through God’s Spirit and they go out into the world to preach the Gospel; through the Spirit, they receive new understanding; they learn how to exercise divine power and wisdom are through the Holy Spirit. Also, they realized that baptism was our Lord’s consecration to the office of Redeemer and that His death was the great sacrifice that He, the High Priest, offered for the reconciliation of the lost world. Through the Spirit, the Image of Jesus, the living Messiah, began abiding in them. It not only makes them His messengers of what He told them but also the witnesses of what they experienced through His Word.

---

[1] Lias, John James: The First Epistle of St. John with Homiletical Treatment, op. cit., pp. 379-385

[2] Camron, Robert: The First Epistle of John, or, God Revealed in Light, Life, and Love, op. cit., p. 235

[3] Cf. Hebrews 2:16

[4] Anderson, Sir Robert: Redemption Truths, op. cit., pp. 54-55

[5] See 1 John 1:2

[6] 1 John 5:10; cf. John 15:26

[7] Matthew 18:16

[8] See on 1:2; 2 Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 19:15; Cf. John 8:17

[9] To be one occurs in John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22, 23; 1 Corinthians 3:23

[10] Plummer, Alfred: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, N. T., Vol. IV, p. 160-161

[11] John 14:26

[12] Ibid. 16:13

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LX) 01/06/23

^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.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not need any questionable proof text or Scriptures that ascribe Divine titles, attributes, and works to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it is in their names we baptize every Christian. This Trinity of witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, furnish one testimony in establishing that the Messiah is part of the Godhead.^[1]

With unwavering trust in the Apostle John’s teaching, William Lincoln (1825-1888) states that plenty of Scriptures prove the Trinity, but that term is not in God’s Word. It contradicts other scriptures. It says, “There are three that bear record in heaven,” and one of the three is the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit does not bear witness in heaven; the place where the Holy Spirit bears witness is on the earth. The Holy Spirit, who came down from heaven in a personal, unique, and peculiar manner, is now here in a greater dimension than before the day of Pentecost. Therefore, the expression referred to cannot be correct. It clashes with other scriptures and therefore cannot be God’s Word, for God never contradicts Himself.^[2]

Then the Apostle John brings them all together in verse eight. We see the word “witness” again and it’s meaning. These three witnesses are for you and me – “the Spirit, the water, and the blood.” These provide a three-fold testimony. Furthermore, they all agree as one witness, record, or testimony, namely, that our old nature has not improved; our Adamic tendencies are still the same. Instead, it is a new life, a new nature, grafted into a new stock that flows into you continually.  

These three testimonies or witnesses agree that mending our sinful nature is too difficult. God never patches that which is irreparable, never preserves that which is hopeless, but begins a new work, a new thing; He allows us to have spiritual union with a living Messiah. Thus, the three witnesses agree on one. It is a singular fact that under the First Covenant, God’s priests were anointed with blood, water, and oil, as we see in the consecration of

Aaron and his sons.[3] Aaron is the forerunner of the Messiah and Aaron’s sons of the Church. To see your proper position in the First Covenant, you must look at the consecration of Aaron’s sons with blood, water, and oil. That sentiment is like that conveyed in this fourth chapter: three bear records. When they were anointed, which part of Aaron’s son’s bodies was first – the ear, the hand, or the foot? It was their ear. That is how to drink in God’s love, have a hearing ear, and be a holy child – to do what God says. Three things – blood, water, and oil ‒ were used to ordain them.^[4]

A man dedicated to reaching the goal of his God-given ministry, Andrew H. K. Boyd (1825-1899), a Scottish preacher’s son who gained high distinction in philosophy and theology, illustrates this point of being an overcomer of the world. He cites the history of an Emperor in days gone by who fancied that he had accomplished the difficult task of “overcoming the world.” We read how he carried his victorious armies over every region of the then-known earth – how he subjugated king after king, brought nation after nation beneath his control, and then fancied that he had “conquered the world.” We read how he felt sad to think that his heroic venture had finished and how he wept that there were no more worlds to conquer. Oh, how mistaken he was! There was one world to defeat yet, to which this “Conqueror was a slave – a world to overcome for which the armies of Alexander the Great were of no value.” This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.”[5]

After sufficient examination of the Greek text, Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) states that the three witnesses here in verse seven are considered mainly as the living witness of the Church and not as the historical witness of the Gospels. Through believers, these three, “the Spirit and the Water and the Blood,” perform a work not for believers only but the world.[6] He goes on to say that the Spirit, with the Water and Blood, completes the witness to the Incarnation as a Fact no less than as an open-source of blessing. For the witness of the Spirit, see Acts 5:32. When speaking of the three are for the one, it is repeated emphatically to mark the unity of the object. These three personal witnesses are focused on one absolute ending to establish the one Truth, which is everywhere present through the Epistle. The idea is not that of simple unanimity in the witnesses, but that of their convergence on the one Gospel of “The Messiah is come in the flesh,” to have eternal life.

Thus, the Apostle John goes on from considering the witness of the Messiah’s character to considering its effectiveness. (1) It is a divine witness: (2) it is a human, internal witness: (3) it is a witness realized in our present life in fellowship with the Son. If we accept the witness of men, the witness of God is more significant because this is God’s word that He has concerning His Son. Those who believe in God’s Son have the witness in themselves. Anyone who refuses to believe God has made God out to be a liar because they have not accepted the witness which God gave concerning His Son. And this is the witness that God gave us: “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.”[7] This life is in His Son, eternal life.”^[8]

Like a spiritual farmer planting the seed of God’s Word, Henry A. Sawtelle (1832-1913) comments that the Apostle John named the Spirit as a witness with the “water” and “blood.” They are witnesses on earth and are all viewed as personal witnesses, taking that character from the leading, interpreting witness, the Holy Spirit. And they are three; the rule for testimony did not require more.[9] The repeated connectives and articles make them as distinct as possible. The Spirit here leads; His testimony is more direct and immediate and backs up the other two. And these three agree as one witness.

They all point in one direction and speak to one truth: Jesus is the Source of life and hence the Son of God. That life, life, belongs pre-eminently to Him, is their one voice, their one evidence. If so, He is the one anointed with the Spirit, who is life; and if thus Anointed, He is the Christ, the Son of God. And the water of baptism, the blood of atonement, and, most directly, the Holy Spirit in His renewing work, are now still speaking of Him who is the spiritual and eternal Life and asserting His Divine nature before as. Must we not believe with the highest faith?^[10]

Noting the Apostle John’s doctrinal implications, John James Lias (1834-1923) observes that the deceptiveness of verses seven and eight is a fact that can hardly be said to pass inspection in the present stage of textual criticism. A summary of the evidence is all that is needed here.

After sufficient examination of the Greek text, Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) found the latest critical evidence: 1) All Greek manuscripts omitted it until the 16th century. 2) Despite its obvious relevance to the issue, it was never cited in the famous Homoöusian controversy,[11] which lasted from about 318 to 381 AD. It is not quoted by most Latin writers, even when the character of their argument demands the citation.

We find this in the case with Ambrose, in his De Spiritu Sancto, a treatise in which he would naturally quote every passage which, in any degree, bears on the subject but which has a minimal effect. And not only this, but he quotes the scriptures in which the questionable words are missing, leaving those words out, a thing perfectly impossible had he ever heard of them as forming part of the sacred text. The same thing occurs in Pope Leo’s letter to Flavian, read publicly at the Fourth Œcumenical Council. And the words are also absent from the immensely numerous works of Augustine.

