Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIII) 12/28/22

^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.

The water in the baptismal rite signifies the Messiah’s rising from the grave and, as a pledge of our resurrection to eternal life. In the Lord’s Supper, the blood commemorates the Messiah shedding His blood for the remission of sin. Wherefore, the gift of eternal life follows the forgiveness of sin; the blood is a continual witness on earth that God has given us everlasting life through His Son.^[1]

After skillfully scrutinizing the Apostle John’s theme, John Brown of Haddington (1722-1787) says, of these three, the first we have the One whose glory is in heaven, who sent and still bears testimony to the incarnate Savior as the true Messiah – the Father. Then we have by repeated declarations from heaven and being raised from the dead – the Son. Finally, by repeated confirmations of His divine and mediatorial character, and by authoritative instructions and unnumbered miracles wrought by His power, visibly descending on Him at His baptism, and by being sent at His request, after His ascension, to spread His name, kingdom, and glory in the world there is the Holy Spirit.

These three, with distinct personalities, in a manner that infinitely transcends our most enlarged conceptions, are not only equal in power and glory, but essentially one being, and substance: one God, in distinction from and opposition to the many pretended deities of the heathens and others. Meanwhile, on earth, the miraculous gifts and saving graces of the Holy Spirit; the spotless purity of the Messiah’s human nature, His holy doctrine, and ordinance of Christian baptism; Jesus’ blood is represented in His supper and applied to the consciences of believers – harmoniously approved Him as the divine, complete, and only Savior of sinners.^[2]

The one they called “self-promoting intellectual theologian,” Nathanael Emmons (1745-1840), Pastor of a church in Franklin, Massachusetts, declares that the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is not offensive to sound reason.  Brown then attempts to show what conceptions the Scriptures offer to direct us to form a concept of divine existence.

1) The Scripture leads us to conceive of God, the first and supreme Being, as existing in three distinct persons. The one living and true God exists in such a manner that there is a proper foundation in His nature to speak of Himself in the first, second, and third person, and say I, Thou, and He, meaning only Himself. There is something in the Divine nature that lays a proper foundation for such a personal distinction. But what that something is can neither be described nor conceived. Here lies the whole mystery of the Trinity.

2) The Scripture represents the three persons in the sacred Trinity as equal in every Divine perfection. We find the same names, the same attributes, and the same works ascribed to each person. 3) The Scripture represents the three equally Divine persons in the Trinity acting in a particular order in the work of redemption. Though they are equal, the first person is superior to the second in office, and the second is superior to the third. The Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit is subservient to the Son and Father. 4) The Scripture teaches us that each Divine person takes His peculiar name from the particular office He sustains in the economy of redemption. The first person assumes the name of Father because He is, by the office, the Creator or Author of all things, especially of the human nature of the Messiah. The second person assumes the name of Son, Word, and Light by His incarnation and mediatorial conduct. The third person is called the Holy Spirit because of His specific office as Sanctifier. 5) The Scripture represents these three Divine persons as one God. These express the text’s plain language. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in respect to their personality and one in respect to their nature and essence.

This Scriptural account of the mysterious doctrine of the sacred Trinity is not offensive to the dictates of sound reason. 1) The doctrine of the Trinity, as represented in Scripture, implies no contradiction. For all we know, there may be an incomprehensible something in the one self-existent Being that lays a proper foundation for existing as a Trinity in Unity. 2) If it implies no contradiction that the one living and true God should exist in three persons, then this mysterious mode of the Divine existence is agreeable to the dictates of sound reason. We cannot suppose that the uncreated Being should exist in the same manner we and other created beings live. And if He exists differently from created beings, then His mode of existence must be mysterious. And whoever now objects against the Scripture account of the sacred Trinity would have equally opposed against any other account which God could have given of His peculiar mode of existence. 3) The doctrine of the Trinity, as represented in Scripture, is no more distasteful to the dictates of sound reason than many other doctrines which all Christians believe concerning God.

It is generally believed, explains Emmons, that God is a self-existent Being or that there is no cause or ground for His existence. But who can explain this mode of reality or even form any clear conception of it? Again, Christians believe in an omnipresent God. But can we frame any clear ideas of this universal presence of the Deity? Furthermore, believers do not doubt that God is the Creator, who has made all things out of nothing. But of that power which can create or produce something out of nothing, we can form no manner of conception. Therefore, this divine attribute is as mysterious and incomprehensible in its operation as that of a three-in-one Trinity.^[3]

Let me reiterate here what I said in chapter two in explaining the Trinity to a seminary student. I started by describing the smallest unit of matter in our universe – the “atom.” The atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Thus, the protons and the neutrons constitute the center of the atom, called the nucleus. These particles rotate around the core in a small cloud. The electrons carry a negative charge, and the protons emit a positive force. In a typical (neutral) atom, the number of protons and electrons is equal. If you separate any one of these particles, it ceases to be an atom. If you make one more massive than the others, it will not be a stable atom. And yet, all three together are called an “atom.” They never leave each other; they work together in perfect harmony; by touching the atom, you contact them all. So, no matter where the Father is, the Son and the Spirit are also present. And wherever the Son is, the Father and Spirit are present. And, wherever the Spirit is, the Father and Son are present. How does all this work? You can ask God someday.

For example, a man with a heartfelt friendship with hymn writer^[4] John Newton (1726-1807), Thomas Scott (1747-1821) contends that the authenticity of the humanity of the Messiah in the disputed verses seven and eight have driven its most able opposers to absurdities. Such people have principally labored to invalidate those texts that seem most explicit on this subject. However, we could prove our doctrine concerning the Incarnation, even if we set aside this evidence. For this reason, it would be easy to offer one testimony, which is decisive, if genuine, because its authenticity has been so much disputed. However, a short specimen may show with what success they have labored, who deny the Deity of the Messiah as a human. The psalmist said, speaking of the Messiah: “Your throne, God, will last forever and ever; you rule your kingdom with a scepter of equity. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy in preference to your companions.”[5]

To evade the obvious inference from this text, it has been said that the words could be rendered, “God is Your throne forever and ever.” We read that heaven is God’s throne, and the earth is His footstool;[6] but whoever thought of God being a throne, on which a creature was to reign into eternity? Instead of “God was manifest in the flesh,” some might render it, “You were manifested in the flesh,” in which case God must be the forerunner, as the context shows, and the sense remains precisely the same.[7] Still, others suggest it read “which (mystery) was manifest in the flesh.” Naturally, then, this mystery must dominate all the subsequent clauses in this verse. But whatever may be thought of the other proposition “which mystery was received back into glory” will rarely accept this as the language of inspiration by any who do not prefer orthodoxy over nonsense.^[8]

In another essay, Scott states that it may be easy to say that three-in-one cannot be possible; and then to show that the absurd tenet they would attempt to persuade people to hold is self-contradictory. But suppose we choose not to quote the much-contested text of verses seven and eight as an authority. In that case, we may indeed use it as expressing our sentiments: “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these Three are one.” Now let anyone in logical form prove if they can, that these words involve a fundamental contradiction: but till this is done, let no man mistake confident assertion for demonstration.^[9]

Scott also comments that it is doubtful whether these two verses connect with so much respectability that it would change the Apostle John’s message if the contested words were omitted. The Spirit bears witness because the Spirit is truth: for there are three “that bear record, the Spirit, the water, and the blood.” There seems to be a remarkable repetition and a want of the apostle’s usual energy in the passage: and it does not appear evident for whatever reason. However, the two great ordinances of the Final Covenant are outward signs of sanctification (water) and justification (blood). Yet, nothing should be hinted, concerning the testimony of the Father from heaven the Messiah, as His beloved Son.

---

[1] Macknight, James: Apostolic Epistles with Commentary, Vol. VI, pp. 111-113

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

[3] Emmons, Nathanael: The Biblical Illustrator, Vol. 22, First Epistle of John, op. cit., pp.423-424

[4] Newton, John: Composer of “Amazing Grace,”

[5] Psalm 45:6-7 – (45:7-8) Complete Jewish Bible; Cf. Hebrews 1:8-9

[6] Isaiah 66:1

[7] See 1 Timothy 3:15-16

[8] Scott, Thomas: Theological Works, op. cit., Essays on the Most Important Subjects in Religion, Essay VI, On the Deity of Christ, p. 206

[9] Scott, Thomas: Theological Works, op. cit., Essays on the Most Important Subjects in Religion, Essay XIII, On the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit, with some Thoughts on the Doctrine of the Sacred Trinity, p. 253

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LII) 12/27/22

^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: Jesus the Messiah is God’s Son.

A man longing for renewal, Jewish poet, theologian, and physician Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Levi (1075-1141), penned the finest Hebrew verse written in the Middle Ages, saying, “Behold the mystery of the One who numbers, the number He gives, and the One’s He numbered. In the bosom of God, it is one; in the bosom of mankind, it is three. He weighs rebuke with His understanding, and speaks with His mouth, and writes with His hand.” It was usual with the ancient Jews to introduce Yahweh saying or doing anything in this manner. It is a rule in my house of judgment, says Rabbi Levi, that wherever it reads, “and Yahweh said,” it is intended for everyone there. Also, Rabbi Rashi frequently uses this phrase to explain texts involving a plurality in the Godhead.^[1] He comments on the words spoken by Yahweh: “Let there be a separation in the middle of the waters; let it divide the water from below from the water above.”^[2] Although the heavens were created on the first day, they were still moist, and they solidified on the second day at the admonition by the Holy One, blessed be He, when He said, “Let there be separation.”

The Scripture also says, “The pillars of heaven tremble, aghast at His rebuke.”^[3] They trembled on the first day and second day: “They were astonished by His censure, like people who stand in astonishment because of the disapporval of the one who frightens them.” In the middle of the water, there is a separation between the upper waters and the waters on the earth. Behold, you have learned that they are suspended by the king’s word.