The arguments for their genuineness are as follows: 1) The passage is found in the authorized edition of the Latin Vulgate, although unknown to Jerome, and originally appearing after verse eight, and then apparently placed in its present position in logical order. The same phenomena present themselves in the more ancient Latin Vulgate version copies. 2) Victor Vitensis (430-484 AD) quoted it.[12] 3) The words, or something like them, appear in Tertullian and Cyprian, but in such a form that it is difficult to ascertain how much of them is a quotation from Scripture. Possibly the words quoted are only the concluding words of verse eight. The rest are the words of Tertullian and are probably quoted as such by Cyprian from his “master.”

How they found their way into the text of the KJV is this; Erasmus made a rash promise to introduce them into his text if discovered in any Greek Manuscript. One manuscript contained them. Accordingly, publishers included them in Erasmus’ third edition. Consequently, they found their way into the texts of Stephens, the Elzevir edition, and our English Bible. The interpolation resulted in the convenient formula that embodies the Trinity as orthodox doctrine. They obtained ready currency in an ageless critique, perhaps less scrupulous than ours. Their introduction into the sacred text is undoubtedly due to citations of the passages in Tertullian and Cyprian, in which the words occur in close juxtaposition with the holy text. By degrees, as these passages became well known, it came to be believed that the additions were part of the Scripture and thus introduced by later Latin copyists into the Epistle.

---

[1] Steele, Daniel: Half-Hours with St. John’s Epistles, op. cit., p. 136

[2] Lincoln, William: Lectures on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., Lecture VIII, p. 145

[3] Leviticus 8:30

[4] Lincoln, William: Lectures on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., pp. 151-153

[5] From a Homily by A. K. H. B., (Andrew Kennedy Hutchinson Boyd); The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary, op. cit., p. 332

[6] John 17:20ff

[7] 1 John 5:12

[8] Westcott, Brooke F., The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text with Notes, op. cit., pp. 184-185

[9] 1 Corinthians 13:1

[10] Sawtelle, Henry A., Commentary on the Epistles of John, op. cit., p. 57

[11] The Homoöusians was an ecclesiastical party of the fourth century involved in the Arian controversy, believing that God the Father and God the Son are of the same substance.

[12] African bishop Victor Vitensis (born 430 AD)writes the History of the Vandalic Persecution, in which he sets down a Confession of Faith, which Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and the orthodox bishops of Africa, offered to King Hunnerick, a favorer of the Arians, who called upon those bishops to justify the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. In this Confession, presented in 484AD, among other places of Scripture, they defended the orthodox clause from 1 John 5:7 thereby giving the highest attestation, that they believed it to be genuine. Nor did the Arians, that we can find, object to it. So the contending parties of those days seem to have agreed in declaring that passage as authentic.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIX) 01/05/23

^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.

Martin Luther’s printed Bible had the same fate as the written text of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. It passed through numerous improvements and mixed improvements. They modernized the writing system and inflections, obsolete words removed, the division of verses was introduced (first in a Heidelberg reprint, 1568), and the spurious clause of the three witnesses inserted in 1 John 5:7 (first by a Frankfurt publisher, 1574.^[1] Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus and, in many places, conformed to the Latin Vulgate based on an older text. Even in his last edition, he omitted the famous interpolation of the heavenly witnesses.^[2] The Reformer omitted the forgery of the three witnesses in verse seven of the Greek Testament. He only inserted it under protest in the third edition (1522) because he had rashly promised to do so if a single Greek manuscript could contain it.^[3] So this examination of verses seven and eight is not new in Church history, but it may be unknown to many Bible readers today.

Schaff then discusses verse eight. He notes that there are different interpretations of water and blood: First, reference to the miraculous flow of blood and water from the wounded side of the Messiah;[4] Second, the Messiah’s baptism and atoning death; Third, the two sacraments which he instituted as perpetual memorials. Schaff said he would adopt the third view if it were not for “the blood,” which nowhere designates the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and more naturally refers to the shed blood for the remission of sins.[5]

The passage on the three heavenly witnesses in verse seven quoted as proof for the doctrine of the trinity is now generally rejected as a medieval copiest’s note written in the margin as well as external grounds; for John would never have written: “the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,” but “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.”^[6] So then, notes Schaff, Calvin says that the Eucharist is the sacrament of redemption and sanctification. The Messiah “came by water and blood” to purify and redeem. As the third and chief witness, the Spirit confirms and secures the witness of water, blood, baptism, and the eucharist. Augustine called them “the fountain of our sacraments.”^[7] It reminds me of the old hymn that reads:

            There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel’s veins.

                And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains:

                Lose all their guilty stains, Lose all their guilty stains.

                And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains.[8]

Anti-evolutionary creationist Gospel preacher, Robert L. Dabney (1820-1898) makes note that the much-contested passage in 1 John 5:7-8 is certainly too doubtful as to its genuineness to use against the adversaries of the Trinity; however, we may believe that the tenor of its teaching is agreeable to that of the Scriptures elsewhere.^[9]

After contemplating John’s train of thought, William Kelly (1822-1888) asks, what is the meaning of bearing witness “in heaven?” When you weigh the thought, is it not only unscriptural but pure folly? How could there be such a need or fact as to “bear witness in heaven?” The natural residents in heaven are angels who never needed witnesses brought to them. They were elect and holy. In their case, a witness is unnecessary. The fallen angels are irreparably lost, having left their first estate, some delivered to chains of darkness, yet others allowed, like Satan, to accuse the saints whom they tempt and to deceive the whole inhabited earth. Neither is the witnessing for them. The spirits of the saints gone to rest awaiting their resurrection, what possible witness can they require? On earth, witnesses are needed and are given by God’s grace because worldly people are steeped in darkness and lack the truth. Pilate only expressed the ignorance of all the world in his question, what is truth? He was being impractical and, like most, did not wait for the sure answer. None could find it out unless God gave competent witnesses, and here they are, His three witnesses, “The Spirit, the water, and the blood.”

Kelly then points out that the Apostle John had more to say in a few but pregnant words. “For three are those that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.” It will be noticed that the order in verse seven is here reversed in verse eight. Historically, it was the blood, water, and Spirit sent from heaven in honor of the Messiah’s redemption to give the saints the abiding Paraclete and spread the glad tidings universally in God’s power, though working through mankind. So, God gives three testifiers, which agree in one testimony, but in spiritual fact, the order is “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.” Of course, literally speaking, the personal witness is the Holy Spirit, and He too is the present living power. The water and the blood are but figuratively called witnesses and are personified. But the Holy Spirit is a trustworthy person in the Godhead, and one of His special functions, like the Son’s, is to bear witness on earth, He of the Messiah of God and the Father. “And it is the Spirit that bears witness because the Spirit is the truth.”^[10]

Familiar with John’s writing style, William B. Pope (1822-1903) states that if the disputed words in verses seven and eight were genuine, they would, in their present position, be unconnected with the context. It would be making a sudden ascent to the testimony borne by the three Persons of the Trinity in heaven or from heaven to the Incarnate Son. First, by the Father generally and at the great crisis of the history of the Redeemer. Then, by the Son to Himself in His exalted estate. Finally, by the Holy Spirit in the administration of redemption. These heavenly Witnesses have but one testimony, to which the testimony of God in verse nine refers. Then the three witnesses on earth in relation to that divine testimony would end up becoming “the witness of mankind.” Their testimony would be to the perfected Gospel of the ascended Lord under the influence of the Spirit. They would also give witness to the baptism of our Lord and our baptism, to the finished atonement and the sacramental commemoration of it. It introduces a very disruptive abruptness into the Apostles John’s narrative.

However, without these words, the sense runs smoothly. The Spirit now takes precedence as being still the one and the only witness who bears the testimony throughout revelation and in the history of the Christian, He continuously bears witness to the Messiah by facts gathered about His baptism “in water” and “in blood.” The Spirit also testifies to the effects of faith in the Messiah’s name as the dispenser of pardon and spiritual renewal. They have been made three, and two of them personified as witnesses who agree as one on the supreme importance of the anointing of the Messiah’s human nature by the Holy Spirit and the pouring out of His blood. If there is an allusion to the “two or three witnesses” by which truth is established, that allusion is very faint. The apostle hastens to say that the three-fold witness converges to one fact, that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God, faith in whom overcomes the world.[11]

With precise spiritual discernment, William Alexander (1824-1911) lays aside the controversy of whether verse seven was inserted from the margin or flowed from the Apostle John’s pen. Combining it with verse eight reflects the witnesses that identify Jesus as the Messiah – those in heaven and on earth. No doubt, behind this, are these words of Jesus: “Your laws say that if two people agree on something that has happened, their witness is accepted as fact. Well, I am one witness, and my Father who sent me is the other.”^{[12] [13]} With its apparent obscurity and famous added words, this passage demands some additional notice. As to criticism and interpretation. (1) Critically. Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), in his celebrated work Diatribe in locum 1 John v. 7, 8, (1806), stated that opinion has become unanimous in agreeing that the words are spurious and should therefore be eliminated from the Sacred Text.

Even the famous Roman Catholic scholar Johann Martin Augustin Scholtz (1794-1882) boldly dropped the disputed passage from the text in his great critical edition of the New Testament (1836). The interpolated passage certainly has no support in any Greek manuscript, ancient version, or Greek Father of the four first centuries. (2) As to interpretation, the faith has lost nothing by the honesty of her wisest defenders. The whole of the genuine passage is intensely Trinitarian. The interpolation is nothing, but an exposition written into the text. The three actual witnesses do point to the Three Witnesses in Heaven.

With meticulous Greek text examination and confirmation, Johann Bengel (1687-1752) expressed the permanent feeling of Christendom, which no criticism can do away with, by saying: “This triune array of witnesses on earth is supported by and has above and beneath it the Trinity, which is Heavenly, representative, fundamental, everlasting.”[14]

With holiness doctrine expertise, Daniel Steele (1824-1914) agrees with the experts who say that the last part of verse seven and the first part of verse eight are not genuine. Not a single Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth century, nor quoted by any of the Greek or Latin fathers in the third, fourth and first half of the fifth centuries, when scholars most fiercely debated the doctrine of the Trinity. These verses are first found near the end of the fifth century in the Latin version and occur in no other language until the fifteenth century. It is supposed to have been, at first, a marginal comment. This marginal comment was probably copied innocently by some scribe who assumed they belonged in the text. It is called a “gloss.”

---

[1] Ibid. Vol. 7, p. 269

[2] Ibid. p. 277

[3] Ibid. pp. 316-317

[4] John 19:34

[5] Hebrews 9:22; cf. Matthew 26:28

[6] Schaff, Philip: History of the Christian Church, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 800-801

[7] Ibid., Vol. 8, pp. 478-479

[8] There is a Fountain, written by William Cowper, based on Zechariah 13:1, published in 1772

[9] Dabney, Robert L. Systematic Theology. Unknown. Kindle Edition

[10] Kelly, William: An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, op. cit., pp. 363-367

[11] Pope, William B., The International Illustrated Commentary on the N. T., Vol. IV, op. cit., p. 38

[12] John 8:17-18; cf. 3 John 1:12

[13] Alexander, William: The Holy Bible with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, op. cit., pp. 341-342

[14] Alexander, William: Expositor’s Bible: The Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 272

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LVIII) 01/04/23

^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.

But what about the Spirit’s witness within us, which fits with the witness of the water and the blood outside us? Jesus showed Himself to be Messiah “by means of” (dia) the water and the blood. The “one” (ev) marks the sphere, substratum, and element in which the proof was provided. The Apostle John’s emphasis that it was not by water alone is directed against the Cerinthians, who held that Jesus did suffer on the cross, but the Messiah did not. John asserts that the same Jesus to whom the Divine testimony came at baptism received the Divine testimony when His life mission was completed on the cross. He has the testimony of both the water and the blood, and the inward witness of the Spirit seals the double testimony. That’s because the Spirit is truth – Better, the truth; truth in perfection; His inward witness can be trusted,

Tuck then focuses on verse eight and tells us that it is a repetition of verse six for the sake of emphasis. It is the power that overcomes the World. It is usual to limit thought to faith as the power that ensures our victory over our surroundings. Still, if this paragraph is used in connected thinking with Jesus the Messiah, John explains as faith that overcomes the world. The belief in the Sonship of Jesus links us to Him, makes us God’s sons like Him, and brings us the victory of obedience and submission, which He won. It is understood that the second part of verse seven is treated as an insertion by some later hand to support a particular theory – the worldly idea of overcoming the World.[1]

John Stock (1817-1884) points out that the Church receives the translation of Scripture from the original languages with all confidence. They were influenced by eminent scholars with great learning and conscientious care. Our authorized Bible (KJV) was also examined by the labors of a great linguist who collated it with one hundred Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts of the Bible. They stated that their version was faithful, and although some words might be altered, the sense of those words was faithfully retained. Therefore, the English translation of the Greek is accurate, and various readings leave its testimony unchanged so that the doctrine remains fixed and unchanged.

Now, as to verses seven and eight in chapter five here in John’s epistle, it is admitted that many Greek manuscripts do not have it as translated; yet others did. Also, some of the most learned scholars affirmed that the argument favored the version we have in our Bible. Thus, we gladly and thankfully join the labors of these servants of God and will comment on these verses without any further mention of the controversy. Whether they are rejected or retained, it does not affect the blessed doctrine of the Trinity in Unity to any degree. For throughout the Scriptures, the three-in-one principle is correctly understood and provided for our consolation and edification.

The Apostle John mentions the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit in verse seven of the KJV, as combined to bear witness to establish the truth because of two or three witnesses.[2] The Father bore witness to His Son, which was a greater witness than that of John;[3] and affirmed Him to be His beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased: [4] and it is He, who draws everyone to His Son for salvation; who unless He was God’s Son, could not save us.[5] The Word, even our Lord, bore witness to Himself, as the Messiah,  Son of God; and received, without hesitation, divine honors from those who saw His glory: and works. He also bore witness of Him that the Father had sent Him and was one with Him.[6] And the Spirit, who is God, by His inspired Word, and by His acts, bears witness to the Lord Jesus, whom He glorified; and by whom He was declared to be God’s Son with power by the resurrection from the dead. Now, these three bear record in heaven where our Lord was, even when on earth.[7] The testimony is one and glorifies the Lord Jesus.[8]

John then tells us in verse eight that there are also three that witness – the Spirit, the water, and the blood on earth. The Spirit upholds the preaching of the truth as it is in Jesus,[9] and the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy,[10] who bears witness to His word by making it efficient to raise the spiritually dead, convert and sanctify the soul. The water in the sacrament of baptism for those who are sacramentally then buried with the Messiah by baptism unto death,[11] the blood sprinkled on the faithful,[12] which testifies to the cleansing virtue of the Messiah’s blood, through which alone comes the remission of our sins: and which cleansing, all indispensably require; to rise with the Messiah to newness of life;[13] whose blood is not only typified in the fountain of regeneration; but in the cup, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper which blessed Sacrament sets forth all the principles of our faith. He also declares how He gave His life as a ransom for us[14] and testifies of the Father’s love in giving and sending His only begotten Son who knew no sin to be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.[15] God’s Son taking on our humanity to atone by His death for our numerous offenses, which we receive through repentant faith; the Holy Spirit renews the soul for obedience.