And we also read that God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and overall, the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”^[4] It is to be observed, says Rabbi Judah Levi, that a house of judgment, or a Sanhedrim, among the Jews, never consisted of less than three. They also wrote “Yahweh” with three Yods, in the form of a triangle, y y y as representing the three divine Persons: one of their more modern writers has this observation on the blessing of the priest:^[5] these three verses begin with a Yod, in reference to the three Yods which we write as the name “Yahweh, for they have respect to the three superior things.” We can see this clearly in the Jewish translation: ‘Y’varekh’kha Adonai v’yishmerekha. [May Adonai take care of you.] 25 Ya’er Adonai panav eleikha vichunekka. [May Adonai make His face shine on you and show you, His favor.] 26 Yissa Adonai panav eleikha v’yasem l’kha shalom. [May Adonai lift His face toward you and give you peace.]^{[6] [7]}

Now, all of this may seem somewhat scrambled with all the Hebrew words and Jewish exposition. But to make it more transparent, with the three Yod letters, it gives rise for Christians to say: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Also, on the Kabalic Tree of Life, you will notice that in the first three numbers, the middle one (number two) is a characteristic of the teachings of our Lord Jesus. Not only that, but when Jesus hosted the Last Supper, which is a replica of the Jewish Seder Meal at Passover, He did what any Jewish host would do with the Matzah flatbreads on the table. He followed what the Jewish Haggadah instructed, “The master of the Seder breaks in two the middle of the three wafers of unleavened bread on the platter, wraps up the larger half in a cloth and sets it aside for the afikomen (“That which comes later.”)[8]

Jesus called it His body. So it was that after He died on the cross, they wrapped Him in a linen cloth for burial. But what came later was His resurrection. Furthermore, the Jewish Shema speaks of Adonai making His face shine upon us and showing us His favor. No wonder the Apostle John called Him the Light. So, you see that Christianity was not separate from Judaism; it is the Amplified Version of Judaism. Those stuck in the old version are still waiting for Messiah to come, while those in the Amplified Version believe He was already here and is coming back.

With all the Apostle John’s themes in mind, John Wesley (1703-1791) tells us in his journal that on Sunday, May 1, 1775, he felt led to preach on 1 John 5:7: “There are three that bear record in heaven.” The congregation was exceedingly large but more abundant in the evening. “I never saw the God’s House so crowded before, he exclaimed.” It was much the same the following evening.^[9] The sermon Wesley preached talked about words, that there are ten thousand mistakes that may consist of natural religion, which every candid, considerate person will think and let think. But there are some truths more important than others.

It seems there are some which are of profound importance. He said he would not term them fundamental truths; because that is an ambiguous word. Hence there have been so many warm disputes about the number of fundamentals. But indeed, there are some which nearly concerns us to know, as having a close connection with vital religion. And doubtless, we may rank among these in First John 5:7. Wesley did not imply that it is essential to believe this or clarify these words. I know not that any good judging person would attempt to explain them at all.

Wesley then tells us that one of the best tracts which that great man, Johnathan Swift (1667-1745), ever wrote, was his Sermon upon the Trinity.[10] Herein he shows that all who endeavored to explain it have utterly lost their way; above all, other persons hurt the cause they intended to promote, having only, as Job speaks, “darkened counsel by words without knowledge.” It was in an evil hour that these explainers began their fruitless work. I insist upon no clarification at all; no, not even on the best I ever saw; I mean, that which is given us in the creed commonly ascribed to Athanasius. I am far from saying he who does not ascend to this will, without doubt, perish everlastingly. But, for the sake of that and another clause, I, for some time, scrupled subscribing to that creed; till I considered (1) That these sentences only relate to willful, not involuntary, unbelievers; to those who, having all the means of knowing the truth, nevertheless obstinately reject it: (2) that they relate only to the substance of the doctrine there delivered; not the philosophical illustrations of it.

For Wesley, this is true, especially when we consider that what God was pleased to reveal in his mind is far from being a point of indifference; it is a truth of the most importance. It enters the very heart of Christianity: It lies at the core of all vital religions. Unless these Three are One, how can “all men honor the Son, even as they honor the Father?” “I know not what to do,” says Italian theologian Fausto Socinus (1539-1604) in a letter to his friend, with my unpleasant followers: “They will not worship Jesus the Messiah.” Did not Moses say, “Let all the angels of God worship Him?”[11] The answer is, “However that may be if He is not God, we dare not worship Him. For it is written, ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord your God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’”[12] But I mainly mean this: Entwined with true Christian faith and vital religion is the knowledge of the Three-in-One God.^[13]

With scholarly meditation and reflection on the text, James Macknight (1721-1800) notes that the authenticity of this verse has been the subject of much controversy in modern times. However, the arguments on both sides of the question, taken from ancient Greek manuscripts and versions and quotations made by the early church Fathers, have been stated with superb reliability and accuracy.[14]

Macknight then speaks about the role of the Spirit. However, in this verse, the three mentioned in verse six as being witnesses are said to bear witness a second time to Jesus, namely, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; it is no repetition: because the water, the blood, and the Spirit in verse eight are different from the water, the blood, and the Spirit, in verse six. Therefore, the thing witnessed by them is indifferent. And this is perhaps the reason John mentions these witnesses in a different order in the two verses.

As the Spirit inspired the apostles and evangelists with the knowledge of the Gospel, it motivated them to record God’s promise of eternal life through His Son. So now, the Spirit by who inspired their writing, may with great propriety be said by them to bear continual witness on earth to the great truth that God gives us eternal life through His Son. And that is not all. The Spirit may be said to bear witness continually to the same truth by His influence in the minds of believers, those dispositions by which they become the children of God and heirs of eternal life.[15] Hence they are said by John to have the witness in themselves.

When it comes to the witness of the water, the rite of baptism regularly administered in the Christian church to the end of the world, witnesses continually on earth that God has offered us eternal life through His Son. For, baptism being instituted in commemoration of the Messiah’s resurrection, and to be an emblematical representation of our resurrection, the continued administration of it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is a solemn assurance of our obtaining eternal life through the Son. So the Apostle Paul informs us.[16]

---

[1] The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter One, Chabad.org

[2] Genesis 1:6-7

[3] Job 26:11

[4] Genesis 1:26

[5] Numbers 6:24-26

[6] Numbers 6:24-26 – Complete Jewish Bible

[7] Gill, John: Exposition of the Entire Bible, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] The Passover Haddadah With Hebrew and English Translation on Facing Pages, Nahum N. Glazer (Ed.), Schocken Books, New York, 1953, p. 21

[9] Wesley, John, The Works of, Vol. 4, Journals, Monday, September 13, 1773-Sunday, October 24, 1790, p. 48

[10] Swift, Jonathan, Works of, Vol. 10, M. Brown, Printer, St. John’s Square, London, 1801, pp.19-31

[11] Deuteronomy 32:43

[12] Ibid. 6:13

[13] Wesley, John: Sermons on Several Occasions, op. cit., Sermon 55, On the Trinity, pp. 574-569

[14] Macknight, James: Apostolic Epistles with Commentary, Vol. VI, pp.107-111

[15] Romans 8:16

[16] Ibid. 6:4

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LI) 12/26/22

^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: Jesus is the Messiah God’s Son.

With a spiritually contemplative mind, Matthew Henry (1662-1714) asserts that we are all defiled by the power and pollution of sin in our nature. Our cleansing is in the Messiah Jesus through the washing of regeneration and renewing the Holy Spirit. Some think that the two sacraments here meant: baptism with water, as the outward sign of renewal, and purifying from the pollution of sin by the Holy Spirit, and the Lord’s supper, as the outward sign of the Messiah’s shed blood on the cross and accepting Him by faith as our Savior for pardon and justification.

It is important to remember that water and blood in traditional Jewish sacrifices and purifications also represent elements of our salvation. Our souls are washed and purified by the Water of Life from heaven and living in the Light. We are justified, reconciled, and presented righteous to God by the blood that satisfied the curse of the Law and obtained the purifying Spirit for the internal cleansing of our nature. He loved the Church and sacrificed Himself so that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word; He might present it to Himself a glorious bride.[1]

Such cleansing and sanctification are found in the Savior’s declaration and by God’s Spirit, who cannot lie.[2] Three bore witness to these doctrines concerning the person and the salvation of the Messiah. First, the Father repeatedly, by a voice from heaven, declared that Jesus was His beloved Son.[3] Next, the Word said that He and the Father were One[4] and that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father, and the third is the Spirit who gives witness that all of this is true.[5]

Then there are three testimonies to the doctrine taught by the apostles, respecting the person and salvation of the Messiah. 1) The Holy Spirit. We come into the world with a corrupt, carnal disposition, which is enmity to God. Doing away by the regeneration and new-creating of souls by the Holy Spirit is a testimony to the Savior. 2) The water: this demonstrates the Savior’s purity and purifying power. His disciples’ actual and active purity and holiness are represented by baptism. 3) The blood He shed: and this was our ransom, this testifies for Jesus Christ; it sealed up and finished the sacrifices of the First Covenant. The benefits procured by His blood prove that He is the world’s Savior. No wonder those who reject this evidence are rightly called blasphemers of God’s Spirit. These three witnesses are for the same purpose; they agree on one thing – Jesus is God’s Son.^{[6] [7]}

Thomas Pyle (1674-1756) was an Anglican priest who opposed Roman Catholic absolute monarchy and favored a parliamentary system. He heard the Apostle John saying that in all the controversies about human affairs, the positive testimonies of two or three credible witnesses are sufficient to determine the truth in any court: and the Jews allowed it by their law to be so. So that the evidence of Jesus being the true Messiah, the Messiah, the Word, and God’s Son who died upon the cross, is, according to their notions, established beyond all contradiction. For, as in heaven there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; so do the three testimonies of water, blood, and Spirit of the Messiah, while He was upon earth, concur in the full demonstration of this great truth. These powers and miracles of the Holy Spirit incontestably show that the Father sent Him, and the Son came into the world for the salvation of all mankind.^[8] Therefore, it is not that Pyle ignored the controversy over the questioned portions of verse seven but that it did not take away from the truth.