Thus, the testimony in heaven and on earth concur, and it is inexcusable if we neglect so great salvation or suffer its glad tidings to save us from us, who cannot then escape from the wrath to come. How marvelous is God’s loving-kindness towards us! Visibly and invisibly, He cries, “Hear, My People!”[16] God is sending to us His confirmed Gospel and raises a succession of servants to keep shining its light, both officially and in the ordinary walks of life. God then offers us sacraments to provoke thought, induce questions, conduct us into His fold to confirm and comfort us. Then, by His servant John tells us, “If we receive the witness of men, that of God is greater.” That affirmation comes next to be considered and is fresh evidence of how kindly God considers and seeks to remove our heart’s sinful tendency of unbelief.[17] ^[18]

With an inquiring spiritual mind, Johannes H. A. Ebrard (1819-1893) raises the question of the genuineness or spuriousness of the fiercely contested words in the last part of verse seven and the first part of verse eight. But most past and present scholars have spoken against their genuineness – however, some venture to defend it. First, if we go to the original Greek text, we find that not one Greek manuscript includes these words from the sixteenth century. Only four Greek manuscripts of the sixteenth century contain the clause. But of these four, one (Codex Bavianus) is a copy of the Complutensian Polyglot; another (Codex Britannicus) seems to have taken the words from the Latin Vulgate, and that is an imperfect translation and assume that they also received the interpolation from the Vulgate. Second, as it respects the older versions (Peschito, Arabic, Coptic, Æthiopic, and Latin, down to 600 AD), they do not contain any more than the ancient codices. Third, among the early church scholars, none of the whole body of the ante-Nicene writers include the clause, except Cyprian. Even more curious is that those same Fathers never address these words as original or inserted into the text.^[19]

As a respected ecumenical leader, Philip Schaff (1819-1905) relates that Eucherius, bishop of Lyons (380-450 AD), wrote a short manual of medieval hermeneutics titled, The Book of Spiritual Intelligence in the middle of the fifth century. With a studious monk’s spiritual insight, Bede the Venerable (673-735 AD) often quoted this work, which was sometimes erroneously ascribed to him. Eucherius shows an extensive knowledge of the Bible and the Holy Spirit. He anticipates many favorite interpretations of medieval commentators and mystics. In the last chapter, he treats the symbolical significance of numbers: 1 = Divine Unity; 2 = the two covenants, the two chief commandments; 3 = the trinity in heaven and on earth (he quotes the spurious passage 1 John 5:7-8); 4 = the four Gospels, the four rivers of Paradise; 5 = the five books of Moses, five loaves, five wounds of the Messiah;[20] 6 = the days of creation, the ages of the world; 7 = the day of rest, of perfection; 8 = the day of resurrection; 9 = there are nine spiritual gifts of God, such as Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge, Faith, Healing, Miracles, Prophecy, Discernment, Tongues, and Interpretation; 10 = the Commandments; 11 = the Disciples after Judas Iscariot’s death 12 = the original Disciples and the tribes of Israel.^[21] So this was the subject of investigation at that time.

Then Schaff jumps to the 15th century, when the free critical spirit, the Revival of Letters, motivated pioneers in the realm of exegesis. Laurentius Valla (c. 1406–1457) was one of the most influential humanists of his time. In his Elegantiae linguae Latinae, an advanced handbook of Latin language and style, he gave the humanist program some of its most cutting and combative forms, bringing the study of Latin to an unprecedented level.  He criticized the Latin versions because they had many faults, including 1 John 5:7-8. Erasmus went further when he left the spurious passage about the three witnesses out of his Greek New Testament,1516, though he restored it in the edition of 1522.^[22]

---

[1] Tuck, Richard H., The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary, op. cit., p. 329, 331-332

[2] 2 Corinthians 13:1

[3] John 5:36

[4] Matthew 17:5

[5] John 6:44

[6] Ibid. 10:30

[7] John 3:13

[8] Romans 1:4

[9] Psalm 51:12

[10] Revelation 19:10

[11] Colossians 2:12

[12] Exodus 24:8

[13] Romans 6:4

[14] Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6

[15] 2 Corinthians 5:21

[16] Cf. Psalm 78:1; 81:8

[17] Ibid. 3:12

[18] Stock, John: An Exposition of the First Epistle General of St. John, op. cit., pp. 421-423

[19] Ebrard, Johannes H. A., Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., 324-325; 329-331

[20] John 20:25

[21] Schaff, Philip: History of the Christian Church, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 488

[22] Ibid. p. 667

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LVII) 01/03/23

^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 noted Christian intellectual, Christopher Wordsworth (1807-1885) mentions that the earliest author by whom these words in verse seven are clearly cited is Vigilius Thapsensis (born 370 AD)[1] at the close of the Fifth Century. Further evidence is added in a statement of the evidence on this subject in the editions of Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693-1754, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), Johann Schulz (1730-1823), and Konstantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874). But no one needs to be disturbed by their non-appearance in new translations. Many other Scriptures have established the Doctrine of the Trinity, and by the unanimous voice and practice of the Church, especially in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. Jesus ordered that all be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.^{[2] [3]}

With an inquiring mind, Daniel D. Whedon (1808-1885) states that most Bible scholars agree that the last half of verse seven and the first half of verse eight are not genuine, being a late insertion and not the words of the Apostle John. They are omitted in all Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century, all the Greek fathers, and many Latin fathers. They are lacking in the early editions of the Latin Vulgate. The text was never used by the Orthodox fathers of the early Church in defending the doctrine of the Trinity against Arius. That doctrine was established in the Church without any aid from this text. It is not needed for that purpose now, and it cannot be justifiably quoted as proof in that discussion.

Whedon also notes that the three words, Spirit, water, and blood, are masculine, implying persons, indicating thing or substance. Therefore, it is no uncertainty about the reason that Augustine found an indication of the Trinity in these words. The Greek words “My Father and I are one” are similar, where “one” is neuter. For Augustine, the water represents the Father, the author of our regeneration; the blood epitomizes the atoning Son; and with the Spirit, witness on earth to the Messiahship of Him that came. These three are also ever-present witnesses in the Church through the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist.

Then John, by saying these three agree as one in the original Greek are, “the three into the one they are” converge into a unit. It can hardly be questioned that there is an intended correspondence between these words and those in John’s Gospel.[4] There, John states with great emphasis that he beheld and testified that marvelous blood and watercame from the Savior’s side. He viewed that water and bloodas witnesses to the fact that the dying Jesus was indeed a Savior by atoning blood and purifying water. Similarly striking are John the Baptizer’s words attesting to the Spirit’s testimony of the divine Sonship. “I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.”[5] We derive solemn proof from all this that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper are a perpetual institution of the Church, bearing recordwith the Spirit that Jesus is our permanent propitiation and sanctification. The Eucharist “shows forth the Lord’s death until He comes.” And the baptismal commission extended “to the end of the world.”[6] ^[7]

In line with Apostle John’s conclusion, Henry Alford (1810-1871) notes questions about the genuineness of the words read in at the end of verse seven have been discussed, as far as external grounds are concerned. The debate made it clear that unless pure impulse is to be followed in the criticism of the sacred text, there is not the shadow of a reason for supposing them to be genuine. Even the supposed citations of them in early Latin Fathers have now, on closer examination, disappeared. But, nevertheless, something remains to be said on internal grounds, on which we have full right to enter now that the other is secured. And on these grounds, it must appear, on any fair and impartial consideration, that the words are 1) alien from the context: 2) in themselves incoherent and betraying another hand than the Apostle John’s.