With meticulous Greek text examination and confirmation, Johann Bengel (1687-1752) notes that bearing witness, used instead of witnesses, implies that the act of providing witness, and the effect of the testimony, are always present. Earlier in verse six, the Apostle John spoke of the spirit, in the neuter gender, the spirit that bears witness. Now, in verse seven, he says in the masculine gender; there are three who bear witness. To be bearing witness is appropriately applied to persons only: and the fact that three are described, by personification, as witnesses on earth, just as though they were persons, is admirably adapted to the personality of the three who bear witness in heaven; but yet neither the spirit (that is the truth of the Gospel), nor the water, nor the blood, are persons. Therefore, John advancing from verse seven to employs a figure of speech, adapted to the briefness of the discourse, to say this: There are three classes of men,[9] who discharge the office of bearing witness on earth as follows:

First, witnesses were ordained to preach the Gospel. Secondly, in particular, that class of witnesses who administer baptism, as John the Baptizer and the others. Thirdly, that class of witnesses who beheld and put on record the passion and death of the Lord. There is, therefore, a figure of speech of the most weighty kind: namely, one wherein (a) by using one name to represent the whole class of witnesses, as though it were said, a prophet, baptist, apostle: for although these three functions might often meet in one man, yet of themselves, they representative of many of the same kind.[10] On that account, using an attribute or office for the thing meant is the more suitable. The degrees of these three functions are found in the Gospel,[11] where the word prophet is used in a more restricted sense. (b) So, those who testify as eye-witnesses, ministers, or the Spirit, with the water and blood, are mentioned as being on earth.[12] [13]

Provider of priceless Christian and Jewish wisdom gems, John Gill (1697-1771) offers an excellent illustration by using the first numbers in the Jewish Kabalistic “Tree of Life”[14] to represent the three divine Persons. (See the chart below) The first is called the crown, which no creature can comprehend. For the Christian, this describes the Father.[15] The second is labeled wisdom, illuminating the crown of creation, the brightness of equal unity, exalted above every head. He is titled, by the Kabalists, as “the second glory.”[16] To believers, this is the Son of God. The third is termed understanding and is the foundation of ancient wisdom, called the worker of faith; He is the parent of faith, and from His power, faith flows. For those born again, this represents the Holy Spirit.[17]

Now they say, notes Gill, that these three first numbers are intellectual and are not “properties” or “attributes,” as the other seven are. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai says, “of the three superior numbers, it is said, ‘God spoke once, I have heard it twice.’”[18] Thus, strength belongs to God, states Rabbi Simeon. So, the superior numbers of whom it is said, one, one, three ones, and this is the mystery of “God spoke once, I have heard it twice.”[19] It has the ring of the “three-in-one” aspect of the Christian Trinity.

	1. Crown
3. Understanding	6. Harmony	2. Wisdom
5. Strength	9. Foundation	4. Lovingkindness
8. Surrender	10. Manifestation	7. Victory

---

[1] Ephesians 5:25-27

[2] John 6:44

[3] Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17

[4] John 10:30

[5] 1 John 5:6

[6] Henry, Matthew: Concise Commentary on the Bible, op. cit., p. 2059

[7] Burkitt, William: Expository Notes, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 736-737

[8] Pyle, Thomas: A Paraphrase of the Epistles of the New Testament, op. cit., pp. 400-401

[9] 1 John 5:9; cf. John 5:34

[10] Cf. Ephesians 4:11

[11] Matthew 11:9, 11

[12] 1 John 5:8

[13] Bengel, Johann: Gnomon of the New Testament, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 145-146

[14] Kabbalah provides you a map for understanding the how and why of things happening in your life. The “Tree” comprises eleven energies that flow from the infinite to the finite (similar but distinct from the Chakra system). These energies, collectively called Sefirot, are guides to discovering how to move your creativity to actualization and force behind what happens in your life and the lives of others.

[15] Cf. John 1:18

[16] Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:24; Hebrews 1:3

[17] See 1 Peter 1:2

[18] Psalm 61:11; (12) in the Complete Jewish Bible

[19] Gill, John: Exposition of the Bible, 1 John, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson L) 12/23/22

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

Also, in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), we read this question, “Since there is but one only divine essence,^[1] why do you speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?” The Answer reads: “Because God so revealed Himself in His Word, that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.” Then in the footnotes, they list 1 John 5:7 as Scriptural backing for their statement. So even by this medieval date, this verse was not under such suspicion that they chose to delete it.^[2]

As a firm spiritual disciplinarian, John Owen (1616-1683) comments that saints have this communion distinctly with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as outlined in verse seven.[3] The Father and Son are mentioned jointly in this communion – the Father solely, the Son also, and the Holy Spirit singerly. The saints’ reward in all worship is manifested to each person – Faith in the Father[4] and love towards Him.[5] So, in prayer and praise, it is likewise with the Son[6] and our communion with the Holy Spirit.[7] The truth is also confirmed. And what is it that they bear witness to? The Sonship of the Anointed One and salvation of believers in His blood.

John is trying to tell how God provided this salvation through blood, water, justification, and sanctification. Now, how do they bear witness, especially as three distinct witnesses? When God witnessed our salvation, it was incumbent on us to receive His testimony. And as He bears witness, so are we to receive it. This validation occurs distinctly as the Father gives His approval, the Son testifies with the cross, and the Holy Spirit verifies with power, for they are three distinct witnesses. So, then, are we to receive their numerous testimonies: and in doing so, have communion with them individually; for in this giving and receiving a testimony consists in no small part to our fellowship with them, In which their distinct witnessing will be declared afterward as valid.^[8]

In another paper, Owen says that the sum is that the Holy Spirit is a divine, distinct person and not merely the power nor virtue of God. This manifestation appears concerning Him, for the Spirit is placed in the same series with other celestial beings, without the slightest difference or distinction between them. The Scriptures frequently called Him by that name proper to a heavenly person. Nevertheless, the Spirit also possesses personal properties and is the voluntary author of individual, sacred operations, and the appropriate object of spiritual worship is a distinct supernatural person.[9]

Now, there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences in administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but the same God “works all in all.”[10] Neither makes a denial of His Holy being, and distinct existence leaves any tolerable sense to these expressions. Let’s read the words from the mind of the Socinians[11] and see what can be gathered from them. They render Matthew 28:19, thus, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father is, and of the Son, and the virtue or efficacy of the Father.” Can anything be more assonant[12] from faith and reason than this absurd expression? Yet it is the immediate sense that these heretics put on the words if it is any.

Also, says Owen, they are clear, complete, and distinctly sufficient for faith to acquiesce in immediately, without any other expositions, interpretations, or arguments, beyond our understanding of the naked importance of the words. Such are they, of the Father [and] the Son. For if those into whose name we are baptized are not one in nature, we are by our baptism engaged into the service and worship of more gods than one. For, as being baptized, or sacredly initiated, into or in the name of anyone, does sacramentally bind us to be holy in obedience to Him, and in all things to the avowing of Him as the God whose we are, and whom we serve, as here we are in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit; so if they are not one God, the blasphemous consequence before mentioned must unavoidably be admitted: which it also must upon the Socinian principle, who seem to contend most for one God, are indeed direct polytheists, by owning others with religious respect, due to God alone.^[13]

Respected Reformation writer Matthew Poole (1624-1679) says that after mentioning the Spirit’s testifying at the close of verse six, John returns to give us in order, in these two verses, the whole testimony of the truth of Christianity, which he reduces to two witnesses. Their testimony is the same as those born of God that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. We arrive at this conclusion based on what was said in verses one and five and what is stated afterward in verse nine. What they believe is none other than what these testify. The first three, in heaven, are not said to signify heaven to be the place of their testifying. Though the same thing concerning Jesus is also undoubtedly testified to the glorious inhabitants of that world, that is not the apostle’s present scope. He wants to show why we, who inhabit this world, believe Jesus to be the Anointed One and the Son of God.

In heaven, therefore, refers to three witnesses. The design represents their immediate testifying in a glorious, heavenly, majestic manner from there to us. So, the Father testified of the man Jesus by a direct voice from heaven at His baptism and transfiguration. The eternal Word owned its union with Him, in that glory with which it so eminently clothed His humanity. Thus, it visibly showed through on the holy mount where the Apostle John was a spectator.[14] And the Holy Spirit also testified, descending like a dove in a visible, glorious appearance, at His baptism. And these three agree in their testimony[15] and in the unity of nature: an express testimony of the triune Deity. However, carelessness or ill design was left out of some copies but sufficiently demonstrated by many ancient ones to belong to the sacred text.^[16]

A young independent-thinking theological sage, Hugh Binning (1627-1691), a Scottish philosopher and Puritan theologian, points to the Jewish Shema[17] and compares it with verse seven. He calls this the great mystery of godliness.[18] Religion and godliness are a bundle of excellent mysteries, things hidden from the world, yes, from the wise of the world.[19] Not only that but the secrets of these mysteries are kept from saints who are distant and absent from the Lord. There is a depth in them, but you will not know it until you research them, and the more you do, the more profound they become. But there are some mysteries, simple and comprehensive. There are differences between them; all are not of one stature of one measure. For example, the mystery of the Anointed One’s incarnation, death, and resurrection is one of the great mysteries of religion – God is manifest in human flesh. Yet, says Binning, there is a more excellent mystery than it, and of all mysteries in nature or divinity, I know nonequal to this – the Holy Trinity.^[20]

Influenced by his Arminian view of salvation, Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) wants to know why the Apostle John separated the Father, Son, and Spirit from the water, blood, and Spirit. For, after all, these three also are one in their testimony, that they confirm this fundamental truth, that Jesus is the Anointed One, the Son of God. It is especially true if we consider what is implied in verse six. Therefore, only the Spirit is called a trustworthy observer out of these three witnesses.[21] The water testifies because while Jesus was in the water, the Spirit descended on Him, and the blood assures us because He was the Lamb of God who came to shed His blood to wash away the world’s sins.[22] ^[23]

Expert on textual criticism, Joannis Millii aka John Mill (1645-1707), English theologian, in his long note at the end of the Apostle John’s first epistle, observes that verse seven is missing in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the Final Covenant except for a few that have come down to us. Likewise, it is lacking in the first Syriac and other older versions, particularly the Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in many present Latin manuscripts. Concerning quotations from early church Fathers, Mill acknowledges that few Greek writers who lived before the council of Nice have cited this verse. The same he observes concerning those who, after that council, wrote in defense of the Trinity, which he thinks shows that this verse was not in their copies.^[24]

From his strategic viewpoint as a biblical expositor and educational pioneer, William Burkitt (1650-1703) believes that the three in heaven who bear witness are the same three who testify here on earth, namely, the three persons in the Holy Trinity – the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. The Father bore witness both at the Anointed One’s baptism and transfiguration also, when with an audible voice He declared, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The Word bore record of Himself, frequently affirming, plainly, and directly, that He was the Son of God and making it manifest that He came from the Father by His doctrine and miracles. The Spirit bore witness to this, by descending on the Anointed One at His baptism in the shape of a dove and by descending on His apostles during the feast of Pentecost in the figure of fiery tongues.[25]

First, we learn that it was not easy to believe the truth of our Savior’s mission and miracles and that Jesus the Anointed One was the essential Son of God. Though every established truth is by the mouth of two or three witnesses, in verse eight, we have no less than three earthly witnesses. Then comes the mystery – these three are one, one in testimony, say the adversaries of the Trinity, but not one in essence. One in both, say we, as one in testimony, so one in essence. But suppose that we grant that the oneness spoken of in the text means united in testimony, agreement,  will, yet will it prove the Godhead of the Anointed One, and the Holy Spirit; for in free agents, where there is the same will, there is a similar nature. With people, it is the same. But with God, because there is only one God, it must be the exact nature. Secondly, we learn that there are three persons, but one God, that bear witness to the divinity of the Anointed One and the gracious redemption He made possible.^[26]

---

[1] Deuteronomy 6:4

[2] Heidelberg Catechism: Lord’s Day 8, Question 24

[3] Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, Ephesians 2:18

[4] 1 John 2:15; cf. Malachi 1:6

[5] John 5:9-10

[6] John 14:1

[7] 1 John 5:7

[8] Owen, John: Of Communion with God: op. cit., pp. 14-15

[9] Matthew 28:19; 1 John 5:7; 1 Corinthians 12:3-6

[10] 1 Corinthians 15:28

[11] Socinian, is a member of a Christian group in the 16th century that embraced the thought of the Italian-born theologian Faustus Socinus. The Socinians referred to themselves as “brethren” and were known by the latter half of the 17th century as “Unitarians” or “Polish Brethren.” 5: They accepted Jesus as God’s revelation but still a mere man, divine by office rather than by nature; Socinians thus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the Socinians’ doctrines was that the soul dies with the body but the souls of those who have persevered in obeying Jesus’ commandments will be resurrected. The Socinians also advocated the separation of church and state, stressed the importance of moral living, minimized dogma, and held that all Christian doctrine must be rational.

[12] Assonant (also called homophone) having the same sound (especially the same vowel sound) such as bare/bear; bore/boar; there/their/they’re; pray/prey; ascent/assent; chord/cord; hoard/horde; peek/peak; allowed/aloud, etc.

[13] Owen, John: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Person and Satisfaction of Christ, op. cit., pp. 49-50; 53-54

[14] John 1:14

[15] See 1 John 5:8

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

[17] See Deuteronomy 6:4

[18] 1 Timothy 3:16

[19] 1 Corinthians 2:6

[20] Binning, Hugh: The Common Principles of the Christian Religion, Lecture XII, The Unity of the Divine Essence, and the Trinity of Persons, p. 64

[21] John 15:26

[22] Ibid. 1:29

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

[24] Mill, John: Novum Testamentum Græcum, Bibeldrucke der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, 1710, p. 578

[25] Acts of the Apostles 2:1

[26] Burkitt, William: Expository Notes, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 736

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLIX) 12/22/22

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

As the Apostle John walked with Jesus, he heard the Pharisees upbraid the Master by challenging Him: “All we have is your word that you are the Light of the world. We need more to go on than this.” Jesus was quick to reply, “You’re right, you only have My Word. But you can depend on it being true. I know where I came from and where I’ll go next. You must decide according to what you can see and hear.”^[1] But after traveling and being with Jesus for over three years, John was ready to be one of those witnesses. All John needed to do was to recall from the texts of the prophets what they had to say. For instance, Isaiah noted that God merely spoke, and the heavens and all the galaxies of stars were formed.^[2] Now they have all creation as evidence of His divinity.

Besides, Jesus testified in the Synagogue in Nazareth that the Spirit of the Lord God is upon Him because the Lord anointed Him to bring good news to the suffering and afflicted. He sent Him to comfort the brokenhearted, to announce liberty to sin’s captives, and to open the eyes of the physically and spiritually blind.^[3] But if these doubters wanted more, John could testify that as soon as Jesus came out of the Jordan River, the skies opened, and he saw God’s Spirit – it looked like a dove – descending and landing on Him. Then, besides the Spirit, they heard a voice: “This is my Son, chosen and marked by My love, the delight of My life.”^[4]

Yet there’s more. When Jesus took them up to a nearby mountain, John was with Peter and James. As they watched, suddenly, His face glowed with brilliant light. His clothes were illuminated. Then they realized that Moses and Elijah were also conversing deeply with Him. Then, a bright cloud came over them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, and I am wonderfully pleased with Hm. Obey Him.”^[5] Therefore, Jesus could tell His critics; You have my word as a witness and the expression of My Father who sent Me as another witness.^[6] Then the Master backs His critics into a corner. If you think I’m merely boasting about Myself, that doesn’t count. But it is my Father – and you claim Him as your God – who is saying these glorious things about Me.^[7]

But Jesus has no plans on turning down the heat. On the contrary, he tells them, you still won’t believe that I’m the Messiah unless I do miracles by God’s power. And when I do, you can at least assume they are authentic, even if you aren’t convinced I’m an honest man. Doing that will help you be confident that the Father is in me and me in the Father.^[8] But another opportunity came for more witnesses to be won to His Messiahship. Some Greeks came to Jerusalem for the Passover. They contacted Philip and told him they wanted to meet Jesus. So, Philip told Andrew they carried the request to Jesus. Jesus responded with a somewhat mystic exclamation, “Now the time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” He looked to heaven and said, “Father, bring glory and honor to Your name.” Then a voice from heaven said, “I have already done this, and I will do it again.”[9] In other words, God does not speak to anyone like that except the Messiah. Hopefully, these doubting Jews will start seeing He is God’s Son. Then they can become witnesses too.

Those who bear witness are three and thus constitute full legal testimony.[10] It will be assumed here, without discussion, that the remainder of this verse and the first clause of verse eight are spurious. Words that are not contained in a single Greek manuscript, nor in a single Greek writing earlier than the fourteenth century (the two which include the passage being translated from the Vulgate), nor are quoted by a single Greek Father during the Trinitarian controversy, nor are found in any authority until late in the fifth century, cannot be genuine.

COMMENTARY AND HOMILETICS

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

With philosophic-theologic intensity, early Church scholar Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) does not address this verse in his commentary.^[11]  Likewise, when Erasmus printed his first edition of the Latin Vulgate (1516 AD), he omitted this verse because it was not in any of the Greek manuscripts he used.  However, it is found in some early manuscripts in the margin before it became part of the main text.

The course Latin of early church writer Tertullian of Carthage (155-220 AD) alerts Bible scholars to his familiarity with Greek idioms and forms of thought. Since he wrote in Greek, there is no reason to doubt that he knew the Greek Scriptures. There is the possibility that we owe Tertullian the dawning of Old African Latin Versions of the Bible, some of which seem to have contained the disputed text here in verse seven. So, in the absence of definite evidence, we must infer that Tertullian usually translated from the Septuagint Version and the original manuscripts of the Final Covenant.^[12]

It appears clear that Tertullian was quoting verse seven when he wrote: These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “My Father and I are One.”[13] However, a Greek expert named Richard Porson (1759-1808) says, “In my opinion, the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John 5:7, furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse.”[14] The conclusion seems that verse seven, as part of Scripture, ought to be left untouched in the Versions where it stands, although it is not part of the Greek Testament.

Not a thinker, philosopher, or theologian, but a sophisticated gentleman with vast energies, Thascius Cæcilius Cyprianus (200-258 AD), bishop of Carthage, better known as Cyprian, begins talking about the spouse of the Anointed One – the Church. She cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. The Church knows one home and guards the sanctity of one intimate relationship with faithful modesty. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. So, whoever is separated from the Church and joined to an adulterous world, is separated from the promises to the Church. Those who forsake the Church of the Anointed One cannot enjoy the rewards of the Anointed One. They are strangers; they are irreverent; they are an enemy. They can no longer have God for their Father if the Church is not their mother. If anyone could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, they may also escape who are outside of the Church. But the Lord warns, saying, “Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters.”^[15]

Cyprian goes on to say that those who break the peace and harmony of the Anointed One do so in opposition to Him; they gather elsewhere other than the Church, thereby scattering the Church of the Anointed One. Again, the Lord says, “The Father and I are one,”^[16]Again, it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”^[17] Does anyone believe unity, which comes from God’s divine strength and is bound in the holy sacraments, can be divided in the Church and separated by parting ways with opposing wills? Those who do not hold this unity do not hold on to God’s law, do not hold the faith of the Father, and the Son does not grasp onto life and salvation.[18] We must remember that the Roman Empire did not become Christian until 313 AD when emperor Constantine declared it so. Therefore, Cyprian is speaking of the Church as the Body of the Anointed One.

Some biblical authorities have attributed the following treatise on rebaptism to the pen of a monk named Ursinus (died 496 AD). He wrote against those who say that heretics should be rebaptized, teaching that it is not legitimate nor honoring God, that those should be rebaptized who have been baptized either in the name of the Anointed One alone or in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. However, the formula has been used in a diminished sense since then. Ursinus said that after the simple confession of the Holy Trinity and the Anointed One, the imposition of the hands of the catholic priest is sufficient for salvation.^[19]

The announcement of John the Baptizer to the Jews, “I baptize you with water. But One who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”^[20] Moreover, the teaching of Apostle John includes, “There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree as one.”^[21] Then there are our Lord’s words: “John baptized people with water, but in a few days, God will baptize you  with the Holy Spirit.”^[22] So, let us be careful so that none may think that we are stirring up the debate on a single article, except among those who fear God, so they maintain a low profile.^[23]

With a studious monk’s spiritual insight, Bede the Venerable (672-735 AD) comments that the Spirit bore witness that Jesus was the truth when He descended on Him at His baptism. If Jesus were not the truth, the Spirit would not have affirmed His Sonship were this not authentic. Likewise, the water and the blood witnessed Jesus is the truth by flowing from His side at the time of His crucifixion. That would not have been possible if He had not taken on a genuine human nature. The water, blood, and Spirit are independent. Yet, their testimony is the same because the Anointed One’s divinity is not to be believed apart from His humanity, nor His humanity to be accepted apart from His divinity. And all three are also present in us. Not in their natural form but by the mystical union of our souls with God. So, the Spirit makes us children of God by adoption. The water of the sacred well cleanses us, and the blood of the fountain redeems us. They are invisible in themselves but made visible for our benefit in the sacraments.[24]

---

[1] Ibid. 8:13-14

[2] Psalm 33:6

[3] Isaiah 61:1

[4] Matthew 3:16

[5] Ibid. 17:1-5

[6] John 8:18

[7] Ibid. 8:54

[8] Ibid. 10:37-38

[9] Ibid. 12:28

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

[11] Clement of Alexandria: Adumbrations, loc. cit.