We must appreciate the context employed in presenting the reality of the substance of the faith which overcomes the world, even of our eternal life in Jesus the Son of God. First, it is shown by a threefold testimony, subsisting in the revelation of the Lord Jesus, and subsisting in us His people. And this testimony is the water of baptism, the blood of atonement, and the Spirit of truth, concurrent in their witness to the one fact that He is God’s Son and that we have eternal life in Him. Now by the insertion of the words “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one,” who cannot see unless prejudice has blinded their eyes, that the context is disturbed by the introduction of an irrelevant matter?^[8]

As a faithful and zealous scholar, William Graham (1810-1883) points out that the three heavenly and earthly witnesses mentioned in the seventh and eighth verses form the celebrated text and are subject to fierce and bitter discussion. Graham then states convictions. 1) Nothing can be proved out of the internal evidence either for or against its genuineness. The passage seems packed and perfect without these words, yet, when inserted, the meaning is scriptural and apostolical. The apostle might have written them, for they contain nothing which cannot be proven from other passages of sacred Scripture. Therefore, I’m afraid I altogether must disagree with the dogmatism and presumption of Lücke, who says, “Either these words are spurious, and the rest of the epistle a genuine production of John, or they are genuine, and the epistle belongs to a much later period.” 2) There is insufficient ground for retaining these words in the sacred text. So far as it is known or examined, the evidence is entirely against their genuineness. Therefore, our jealous adoration for the Word of God should make us reject them, at least until they produce new confirmatory evidence.

What, then, is the meaning of the passage, asks Graham? It is this; there are three witnesses to the divine sonship or Messiahship of Jesus. They stand in perpetuity as memorials and monuments to the truth of the Christian religion. They are the Spirit, water, and blood. The mention of water applies to the ordinance of baptism, which He instituted, as a standing memorial of His truth. Next, we find accompanying evidence in His command to baptize all nations in the name of the blessed Trinity as the promise of His perpetual presence. Then with blood also as a witness, we see His atoning death on Calvary as a testimony to the truth and reality of His Messiahship and its blessings sealed in the believer’s heart. Furthermore, in the ordinance of the Last Supper to all ages and nations are His unspeakable love to mankind. Thus, we have the Holy Spirit with His signs, wonders, and manifold operations, along with the water and the blood proclaiming the fulness and completeness of the work of redeeming love by God’s only Son.^[9]

With the zeal of a scriptural text examiner, William E. Jelf (1811-1875) states that the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Divine mission of our Lord as God’s Son ties in with the circumstances of His baptism and death points to His character as a witness. If the Holy Spirit had not given this witness, the baptism and death would only have been facts in our Lord’s work. But now His baptism, in which He solemnly was dedicated to the task, and His death, whereby He accomplished the work of redemption, testify to His Divine office as the redeeming Son of God. Christians may use it to confirm their faith in this doctrine. If John had not baptized Him, He might have taken this office on Himself instead of being sent by the Father. If He had not suffered on the cross as He did suffer, the work of redemption might have been the result of His teaching on each man’s soul, and therefore personal trust in Him as the atoning Redeemer would not have presented itself to the Christian’s soul.

The real value of our Lord’s baptism and death may be estimated by our Lord appearing on His mission without openly professing His mission from God in submitting to the baptism of John and dying quietly as other men died. We should then understand why John emphatically speaks of them as corroborative witnesses to His divine mission, the primary evidence, however, of which is the witness of the Spirit. Whether we look at the beginning of Jesus’ mission or the working of the Spirit in His miracles, the Divine character of His person and mission is definitely and distinctly presented to us to produce the faith that overcomes the world. Jelf then adds that the words “these three agree in one” in verse eight either express their unity or the aim or purpose or “tend to one thing.” The latter perhaps is the better of the two, unless the disputed words in this passage are retained, when the former will be more suitable to the context.[10]

Highly respected for his service to understanding Greek biblical manuscripts, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891) was a New Testament Textual critic and a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee (1881-1885). He says candidly, “It is hard to believe that 1 John 5:7 was not cited by Cyprian;”[11] and again, “The African writers Vigilius of Thapsus (at the end of the fifth century) and Fulgentius (circa 520) in two places expressly appeal to the three heavenly Witnesses.”^[12]

After checking the text closely, Richard H. Tuck (1817-1868) notes that verse seven is appropriately omitted in the King James Version (1611). It was probably inserted to meet the difficulties of the Trinitarian controversy. “By water and blood” – are distinguishing marks of evidence. Water symbolizes our Lord’s baptism, blood, of our Lord’s cross, passion, and sacrifice. Observe, these stand at the beginning and close of His ministry and present us with His whole life. He was declared the Son of God by the Divine voice at His baptism. He was reported to be God’s Son by His resurrection when His ministry on earth was completed. So, these two things become the grounds of our faith in Him.

---

[1] Vigilantius was a presbyter of Comminges (region in Southern France) and Barcelona, Spain, known for his protests of superstitious practices in the Roman Catholic Church.

[2] Matthew 28:19

[3] Wordsworth, Christopher: New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Vol. II, p. 123

[4] John 19:34-35

[5] John 1:34

[6] Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:26

[7] Whedon, Daniel D., Commentary on the New Testament, op. cit., p. 278

[8] Alford, Henry: The Greek Testament, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 503

[9] Graham, William: The Spirit of Love, op. cit., pp. 323-324.

[10] Jelf, William E., Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John, pp. 72-73

[11] Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage and an early Christian writer, many of whose Latin works are extant. 

[12] Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, op. cit., p. 859

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LVI) 01/02/23

^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.

Rothe then goes on to verse eight and points out that we must reject the standard English text words between verses seven and eight. They are lacking in more significant Greek manuscripts. Luther omitted them in his German translation, and they found their way into some editions a considerable time after his death. Exegetical reasons also are decisively opposed to their authenticity. They break the connection of the whole passage, which becomes apparent as soon as we remove them.

Nevertheless, these confirming elements furnish a convincing authentication of the Messiahship of Jesus. John shows this is the case by pointing to the fact that there are three legitimate witnesses (the number required before a human court).[1] Indeed, there are three thoroughly harmonious witnesses. He means that the testimony he appeals is, even when regarded in a human manner worthy of the credit went, attested to by three witnesses who thoroughly agree.^[2]

A staunch crusader against immorality, Henrich A. W. Meyer (1800-1873) quotes Martin Luther, who said about verse seven: “It appears as if this verse was inserted by the orthodox against the Arians, which, however, cannot suitably be done because both here and there John speaks not of witnesses in heaven, but of witnesses on earth.” With this, most modern commentators agree. If we consider the contents of the whole Epistle, connecting the three heavenly witnesses with the three earthly ones may depend on something that appears in the Epistle. Still, it does not follow that the concept is suitable or even necessary for this. It is not the case here; neither what follows nor immediately precedes is connected by “that bear record.” There is not the slightest reference to such a witness of the Trinity.