[12] Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, American Edition, Arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe, cit., p. 621

[13] John 10:30

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

[15] Matthew 12:30

[16] John 10:30

[17] 1 John 5:7

[18] Cyprian: Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church, p.423, ⁋6

[19] Gennadius of Massilia, Jerome, and Gennadius, Lives of Illustrious Men, Ursinus, Ch. XXVII

[20] Luke 3:16

[21] 1 John 5:8

[22] Acts of the Apostles 1:5

[23] A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer. ⁋19, p. 677

[24] Bede the Venerable: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Gerald Bray, ed., op. cit., Vol. XI, p. 224

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVIII) 12/21/22

^5:6 And Jesus the Messiah was revealed as God’s Son by His baptism in water and shedding His blood on the cross – not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with His testimony.

In his unorthodox Unitarian way, Duncan Heaster (1967) comments that the Lord Jesus “came” and that the water and blood flowing from His side represented the gift of Spirit; for by this He “comes” to us.[1] He still testifies by three things – His Spirit [making alive the believer], the water [baptism cleansing us], and the blood [atoning for our sins]. The choice of “three” things doesn’t refer to a trinity – instead, is it the principle of requiring two or three witnesses.[2] The water and blood are mentioned together, and the Spirit is added as if “two or three.” And note how inanimate things are spoken of as giving witness[3] – the three that bear witness don’t refer necessarily to three persons, as the trinity wrongly states. Those things which the Lord enabled, and witnessed through us today, provide the witness to the fact that He “came” in the past and “comes” to us today, in the sense that He “comes” to us through the gift of the Spirit.[4] “Not with the water only” may be a reminder that water baptism alone will not save us; we must be born of water and spirit.[5] ^[6]

Bright scholarly seminarian Karen H. Jobes (1968) notes that the Apostle John stated that God has given “us” the Spirit,[7] and in both occurrences, the presence of the Spirit confirms to the believer that God lives in them and they in God. The presence of the Spirit is evidenced when the believer listens to and accepts the apostolic witness as the truth;[8] any other truth claims inconsistent with that witness are deemed not of God and are, therefore, false. In this way, God’s genuine presence is identified with an objective set of knowledge. The idea of the Spirit living in us originated with Jesus. It was then made a doctrine in the testimony of apostolic witnesses, such as the beloved disciple of John’s gospel and the elder of the Johannine letters. In this sense, the Spirit is the truth, and any truth claim apart from the apostolic teaching cannot be of the Spirit of God. Therefore, the Spirit is the one who bears witness to an individual that the apostolic teaching of the Gospel is accurate and trustworthy.^[9]

^5:7-8 So we have these three witnesses – the Spirit, the water, and the blood – and all three agree.

EXPOSITION

First, let us look at what has caused much controversy among Bible scholars for centuries. The King James Version (KJV) renders these two verses this way: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Meanwhile, the New International Version (NIV) reads: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” The highlighted part in the KJV is missing in the NIV for a very good reason.

It is commonly referred to as the Johannine Comma because it is one of those few passages in the Textus Receptus from which they translated the King James Version (KJV). It has a weak confirmation from other Greek manuscripts in many scholarly circles. The evidence that this passage is missing in most modern English versions of the Bible is primarily due to being found only found in eight out of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that contain the fifth chapter of First John.  Modern textual critics unanimously regarded it as a later scribal revision.

There are well-known and little-known scholars on both sides of the line who impressively argue for inclusion or exclusion.  But history teaches us that the inclusion of this verse was never controversial until translations after the King James Version in 1611. To those who claimed that the Word of God is inerrant and should not be changed, thus knowing that a verse not written by the author of a gospel or epistle could cause serious doubt in the reader’s mind that this verse is the accurate word of God. But this attitude is built mainly on translations rather than the original Greek text.

The only question of whether or not to accept this verse as part of the original writing needs consideration is this: how it affects the belief that the Spirit inspires all Scripture. The truth expressed in this verse is solid and well-founded. Also, it would not be out of character for the Apostle John to write such an endorsement, especially since he began his gospel by saying that in the beginning was the Word. Nevertheless, some critics object to this verse being authenticated as part of the original because it gives a crystal-clear imprimatur to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

While this may be used as a basis for eliminating it from the text in modern translations, it certainly does not mean it should be eliminated from the margin or as a footnote.  There are far too many other Scriptures that make it clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three and that they all have their abode in heaven. Otherwise, Jesus would never have ascended back into heaven so He could ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit to earth to take His place.

This verse has been the source of contention by those representing the “one God” (Unitarian) view, such as the Jews, the United Church of God, the United Pentecostal Church, etc. A biblical scholar who approached the Bible not as the infallible Word of God, but as the record of revelation written by fallible humans Arthur Samuel Peake (1865-1929), the first holder of the Rylands Chair of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis in the University of Manchester, makes this comment: “The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is not printed in Revised Standard Version (RSV 1901) and rightly [so]… No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in the late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally the NT [New Testament] translation of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century].”^[10]

As a matter of fact, verse seven may be regarded as one of the main propositions of the Epistle – that the eternal Son of God is identical to the historical Jesus. The phrase “water and the blood” in verse eight has been given widely differing interpretations. It would be tedious and unprofitable to enumerate all of them. When John’s Gospel[11] is used to support the idea of this being an interpretation of John’s statement, it becomes “the most perplexing incident in the Gospel,” which will probably influence our understanding of this “most perplexing passage in John’s Epistle.” In verse eight, we don’t find a reference to the piercing of the Anointed One’s side and its results, as we see in verse six. Yet, both passages teach similar spiritual truths, for example, the ideas that underlie the two sacraments and guide them by referencing facts in the life and death of Jesus the Anointed One. But the facts are not the same in each case. It is difficult to believe that this passage contains any definite and immediate allusion to what John said in his Gospel. Why, in that case, the marked change of order, “water and blood” instead of “blood and water?” And if some scholars think that this is explained by saying that the Epistle is “the mystical subjective order,” the Gospel “the historical and objective order,” and that whichever one can be used in either place, has not put an end to the difficulties.

If the Apostle John is referring to the outpourings from the Anointed One’s dead body, what can be the meaning of “not in water only, but water and blood”? It was the water, not the blood, that was especially astonishing. And “in,” in this case, seems a strange expression to use. We should have expected instead, “not shedding blood only, but blood and water.” Moreover, how can blood and water flowing from the Lord’s body be spoken of as His “coming through water and blood?” The most straightforward interpretation refers to the baptism of water to which He submitted and passed on to His disciples, raising it from a sign to a sacrament. John the Baptizer came baptizing in water only, [12] but Jesus came baptizing in water and blood, namely, in water which washed away sin through the effectiveness of His blood.

Jesus achieved His work through the baptisms of water and blood, and it is by baptism in these elements that He comes to His followers. Moreover, this interpretation harmonizes with the critical purpose of the Epistle, that is, to invalidate the errors of Cerinthus. Cerinthus taught that the Divine Logos or the Anointed One descended upon Jesus at the baptism and departed again when Jesus was arrested. Cerinthus argued that a natural human was born of Mary, and a mere man suffered on the cross. John assures us that there was no such severance. The Divine Son Jesus the Anointed One came not only by water at His baptism but also by blood at His death. Besides these two abiding witnesses, a third is still more convincing. And that is the Holy Spirit that bears witness (to the Divinity of the Anointed One); because the Spirit is truth. There can be no higher testimony than that of the truth itself.[13]

Perhaps the witness of John the Baptizer and Matthew is the most open and shut case for believing in the Trinity. There we read that John talked about seeing the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending from heaven and resting upon Jesus. I didn’t know he was the one,” John said again, “but at the time God sent me to baptize, He told me, ‘When you see the Holy Spirit descending and resting upon someone ‒ He is the one you are looking for. He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ I saw it happen to this man, and I, therefore, testify that He is the Son of God.”^[14] And Matthew adds a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, and I am wonderfully pleased with Him.”^[15] So here we have the Father speaking out of heaven, His Son has just come out of the water, and the Spirit landed on His shoulder.

Furthermore, after the 120 in the Upper Room received the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, those who heard it kept asking, what is this? What does this mean? That’s when Peter stood up before them and said this is all about Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. God raised Him from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this. Even now, He (Jesus) sits on the throne of highest honor in heaven, next to God (the Father). And just as promised, the Father gave Him (Jesus) the authority to send the Holy Spirit – with the results you are seeing and hearing today.^[16]

And the author of Hebrews asks, do you think we can risk neglecting this latest message, this magnificent salvation? First of all, it was delivered in person by the Master, then accurately passed on to us by those who heard it from Him. Then, all the while, God was validating it with gifts through the Holy Spirit, all sorts of signs and miracles, as He saw fit.^[17]

Anyone with an open heart and open mind will not need any more information than this. But it must all be accepted by faith since God honors faith more than the demand for evidence.  Isho’dad of Merv put this in perspective from his point of view by saying that these three witnesses agree because they all came together in the Anointed One.^[18]  This idea, when extrapolated, shows there is only one sacrifice, one Savior, one way to the Father, one truth, and one giver of eternal life.

---

[1] John 14:18

[2] Deuteronomy 19:15

[3] Genesis 31:45-48; Deuteronomy 31:8

[4] John 14:18

[5] Ibid. 3:3-5

[6] Heaster, Duncan. New European Christadelphian Commentary: op. cit., The Letters of John, p. 70

[7] 1 John 3:24; 4:13

[8] Ibid 4:6

[9] Jobes, Karen H., 1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament Series Book 18), op. cit., p. 221

[10] A Commentary on the Bible by Arthur Samuel Peake, 1919, p. 1038

[11] John 19:34

[12] John 1:31, 33

[13] Ibid. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13

[14] John 1:32–34

[15] Matthew 3:17

[16] Acts of the Apostles 2:32-33

[17] Hebrews 2:3-4

[18] Isho’dad of Merv: Commentaries, loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVII) 12/20/22

^5:6 And Jesus the Messiah was revealed as God’s Son by His baptism in water and shedding His blood on the cross – not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with His testimony.