There are clear and intelligible grounds in the preceding verse for presenting the three witnesses: Spirit, water, blood, but not for putting forward the three witnesses: the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit; this trinity appears quite unprepared to be such witnesses in heaven. But the sequel is also opposed to it, making it incomprehensible. What is meant by the “witness of God” in verse nine?” Is it the three in heaven or the three on earth? We might add that these two different classes of witnesses appear somewhat unconnected. Indeed, it is said these three witnesses agree in one, but not in what relationship the three in heaven and three on earth have to one another. Besides, however, the idea is utterly obscure, for what are we to understand by a witness in heaven?[3]

According to Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), Andrew Fausset (1821-1910), and David Brown’s (1803-1897) way of thinking, verses seven and eight are a treasure chest full of genuine and imitation gems. It involves those made in heaven and on earth. First, they examine the heavenly jewels – three witnesses that tell us about Jesus: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. These three witnesses agree. It is more than an idea; the Law requires two or three witnesses to constitute adequate testimony. So, they examined Greek manuscripts in search of the words “in heaven,” the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one. They found the words “in heaven” written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text. Then, as early as the eighth century, it was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, need only be carried out on earth but not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted “in heaven” was inappropriate. Here on earth, the context requires the witness of the Spirit, water, and blood. No one in heaven needs convincing that Jesus is God’s Son, the Messiah.[4]

With noticeable spiritual comprehension, Henry Cowles (1802-1881) says we should note that the words put in brackets: “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” are unquestionably illegitimate. No other important manuscript contains them; none of the ancient versions have them. They utterly lack the authority required to place them in the sacred text. No modern critic, versed in such questions, defends them as genuine. These words lack external (historical) authority and are entirely out of place in the Apostle John’s argument. He is here producing the testimonies for the Messiah, which are manifest on the earth, before human eyes; not those which supposedly might be spoken in heaven. For, it may well be asked, what have his readers to do with the latter? And how can it be pertinent to ask them to believe in Jesus on the strength of witnessing testimonies to Him which are seen or heard only in heaven?^[5]

With his lifework well-illustrating, the biblical and reformation ideal of the pastor/theologian Robert S. Candlish (1807-1873) notes that the faith, which is “the victory that overcomes the world,” has for its object Jesus, viewed as God’s Son. However, this faith does not simply contemplate Jesus as the Son of God, dwelling exclusively on His original and eternal sonship manifested in His human nature. It must deal with His work as well as with His person. It deals with him as “come in the flesh into the world.” And in particular, it involves two accompaniments of His coming, two distinguishing features characteristic of the manner of His coming and its design. First, He arrived through the elements, not of water only but also blood.

So, in His coming, He is “Jesus the Messiah, the Anointed Savior,” and it is our faith in Him as the Son of God coming by or with water and blood, which is the victory that overcomes the world. This triumph was proven when they pierced His side on the cross, and “out came blood and water.” (As mentioned before, Candlish unadvisedly attributes this event as part of the Messiah was seen coming by water and blood. He could not have come by blood – signifying the crucifixion before His baptism). So, therefore, “He [John] that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth so that you might believe.”[6] So John writes in his Gospel, very emphatically giving us his testimony, as an eyewitness, for a ground of our faith.

The Apostle John is cautioning us, believers, to beware of the temptation of evil spirits. Instead, receive the testimony of the Spirit of truth. These thoughts and misgivings, so dishonorable to God, impede the purpose of grace and harm everyone whose return to God they arrest. They are from the father of lies and are as false as he is. He may give them some air of plausibility so that, if possible, he may confuse more and more the question of a person’s relationship with God and the footing on which we are in union with God to make us give up the care of our salvation as hopeless. But we must see that they are contrary to the plain testimony of the water and the blood, for these witnesses speak emphatically to the fullness of God’s grace and the foundation He established for our peace and holiness.

So, even when we are tempted to yield to the inferences of Satan, are we not conscious of other thoughts? Sometimes we don’t realize that this hesitating and halting unbelief is an unworthy way of greeting God’s overtures so that we might at least make it possible for our soul to depend on His faithful promises. It is the Spirit of Truth that bears witness. Therefore, put the matter to an experimental test; commit yourself to the Messiah, of whom the Spirit testifies, as having blood, precious blood, to take away all guilt and water from His wounded side to wash away all guilty stains.[7] For it is in this way of actual trial that you will have the witness of the Spirit, which is the witness of God. Consequently, the peace that flows from the settlement of this controversy by a simple acceptance of His mercy brings relief that we are justified in His sight.

It follows then; we can lay aside all reservations and entrust our way, in darkness and distress, to Him by surrendering our soul, body, and spirit into His hands. Furthermore, by His love in our hearts, the growing clearness of our views of His character, and the enlargement and elevation of our soul for His service, we will understand with increasing clarity the consenting testimony of the three witnesses: the Spirit, water, and blood.  Then through faith in that testimony, we will overcome the world. For no commandment of God will ever be a burden to us if it comes to us in the power of the Spirit and through the channels of the water and blood.[8]

Without overlooking crucial points, Johann E. Huther (1807-1880) says that through the witness of the Spirit, water and blood also attain witnesses’ position, in order by the weight of this threefold testimony to confirm the truth that the Son of God, who is identical with Jesus, is the Messiah. The connection with this revelation is explained by the fact that the circumstance strengthens the truth of the statement of the Holy Spirit that it is not He alone that bears witness, but that with Him the water and blood bear witness also to the atonement.

As several commentators suppose, it is uncertain whether the Apostle John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known legal rule. It is not to be deduced from the present that water and blood are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments; for by means of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of the Messiah is permanently present so that the baptism and death of Jesus – although belonging to the past – prove Himself constantly to be the Messiah who makes atonement for the world. Huther continues by pointing out the participle (witnessing), instead of the substantive (the spirit and the water and the blood,) emphasizes more strongly the activity of the witnessing and that (these three are one). All these three expressions have the same meaning.^[9]

---

[1] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16

[2] Rothe, Richard: Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John, op. cit., The Expository Times, April 1895, pp. 327-328

[3] Meyer, Heinrich A. W: Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, op. cit., loc. cit.

[4] Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Testament Volume, op. cit., p. 729

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

[6] John 19:34-35

[7] Isaiah 1:18

[8] Candlish, Robert S., The First Epistle of John Expounded in a Series of Lectures, op. cit., pp. 460-473

[9] Huther, Johann E., Critical and Exegetical Handbook on the General Epistles, op. cit., pp. 610-611

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LV) 12/30/22

^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: that Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son.

Orme tells us a writer in The Edinburgh Review[1] was disappointed that the “Fear of the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the Socinians on the other, appears to have persuaded the half-hearted authorities of the Church of England to retain this known interpolation in a version which was to be the sole appeal of the uninformed. And we cannot consider it creditable to our Church, notes Orme, that this spurious passage is annually read to the laity in the Epistle for the First Sunday after Easter and in one of the lessons on Trinity Sunday. Orme then concludes with the following article on “The Ethics of Editorship,” by a writer whose name, he imagined, would command universal respect: ^[2]

“It is difficult to decide how far a received text ought to be altered upon the discovery of its incorrectness. And with regard to the text of the Scriptures, this question becomes one of great delicacy and importance.… But what shall we say of a passage like 1 John 5:7, in which all competent judges concede that there is an interpolation and which many persons omit when they read the context in public. Do not truth and honesty require that such a passage should be struck out of our English Bibles, a passage which Luther would not express in his translation, and which did not creep into the German Bible until nearly fifty years after his death? Would the shock of its insertion in brackets, or of its disappearance from our version, do as much harm as the display of Christian honesty and of true reverence to the genuine word of God would do good? We suggest that a number of biblical critics of approved character for orthodoxy should move in this matter and demand at least a careful consideration of this text. We cannot but believe that the state of the case is so plain as to admit of but one conclusion. And we cannot think that anything would prevent the change from being effected, but an unworthy timidity, which is neither Christian nor upright.”[3]