Earlier, John described the Spirit as “the Spirit of truth,”[1] and in the upper room discourse in John’s Gospel, Jesus similarly defines the Spirit three times.[2] Both here in verse six and in John’s Gospel,[3] the role of the Spirit is to bear witness to the truth about Jesus. In the Fourth Gospel, the Spirit’s testifying role mainly bears witness to Jesus against the world. Here in John’s Epistle, the Spirit’s testifying role primarily bears witness to believers concerning the truth of the message about Jesus that they heard from the beginning.[4] John invokes the Spirit as a witness to the reality of the fact that Jesus came by “water and blood” because he says, “the Spirit is truth.” At a minimum, this constitutes a guarantee of the truthfulness of the Spirit as a witness about Jesus. Still, it may also imply that as truth is personified in God elsewhere,[5] it is embodied in the Spirit in this verse.^[6]

Believing that Christians can fall away from the faith, Ben Witherington III (1951) notes that some Bible scholars conclude that the Apostle John must be rebutting those who forsook the congregation for the world, who maintained that Jesus only came by water. But were there actual opponents who argued that Jesus came by birth or baptism (water) but not by His death or the Lord’s Supper (blood)? Have not these same commentators argued that the opponents were likely Docetics or even Gnostics, in which case they would deny that Jesus came by physical birth or material sacrament? This whole line of argument commits two mistakes: (1) not realizing that the text is out-of-date considering later docetic or even gnostic controversies; (2) it reads far too much into John’s emphatic rhetoric. John is not refuting anyone here; instead, he is affirming his community’s basic views and values: Jesus came by both water and blood – the meaning of which we need to unravel further at this juncture.^[7]

With her crafted spiritual insight, Judith Lieu (1951) comments that the third person term of these confessions, “the one who,” reflects John’s concern to use them as benchmarks for identifying those who truly belong. Already in chapter four, these two patterns were indirectly brought together, at least to the extent of setting “our” specific experience of God’s love in the (Father’s) sending of the Son alongside the affirmation of “the one who acknowledges” Jesus as the Son of God.[8] Despite the apparent demand that Jesus be identified as such, there is only a limited sense of what further ideas or stories, either “Jesus” or “Jesus the Anointed One,” would evoke for John or his readers. Such references as “that one” have shown that they knew something of His life and death[9] but that it was His exemplary or present significance that was of greater impact.[10] This impact, however, would only be effective because Jesus the Anointed One, “having come in the flesh,” is one who unmistakably belongs to the sphere of human experience.[11] ^[12]

Contextual interpretation specialist Gary M. Burge (1952) calls verse six one of the most perplexing verses in all of John’s letters. Without explanation, John uses a somewhat incomprehensible phrase (“water and blood”), which was indeed known among his followers. Three views attempt to explain the passage. (1) Some believe “water and blood” refer to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. The chief problem with this view is singular: John’s interest is not in church ritual but in a historical incarnation. The Johannine schism centers on Christology expressed in history, not on worship. (2) A second viewpoint to while Jesus was on the cross, a spear thrust into His side brought forth “blood and water.”[13] In this sense, John may say that the cross is a significant saving event in Jesus’ life.

This might be important if the secessionists claimed that they were without sin and had no need for ritual cleansing.[14] But one difficulty with this view is the closing phrase of verse six, “not … by water only, but by water and blood.” John is making a counterpoint to some claims involving only (or primarily) water. (3) A third view, held by most interpreters, sees water and blood as summing up the totality of Jesus’ incarnational ministry on earth. Jesus’ baptism (water) and crucifixion (blood) frame His ministry: He was declared the Son of God in the Jordan.[15] He obtained even more power and authority through His glorification at Golgotha. Marshall, for instance, understands that John is refuting a Docetic (or pre-Gnostic) tendency that downplayed a complete incarnation. Some were teaching that the heavenly Anointed One descended on the man Jesus at baptism but departed before He was crucified. Hence, John says, Jesus came not only by baptismal water but also through the blood of the cross.^[16]

Emphasizing the Apostle John’s call to Christian fellowship, Bruce B. Barton (1954) explains that the one who came by water and blood in this context can be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) The phrase “water and blood” refers to Jesus’ death on the cross, when he was pierced, and blood and water flowed out.[17] John witnessed this piercing and asserted the importance of this occurrence. Cerinthus, a false teacher, and the Docetists denied Jesus’ true and lasting humanity. But John saw Jesus shed his blood and die. (2) The phrase “water and blood” could refer to Jesus’ baptism (water) and crucifixion (blood). The word order corresponds to Jesus’ baptism and death.

These were times in Jesus’ life when His authority was most clearly delineated. Cerinthus also said that Jesus was “the Anointed One” only between his baptism and his death—that is, He was merely human until He was baptized. At that time, “the Anointed One” descended upon him but left him before his death on the cross. But if Jesus died only as a man, he could not have taken upon himself the world’s sins, and Christianity would be an empty religion. Only an act of God could take away the punishment that sin deserves. The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of Christ’s life and works[18] because the Spirit is truth. The Spirit’s primary role is to reveal the Anointed One to the believers and affirm Christ’s message.^[19]

With a classical thinking approach to understanding the scriptures, Bruce G. Schuchard (1958) says verse six is the third formalized instance of an equative clause beginning with an attention-grabbing “this is”[20] and marks the beginning of “the one who came by water and blood, Jesus the Anointed One.” There can be little doubt that John used phraseology that was already familiar to his hearers, as represented in his Gospel, where “blood and water”[21] flow from the pierced side of Jesus. Today, however, some two millennia later, John’s terminology is not so readily comprehended. “This” again points forward both to the One whose coming, whose person and work, was itself marked at its apex by “water” and “blood,” and to the nominative of apposition,[22] “Jesus the Anointed One.” In verse six, the demonstrative “this” referent is personal. The first of three references to “water” and “blood” describes the means and the manner of the coming of the man Jesus, the Anointed Son of God, so that we might live through him.[23] Therefore, the sentence offers a historical reference designed to link the interchangeable designations “the Son of God”[24] and “the Anointed One” to “Jesus”[25] in specific circumstances of His earthly ministry as “the coming one.”[26] ^[27]

Great expositional teacher David Guzik (1961) sees the Apostle John returning to a theme he started at the beginning of the letter: the natural, historical foundation for our trust in Jesus the Anointed One.[28] The emphasis was on what was seen, heard, looked upon, and handled – the real stuff, real people, tangible things. As water and blood are natural, so was the coming of the Son of God, Jesus the Anointed One. 1) Some believe that water speaks of our baptism, and blood speaks of receiving communion, and John writes of how Jesus comes to us in the two Christian sacraments of baptism and communion (Luther and Calvin had this idea). Yet, if this is the case, it doesn’t add up with the historical perspective John had when he wrote: “came by water and blood.” He seems to write of something that happened in the past, not ongoing. 2) Others (such as Augustine) believe the water and blood describe the blood and water which flowed from Jesus’ side when He was stabbed with a spear on the cross. [But this is untenable since the blood (crucifixion) came first and then water (baptism). Why would anyone baptize a dead body?][29] 

Nonetheless, it was an important event to the Apostle John because immediately after this description of water and blood, he added: And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.[30] ^[31]

An expert in highlighting the crucial part of a biblical message, Marianne Meye Thompson (1964) says that to understand the point being made using “by water and blood,” it will be helpful to examine the use of “water” and “blood” in the Gospel and the epistles of John. While water is mentioned in the epistles only here, several significant references are found in John’s Gospel. John the Baptizer baptizes with water,[32] as does Jesus,[33] and the water symbolizes cleansing. Jesus changes water set aside for the Jewish rites of purification to wine.[34] He speaks of the necessity to be born of “water and the Spirit,”[35] where “water and Spirit” probably connotes one idea: cleansing and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.[36] Thus water also symbolizes the gift of the Spirit given by the risen Jesus.[37] Together these references stress the concept of purifying, particularly the purifying effect of God’s Spirit.^[38]

---

[1] 1 John 4:6

[2] John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13

[3] Ibid. 15:26

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

[5] See Ibid. 5:20; see John 14:6

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

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

[8] 1 John 4:10, 14-15

[9] Ibid. 2:6; 3:16

[10] Ibid. 3:3, 5; cf. 2:11

[11] Ibid. 4:2

[12] Lieu, Judith: A New Testament Library, I, II, & III, op. cit., p. 208

[13] John 19:34

[14] 1 John 1:7

[15] John 1:34

[16] Burge, Gary M., The Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary), op. cit., pp. 201-202

[17] John 19:34-35

[18] Ibid. 15:26; 16:13-15

[19] Burton, Bruce B., 1, 2, & 3 John (Life Application Bible Commentary), op. cit., p. 109

[20] See 1 John 5:3, 4b, 5:6 NIV

[21] John 19:34

[22] Apposition is a relationship between two or more words or phrases in which the two units are grammatically parallel and refer to each other.

[23] 1 John 4:9

[24] Ibid. 5:5, 9b, 10-12

[25] Ibid. 5:1a

[26] Ibid. 4:2; see 4:9-10

[27] Schuchard, Bruce G., Concordia Commentary, 1-3 John, op. cit., pp. 529-530

[28] 1 John 1:1-3

[29] John 19:34

[30] Ibid. 19:35

[31] Guzik, David: Enduring Word, 1,2 & 3 John & Jude, op. cit., pp. 90-92

[32] John 1:26, 31,33

[33] Ibid. 3:22; 4:1-2

[34] Ibid. 2:1-12

[35] Ibid. 3:5, 8

[36] Ezekiel 36:25-27

[37] John 4:13-14; 7:37-39

[38] Thompson, Marianne M., The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, 1-3 John, op. cit., pp. 133-134

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVI) 12/19/22

^5:6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by His baptism in water and shedding His blood on the cross – not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with His testimony.

Could the Spirit be the Father’s vehicle in talking to His Son? If so, it could then be argued that the Spirit did confirm the significance of the baptism of Jesus. Not only so, but the Spirit must undoubtedly be regarded as inspiring the First Covenant writers who prophesied the coming of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. In some or all these ways, it may be claimed that the Spirit already bore witness to Jesus during and even before his earthly life. Hence John may be thinking here of the activity of the Spirit who witnessed in the past Jesus as the Son of God and who still bears his testimony, confirming to the believer what he has already said.^[1]

With a Jewish convert’s enthusiasm for the Christian Messiah, Messianic writer David H. Stern (1935) said, Yeshua is the one who came through water and blood, Yeshua the Messiah. Contrary to Gnostic teachings, Jesus did not “receive the heavenly Anointed One” upon emerging from the Jordan; instead, Yeshua, already the Messiah’s immersion in water, symbolized His death and resurrection.[2] Likewise, He did not imitate being human but died an actual death on the execution stake; otherwise, He would not have atoned for our sin – the blood, which is shorthand for Yeshua’s death,[3] witnesses that He is God’s Son.[4] ^[5]

As a seasoned essayist on the Apostle John’s writings, John Painter (1935) says “who is He” refers to Jesus in verse five. The fact that the opponents denied this seems obvious. Here Jesus is identified as “Jesus the Anointed One.” The double name implies that Jesus is the Son of God, “the one who came through water and blood.” Reference to “the one who came” draws attention to a specific event. The authentic confession “Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh” is called to mind here. The use of the double name affirms the identity of the human Jesus, and the divine Anointed One is one person. In all the confessions of faith concerning the identity of Jesus, the name Jesus is used alone: Jesus is the Anointed One,[6] and Jesus is the Son of God.[7] But He is referred to as “Jesus the Anointed righteous One,” and God’s command is to believe in the name of His Son Jesus the Anointed One.[8] Further, the name “Jesus the Anointed One” is used when His coming is spoken of by those who confess “Jesus the Anointed One has come in the flesh,”[9] and “Jesus the Anointed One came by water and blood.”[10] ^[11]

A man who is not hesitant to aim for the heart of the subject, Muncia R. Walls (1937), Ministry and Missions Overseer of Medora, Indiana Pentecostal Church, acknowledges that there are a lot of different opinions as to just what John has in mind here in this verse when referring to water and blood. Some feel that water refers to the baptism of Jesus, and blood denotes His death on the cross. Still, others think that it has reference to the Communion service. The Cerinthian heresy taught that the Anointed One came upon Jesus at the time of His baptism and departed when He hung on Calvary. They argued that His humanity never limited the Anointed One. Therefore, the Anointed One was never a young child, nor did the Anointed One die on the cross. But John argues that Jesus the Anointed One came by water and blood. With this, he connects Jesus and the Anointed One as one individual who experienced birth, life, and death: as one person. John states, “And it is the Spirit that bears witness because the Spirit is truth.” Only those born of the Spirit can truly understand this wonderful truth concerning Jesus the Anointed One. Those who have not been born again keep arguing about His deity, about the role, He played in human affairs. Like the Corinthians, people choose to explain away the divinity of Jesus the Anointed One or relegate Him to sharing a second-person status with two other members in their so-called Trinity Godhead. ^[12]

In verse six, expositor and systematic theologist Michael Eaton (1942-2017) emphasizes that Jesus comes to us in three ways. First, the word “came” apparently means not just “came into this world,” but “came into the position of being a Savior, came to us through certain historical events which enable Him to give us eternal life.” There were circumstances and events “through” which Jesus “came” to reach us as a Redeemer. He came through water. He was the Son of God before His baptism. But His ministry to us involved “coming” to us through water. At His baptism, the Holy Spirit empowered Him for ministry. He came through blood. That is to say, He had to die, and His death was confirmed. John has already said that it is the blood of Jesus that turned away the Father’s anger against sin.[13] It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses the conscience of the Christian who “walks in the Light.”[14] The historical fact that Jesus, the Son of God, died upon the cross for us is indispensable to His “coming” to us. ^[15]

After scrutinizing the Apostle John’s subject theme, William Loader (1944) says that the Apostle John doubtless made the dispute about Jesus quite clear to the readers. Without their first-hand knowledge, we must reconstruct what John might have meant. Clearly, in John’s mind, the opponents taught that Jesus the Anointed One came with or by (the) water only, and not with or by (the) blood. What is the difference? Water and blood might refer to aspects of the human body. Those saying he came only by water would be suggesting that His body was not a natural human body. This would amount to saying the same thing another way: He did not come embodied in the flesh. This would assume the opponents had a belief that understood Jesus’ body as substantially consisting of water and not of water and blood. The chief difficulty with this view is that we cannot be sure that any such notion of a water body ever existed at the time.

The Spirit bears witness to this because the Spirit is truth. In a previous segment, the connection between correct belief and the role of the Spirit strongly appears.[16] It structurally matches the present passage. It has been a consistent feature of John’s reasoning to appeal to the witness of the Spirit. The image of the anointing in First John 2:20-27 enables the readers, struggling with the antichrists, to distinguish truth from error. It assures the believer of mutual indwelling with God.[17] Here, as in 1 John 4:2, the Spirit ensures the correct understanding of Jesus in the Spirit is truth because it bears witness to the facts.^[18]

Great Commission practitioner David Jackman (1945) notes that the preposition “by” (Greek dia) is literally “by means of” or “through.” It is probably best to keep in mind that water and blood symbolize “how” Jesus came into the world to accomplish his mission of salvation. From Augustine onwards, a long line of commentators has interpreted this to mean the water and blood which flowed from the side of the Anointed One when pierced by the soldier’s spear as He hung on the cross.[19] In that context, John emphatically underlines his eyewitness testimony to this actual death of a genuine man. The testimony in these verses and the combination of blood and water have been used to support this as primary witnesses. It seems very unlikely that John would build such a significant argument on a comparatively small historical detail, even if he were an eyewitness. Others have drawn attention to the water of baptism and the blood (wine) of the eucharist and have seen here a symbolic foreshadowing of the two great sacraments of the church. These things may well be accurate, but they do not sufficiently account for John’s meaning in its context. ^[20]

After studying the context surrounding this verse, John W. (Jack) Carter (1947) states that one of the primary purposes of this letter is to counter arguments by the Docetics who hold that Jesus was not human. John often refers to Jesus as the “Word,” equates the Word with the Messiah, the Anointed One, and states that the “Word became flesh and lived among us.”  The Messiah, YAHWEH, LORD, became human and walked among us.  He came to us by water, a physical property, not a mystical one. Some may argue that John is referring to the process of childbirth since the phrase is idiomatic of the birth process.  Some hold that the water refers to the baptism of Jesus, the point when Jesus’ ministry on earth began. The Messiah returned to Glory through the event on the Cross, where He shed His blood. These points still hold to the truth that Jesus was fully human, yet fully YAHWEH. It is easy for this world to reject the true identity and purpose of Jesus the Anointed One, and the vast majority of the people of this world do so. 

These do not bear any witness to the truth, says Carter, and have no interest in doing so.  However, the Holy Spirit of God, who is the power behind all of God’s work and will continue to do, bears witness to the truth of Jesus’ identity and purpose. The Holy Spirit always represents truth. The Holy Spirit never performs any work that serves to deceive or present any form of falsehood. Therefore, when one relies on the witness of the Holy Spirit concerning the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ, one can only come away with the truth.  Jesus is who He says He is.  Jesus is who the Holy Spirit says he is.  Jesus is who the Father says He is.  Jesus is YAHWEH, LORD, the agent of creation, and through the work of the Cross of Calvary, the judge of all people.^[21]

A man who loves sharing God’s Word, Robert W. Yarbrough (1948) says that references to Jesus’ arrival imply His heavenly origin. He was the Light “coming into the world.”[22] He has been “with God” uniquely “in the beginning.”[23] He was the one whom John the Baptizer promised was “coming” next,[24] of whom he was not worthy. Jesus was the one “coming” from above, from heaven.[25] In other words, in John’s understanding, Jesus is God incarnate, and he finds the incarnation instead in John’s reference to water. Complete redemptive faith in Jesus the Anointed One recognizes that He, and no other, is the one who came from heaven to be God’s saving agent in the earthly domain.^[26]

Skilled in Dead Sea Scroll interpretation, Colin G. Kruse (1950) tells us that following the Apostle John’s description in verse four of those who overcome the world as those who believe that Jesus is God’s Son. Here in verse six, John describes the Jesus he believes in. He is the One who came by water and blood – Jesus, the Anointed One. His belief is different from the secessionists, and John indicates the difference between his view and theirs: He did not come by water only but by water and blood. This text suggests that Jesus came “by water” and was not in dispute. What was being argued was whether He came by “water and blood.” Having made the point that those who truly believe that Jesus is God’s Son also think that He is the One who came by “water and blood.” John indicates that the Spirit testifies to all this truthfully because the Spirit is Truth.

---

[1] Marshall, Ian Howard: The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), op. cit., p. 235

[2] Romans 6:3-6

[3] Ibid. 3:25

[4] 1 John 5:5, 9-12

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

[6] 1 John 2:22; 5:1

[7] Ibid. 4:15; 5:5

[8] Ibid. 3:23

[9] Ibid. 4:2

[10] Ibid. 5:6

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

[12] Walls, Muncia: Epistles of John and Jude, op. cit., pp. 84-85

[13] 1 John 2:2; 4:10

[14] Ibid. 1:7

[15] Eaton, Michael: Focus on the Bible, 1,2,3 John, op. cit., pp. 178-179

[16] 1 John 4:1-3

[17] Ibid. 3:24; 4:13

[18] Loader, William: Epworth Commentary, The First Epistle of John, op. cit., pp. 62-63, 68

[19] See John 19:34-35

[20] Jackman, David: The Message of John’s Letters, op. cit., pp. 147-148

[21] Carter, Dr. John W. (Jack). 1,2,3, John & Jude: (The Disciple’s Bible Commentary Book 48), op. cit., pp. 121-122

[22] 1 John 1:9

[23] John 1:1; cf. 1:18

[24] Ibid. 1:15, 27

[25] Ibid. 3:31

[26] Yarbrough, Robert W. 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), op. cit., pp. 281-282

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLV) 12/16/22

^5:6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by His baptism in water and shedding His blood on the cross – not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with His testimony.