In his captivating teaching style, Jewish convert Augustus Neander (1789-1850) says that the Apostle John offers three tokens, by which Jesus as the Son of God has revealed Himself, indicating at the same time three combined relationships, in which Jesus presents Himself to the Christian consciousness, as the One incarnate Son of God. While John offers three tokens, the Spirit, water, and blood by which Jesus as the Son of God is revealed, his object was to combat those who, like Cerinthus, did not recognize the connection of the divine and human in the Messiah. Furthermore, they did not see the unity of His divine person, life, and ministry, thereby severing the union of God and man. Therefore, in their view, the Messiah descended from heaven and was the true redeeming Spirit. Thus, they separated Jesus, who in their opinion was a mere man, and with whom, as a man, this higher Spirit connected itself at His baptism. The dove, which then descended upon Him, they regarded as a symbol or embodiment of this Spirit. Subsequently, this Spirit, through the man Jesus revealed the hidden God and announced divine truth; it bestowed on Him the power of working miracles; but before his Suffering, it forsook Him and withdrew again into its own higher regions.

As to the Jews, says Neander, the crucifixion continued to be an offense. They could not understand the mystery of His sufferings; suffering had, in their conception, no place in the work of redemption. They could acknowledge a divine teacher and minister, but not a suffering Messiah. To them, the life of the Messiah was not a divine-human life form from the beginning. On the contrary, the Divine, whereby distinguishing Jesus from all other messengers of God, had at some definite point of time suddenly taken up its temporary abode in Him and in like manner departed from Him. In the servant form of the incarnate Son – from His birth to the crowning point of passion in suffering and also of His moral glory – was something that they could not comprehend.

Consequently, instead of recognizing the high in the low, they divided the high from the low. To combat such thinking, John declares Jesus the Messiah, as revealed not merely in water at His baptism but also in the blood caused by His Suffering on the cross. By water, we must not here understand, as some have done, the baptism instituted by him. It is the baptism to which he submitted; at which, the dignity of Jesus, as the Son of God, shone forth in the manner described by John in his Gospel. Since the blood has immediate reference to the person of Jesus, being the designation of his Suffering, the water also must designate something which has a personal connection to Himself, namely, His baptism. Accordingly, there is one reference to His baptism and Suffering – that it was the same Jesus who manifested Himself as God’s Son, the Messiah, in His baptism and Suffering. Both must combine to make Him known as God’s Son; both belonged to His redemption work.^[4]

After spiritually analyzing John’s conclusions at this point, Gottfried, C. F. Lücke (1791-1855) says that the standard reading of verse seven has been doubted as authentic since the time of Erasmus and Luther and appears to be demonstrably spurious. No result of modern criticism is more specific than that this passage is not part of the Apostle John’s original text since these words are to be found only in two insignificant Greek manuscripts (the Codex Montfortianus or Britannicus). These date from the beginning of the 16th century in the Codex Ravianus, a mere copy of the uncritical text, but do not occur anywhere else, neither in any Greek Manuscript, nor any of the ancient versions, nor even in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, which are of an earlier date than the 10th century, In addition, these words are never noticed by any of the Greek fathers, not even the most modern, no, not even by those who never overlooked even the most constrained and unlikely places for the doctrine of the Trinity, and who were satisfied with areas that had no proof force whatever.^[5]

Without using complicated language, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) states that no passage of the Final Covenant has given rise to so much discussion regarding its genuineness as verse seven. The supposed importance of this verse on the doctrine of the Trinity has driven the debate to a degree of consequence for examining the authenticity of no other passage of the Final Covenant. On the one hand, the clear testimony that it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity has made that portion of the Christian church, which holds the principles in the highest degree, hesitant to abandon it. But, on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage. Hence, it is not consistent to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort.

The Apostle John briefly examines the question, “are they real?” [The disputed portions of the passage are in brackets] in the following quotation, as it stands in the standard editions of the Final Covenant: “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; these three agree as one.” Therefore, if we omit the disputed passage as spurious, the whole verse will read, “For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” Thus, the reason for omitting the spurious bracketed passages should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings are briefly the following:^[6]

Barnes then points out the portion, “And there are three that bear witness in earth.” We must omit part of the text if the reasoning above is correct. There is no reference to the fact that it is done “on earth.” And these three agree on one thing; they make the same point that Jesus is God’s Son. God appoints all as witnesses of this fact, and all harmonize in the testimony given. John does not say that there are no other witnesses to the same thing, nor does he even say that these are the most important or decisive. However, he says these are essential witnesses and are entirely harmonious in their testimony.[7] ^[8]

With impressive theological vision, Richard Rothe (1799-1867) suggests we consider two things when interpreting verse seven: first, what thought is expressed, and second, how this verse is related to verse six. As to the opinion expressed, it largely depends on how we take the particle connecting the two clauses of the verse. If we translate verse six, “and the Spirit bears witness that the Spirit is the truth,” we have a clear and correct thought. (the idea, namely, that the Spirit has the immediate and absolute certainty of its truth and reality), but which does not fit in at all with the context. For what John says here as having witness borne in its favor is not the reality of the Spirit, but that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. If, however, we translate, “and the Spirit bears witness, that the Spirit is truth,” the clause fits in admirably with the context. It states the reason why the Spirit can provide a valid testimony. The reason assigned, moreover, is a literal truth. In virtue of this idea, the Spirit alone is an actual spiritual being.[9]

Hence John writes, “it is the truth.” Being thus the truth, the Spirit, which Christians find experimentally in themselves, is the ultimate anchorage of their absolute certainty as to this Christian consciousness. It is as such that John presents it here precisely the same way we have already found him doing in other parts of the Epistle.[10] The Spirit spoken of here is the Holy Spirit, which the believing Christian has received from God,[11]  and the Messiah,[12] or more specifically, has been born in them by their being born of God. This Spirit is an actual (not a pretentious) spirit. Hence John here, with a perfect right, names it “the Spirit” and speaks of divine energy as being possessed only by believing Christians and not by the unregenerated.

---

[1] The Edinburgh Review, or The Critical Journal, was a Scottish magazine published from 1802 to 1929, and contributed to the development of modern periodical and standards of literary criticism.

[2] Orme, William: Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, pp. 1, 207

[3] The Rev. Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., President of Yale College, in the New Englander for August, 1852

[4] Neander, Augustus: The First Epistle of John, Practically Explained, op. cit., pp. 285-287

[5] Lücke, Gottfried C. F., A Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 268

[6] Barnes, Albert: New Testament Notes, op. cit., 1 John 5, p. 4879

[7] “Spirit” John 15:26; Acts of the Apostles 2:2-4; 2 Corinthians 1:22; “water” 1 Peter 3:21; “blood” Hebrews 13:12

[8] Barnes, Albert: New Testament Notes, op. cit., 1 John 5, pp. 4882-4883

[9] See John 4:21

[10] Cf. 1 John 3:24; 4:13

[11] Ibid. 4:13

[12] Ibid. 3:24

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIV) 12/29/22

^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: that Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son.

As the words stand in our copies, there is indeed a most abundant concurrence of divine testimonies to the Person and doctrine of the Messiah, pointed out most compactly and energetically. However, it cannot be expected that a question, which has long gained the attention of the most learned scholars in Christendom, be settled so quickly. Even after assigning the above reasons in favor of the authenticity of verse seven, confesses Scott, I am very doubtful whether they are sufficient to counterbalance the arguments of those who think otherwise. We need not, however, be anxious on the subject, as we have scriptural evidence in abundance, without this text, to confirm our faith in one God, subsisting in three co-equal Persons: “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” into whose names we have been baptized.^[1]

At age fifteen, a potential young theologian, Joseph Benson (1749-1821), who started his ministry by preaching in cottage prayer meetings, understands that the Apostle John is speaking of the offices of the Messiah, exhibited as emblems by water and blood and of the witnesses in heaven and earth, that bear testimony to Him and His offer of salvation. It is well known that the authenticity of the additions to verse seven has been a subject of much controversy. Arguments on both sides of the question are taken from ancient Greek Manuscripts, versions, and quotations made by the early church fathers. It applies to the vital doctrine concerning the Messiah, the Son of God, and salvation through Him, with the Spirit, the water, and the blood as witnesses. 

The spirit here, distinguished from the Holy Spirit in verse six, seems to mean – First, that influence of the Spirit, which, peculiarly, attended the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles and first ministers of the Word at that early age of Christianity: together with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which remained with the church for a considerable time. Second, the inspired writers of the apostles and evangelists bearing witness to the doctrine of the Messiah, including the predictions uttered by holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Spirit concerning the coming and character of the Messiah fulfilled in Him.

They include the predictions uttered by the Messiah concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the calamities coming on the Jewish nation. Several other predictions, particularly those concerning the coming of false Messiahs and false prophets, were already accomplished when John wrote this epistle, and the rest, he knew, would soon come to pass. Indeed, the inspired Scriptures, including the prophets’ predictions and the Messiah and His apostles, sealed by their accomplishment, are one grand proof on earth of the truth of Christianity and the doctrine of salvation contained in them.

Christianity is not a forgery but a divine institution. As the water and blood here imply the testimony, the Messiah bore the truth of the Gospel. One of the most important is that Jesus was God’s Son. So, it may represent testimony delivered as the truth by the sufferings of those who sealed it with their blood in different ages and nations. It was strong proof of the conviction they had of its truth and importance and the virtue and excellence of that religion that enabled them to do so. And these three agree in one in bearing the same testimony, namely, that Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son, the Messiah, the only Savior of sinners. Through Him alone, the guilty, depraved, weak, and miserable children of the world can obtain spiritual and eternal life; the testimony specified.^[2]

Straightforward preacher Charles Simeon (1759-1876) advises that anyone who might preach on this subject can use their discretion about the mode of introducing it. If they are perfectly convinced that the highlighted words: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one,” have been added, they can state their views and adopt the text, to show, that, though the words themselves are not authentic, the truths contained in them are scriptural and essential: or they can skip verses seven and eight and go from verse six to verse nine for their text.

There is no record so well proven, worthy of acceptance, or necessary to be believed as God has given for His Son. Upon receiving or rejecting its eternal welfare, all mankind depends on its authenticity. The riches of wisdom, love, and mercy surpass all the comprehension of humans or angels. Concerning its truth, every species of testimony that could be given by friends or enemies, by angels from heaven, by people on earth, yes, even by devils, has been provided in the most abundant degree. But it has been confirmed by other testimony, even by the Three Persons in the most Holy Trinity. How exalted must be the glory which believers will enjoy in heaven!

Therefore, it cannot be conceived that the three Persons of the Godhead would devise such an excellent plan of salvation if the end were not exceedingly glorious. Indeed, all that the Father’s love can formulate, all that the blood of the Messiah can purchase, all that the Holy Spirit can impart, is prepared for us in the eternal world and will be bestowed on us according to our need and capacity to receive it. Yes, in heaven, we will see God as He is and have the brightest discoveries of His glory while we have the wealthiest enjoyment of His presence and love. For we will be witnesses for Him, how far His mercy could reach, what tremendous changes it could bring about, and what blessedness it can bestow on the most unworthy of mankind.[3]

Considering everything the Apostle John has said so far, Adam Clarke (1774-1849) diagrams verses seven and eight this way “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” But, unfortunately, says Clarke, it is most likely that this rendering in the King James Version is not accurate since it is missing in every Greek manuscript of this epistle written before the invention of printing. So, as anyone can see by examining the words if those included in the brackets, which are considered inauthentic, there is still no lack of connection. And as to it making sense, it is complete and perfect without them, and, indeed, much more than with them.^[4]

Not everyone agreed with Clarke’s views on this subject. In response to a letter from Mr. Adam Boyd in 1817, Clarke stated that he had settled the point on the three heavenly Witnesses. He wrote, “After I had written my note on 1 John 5:7, and my dissertation at the end of that Epistle, I looked over Richard Porson’s (1759-1808) work;[5] but I found nothing essential to add to what had been said. I have, however, quoted him and have examined authorities which he never saw.”^[6] [After reading the Preface to Mr. Porson’s book, I find it very informative on this dispute among British Bible scholars].

So it is evident that Adam Clarke was not afraid of what others thought on touchy subjects such as the seventh verse. He mentions his comments at the end of this chapter. They are too lengthy to quote here, but which begins this way: The seventh verse of the fifth chapter of 1 JOHN has given rise to more theological disputes than any other portion of the sacred writings. Advocates and antagonists have arisen in every quarter of the civilized world: but the argument has been principally confined to the Unitarians of all classes and those called Orthodox, the former asserting that it is an interpolation and the latter contending that it is a part of the original text of St. John. It is contended that (one excepted, which shall be noticed by and by) all the Greek MSS. written before the invention of printing omit the passage in dispute.^[7]

Clarke follows this with his comments on verse eight concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Clarke that this verse is supposed to mean “the Spirit” – in the Word confirmed by miracles; the water – in baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and the Holy Spirit,) typifying His spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature; and the blood – represented in the Lord’s Supper, and applied to the consciences of believers: and all these harmoniously agree in the same testimony, that Jesus the Messiah is Divine, the complete, the only Savior of the world.”^[8]

William Orme (1787-1830), a noted Scotch clergyman born at Falkirk, Scotland, wrote a book on the subject of the heavenly witnesses in heaven. He begins by saying that the controversy over verse seven in chapter five of the Apostle John’s First Epistle has been ongoing from the commencement of the Reformation. It involves whether the testimony of the three heavenly witnesses from a theological, critical, or literary point of view is crucial. It involves one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, embraces some of the most outstanding issues in biblical criticism, and has brought scholars with the most exceptional talents and learning into the field. But, happily, Bible scholars now discuss the subject objectively. Both opposers and supporters of the disputed passage agree that whichever conclusion is come to, the doctrine of the Trinity remains unaffected.

---

[1] Scott, Thomas: Commentary on the Holy Bible, pp. 407-408

[2] Benson, Joseph: Commentary on the Old and New Testament, op. cit., p. 346

[3] Simeon, Charles, Horae Homileticæ, Vol. XX, Discourse 2465, pp. 531-537

[4] Clarke, Adam: Wesleyan Heritage Commentary, op. cit., Hebrews-Revelation, pp. 395-397

[5] Porson, Richard: Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in answer to his defense of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John V. 7, T. and J. Egerton, Whitehall, London, 1790

[6] Clarke, Adam, Supplement of Illustrative Passages from Dr. Clarke’s Correspondence, Ch. 30, The Three Witnesses, p. 390

[7] Clarke, Adam, Commentary on the New Testament, Hebrews to Jude, op. cit.,

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