The soldier was not entirely sure that the Anointed one was dead. So, to make sure, he thrust his spear into the Savior’s side. The stream of blood and water that followed proved the reality of His death. Thus, a rude soldier’s violent act confirmed our Lord’s death. And this, we are confident, was the reason why the incident was recorded. In the text, there is an expression, which is fatal to the fanciful interpretation. The critical statement is, “this is He that came by water and blood.”

How did the Anointed One come in that manner? It is the question to be determined by the interpreter. The history of our Lord furnishes the answer. He came by water when John the Baptist baptized Him and blood when the soldier stabbed Him. And this view is confirmed by the additional circumstance in the text – “it is the Spirit that bears witness.” For it shows that the subject in John’s mind is the testimony given about the Anointed One, and this, he states, is threefold, His baptism, His death, and the Holy Spirit.^[1]

In reviewing what the Apostle John says in this verse, Archibald T. Robertson (1863-1934) states that the Apostle John refers to the Incarnation as an actual historical event. First, the preexistent Son of God was sent from heaven to do God’s will. The use of the Greek genitive preposition dia (“by”)[2] water (at His baptism) and blood (as on the Cross) John signifies in the statement that the Anointed One has come. These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because, at Jesus’ baptism, He was formally set apart for His Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Him and by the Father’s audible witness. Then at the Cross, His ministry reached its culmination when He said, “It is finished!”[3]

Other theories, notes Robertson, do not agree with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross, both water and blood came out of Jesus’ side when pierced by the soldier’s spear.[4]  Thus, 1 John 5 is a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and the Anointed One. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but John repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of Greek prepositions dia and en[5] (“by”) in verse six argues for two separate events, emphasizing the blood which the Gnostics made light of or even denied. It is the Spirit that bears witness. Thus, the Holy Spirit is the third and chief witness at Jesus’ baptism and all through His ministry. Jesus spoke of “the Spirit of truth”[6] (whose characteristic is truth). Here John identifies the Spirit with truth as Jesus said of Himself[7] without denying the Holy Spirit’s personality.^[8]

Characteristically, Alan England Brooke (1863-1939) says that out of the many suggested interpretations of this passage, only three deserve serious consideration: (1) First, a reference to the two Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist naturally suggested itself to many interpreters of the Epistle, especially in view of the fourth and sixth chapters of John’s Gospel. But it is open to more than one fatal objection. If “water” can be satisfactorily explained by Baptism, “blood” is missing in the Final Covenant as a designation for Communion. And secondly, the form of the sentence, “is come by water and blood,” almost necessitates a reference to definite historical facts in the life of the Anointed One on earth, which we could regard as peculiarly characteristic of the Mission which He “came” to fulfill. If the Apostle John intended to refer to the Christian Sacraments, he must have said, “is come.” It is hardly necessary then to point out that one interpretation referring to a rite instituted by the Anointed One, and the other to something which happened to Him (such as the Christian rite of baptism and the atoning death on the Cross), is even less satisfactory.

(2) The reference to the spearing incident recorded by John was also natural,[9] considering the stress laid upon it by John in his Gospel and the exact language in which he records the result of the piercing of the Lord’s side. This incident gives a definite fact that would justify the use of the aorist “is come.” And the difference in the order of “water” and blood” or “blood and “water” offers no real difficulty. It is easily explained as a consequence of John’s desire to throw special emphasis on the “blood,” which he develops further in the next clause, “not come by water only, but by water and blood,” which made an impression on him. It had suggested to him the significance of “blood” and “water,” symbolizing two distinctive aspects of the Lord’s work, cleansing and life-giving. But the incident itself could hardly be thought of as the means whereby He accomplished His work. Therefore, as an explanation of the actual words used, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the case.

(3) Thus, we go back to the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact, and many modern commentators, who see these as references to Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptizer when He was consecrated to His Messianic ministry and received the gift of the Spirit descending upon Him. And then, His death on the Cross by which His work was consummated. The terms used definitely refer to the historical manifestation of the Son of God and compel us to look for significant characteristic events in that history which means it could be said that His mission was accomplished, His “coming” achieved. The two significant events at the ministry’s beginning and end satisfactorily fulfill these conditions. At the Baptism, He was specially consecrated for His public work and endowed with the Spirit, which enabled Him to carry it out. And His work was not finished before Calvary. The Death on the Cross was its consummation, not a mere incident in the life of an ordinary man after the Higher Power had left Him, which had temporarily united itself with His human personality for His mission of teaching.^[10]

With an eye for detail, David Smith (1866-1932) hears the Apostle John tell his readers, “This Jesus is God’s Son, the Messiah whom the prophets foretold and who ‘came’ in the fulness of the time.” His Advent is no longer an unfulfilled hope but a historical event. He not only “came through” but continued “in water and blood,” for example, His ministry included both the baptism of the Spirit and the Sacrifice for sin. Perhaps, however, the Greek prepositions “dia” and “en” (“by”) are interchangeable.[11] Jesus identified Himself as “the Truth,”[12] and the Spirit came in His place, His alter ego.[13] The Threefold Testimony to the Incarnation: This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus the Anointed One; not in the water only, but water and blood. And it is the Spirit that testifies because the Spirit is the Truth. Because these three testify the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are of one accord.^[14]

A spiritual mentor, Ronald A. Ward (1920-1986) admits that verse six by the Apostle John has caused much perplexity among Bible scholars, not so much through lack of understanding of its general meaning as through uncertainty as to the explanation of the grammar and vocabulary. First, we should notice the literal translation. “This one is He who did come through water and blood – Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying because the Spirit is the truth,”[15] We must remember that John is dealing with a local situation (probably Ephesus)[16] and that his language may be that of local controversy. However, most scholars accept “water” as a reference to water baptism and “blood” as His shed blood on the cross. John has been giving his testimony, but the Spirit is the pre-eminent Witness because He is the truth part of Jesus’ Gospel.[17] Truth must witness, and this is the function of the Spirit.[18] Jesus witnesses to the Father and the Spirit, who testifies to Jesus.[19] [20]

With academic precision, Stephen S. Smalley (1931-2018) mentions that in verse five, the Apostle John described the content of orthodox Christian belief as faith in Jesus as the Son of God. In verse six, he proceeds to present the witnesses to the truth of that confession and begins by revealing their character.[21] Thus, verse six needs to be joined with verse eight, since, in both contexts, there is a cryptic allusion to “water and blood,” which presumably needs to be interpreted in the same way, “He is the one who came by water and blood, even Jesus the Anointed One.” The demonstrative “He” or “this” links verse six firmly to the second part of verse five and directs our attention to the end of the present sentence. This Jesus came, and He is “the Anointed One.”[22] ^[23]

A dynamic speaker, H. P. Mansfield (1933-1987) notes that here in verse six, we have another statement in which the Apostle John says, “the Spirit is truth.” So, if we walk according to truth, we are walking in agreement with the Spirit. And those words of the Spirit will give us life eternal. Let’s listen to the Apostle Peter, who said, “You have been born again. This new life did not come from something that dies. It came from something that cannot die. You were born again through God’s life-giving message that lasts forever.”[24]So there is that which will give us incorruptibility. Not something that we got at birth, but something which must develop. Do you remember what the Lord Jesus the Anointed One said: “You must be born again?”[25] And do you remember that He said we must be born of water and the spirit, or we won’t enter the kingdom of God?[26] So being spiritually reborn is not something that we inherit at birth; it’s a new birth. And I submit to you, says Mansfield, that if you carefully read what Peter goes on to say, you will find nothing there that will set before you that proposition.[27] ^[28]

As a capable scripture analyst, Ian Howard Marshall (1934-2015) says we may wonder whether what the Apostle John said here in verse six is what John meant. It is tempting to think of the activity of the Spirit in the life of Jesus. At His baptism, the Spirit came upon Him, and it was this fact that convinced John the Baptizer that Jesus was the Son of God.[29] In the other Gospels, the baptism of Jesus was accompanied by a heavenly voice that declared that He was God’s Son.[30] The Gospel writers certainly did not believe that this meant that God adopted Jesus as His Son at this point, and there is no evidence that their predecessors held this view. Instead, it was a sign that the One being baptized was already God’s Son.

---

[1] Morgan, James B., An Exposition of the First Epistle of John, op. cit., Lecture XLII, pp. 415-416

[2] Cf. Galatians 5:13

[3] John 19:30

[4] Ibid. 19:34

[5] “dia” in Strong’s Concordance is G1223, and “en” is G1722

[6] John 15:26

[7] Ibid. 14:6

[8] Robertson, Archibald T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, op. cit., pp. 1967-1968

[9] John 19:34

[10] Brooke, Alan E., Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Johannine Epistles, op. cit., pp. 132-137

[11] Cf. 2 Corinthians 6:4-8; Hebrews 9:12, 25

[12] John 14:6; 18:37

[13] Ibid. 5:16-18

[14] Smith, David: Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1 John, op. cit., pp. 194-195

[15] The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Covenants, Literally and Idiomatically Translated out of the Original Languages by Robert Young, Published by A. Fullarton & Company, Edinburgh, 1863, 1 John 5:1

[16] Cf. 1 John 2:18ff

[17] John 14:6

[18] Ibid. 15:26

[19] Ibid. 8:18; 16:14

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

[21] See 1 John 5:7-9

[22] Cf. Ibid. 2:22; 2 John 1:7

[23] Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51, 1,2,3 John, op. cit., p. 277

[24] 1 Peter 1:23

[25] John 3:3

[26] Ibid. 3:5

[27] 1 Peter 3:20-22

[28] Mansfield, H. P., The Truth Vindicated, First Debate February 12, 1962, pp. 19-20

[29] John 1:32-34

[30] Mark 1:11

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLIV) 12/15/22

^5:6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by His baptism in water and shedding His blood on the cross – not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with His testimony.

In the First Covenant, water and blood were everywhere connected with the service of the sanctuary. The Anointed One existed before the act of baptism, and He lives now since He died. However, He did not exist in person before His baptism, and He is not visible before the world now. This Epistle of John is entirely about the embodiment and revelation of the Anointed One. John speaks of that which was seen, heard, gazed upon, and handled. He, therefore, treats only that part of our Lord’s life exposed to the senses of the world. The water and the blood point to two distinct historical events in the earthly life of our Lord. One is the point a quo (from which), and the other is the point ad quem (to which).

Baptism in water was the beginning of His human form as the Messiah, and His death on the cross was the conclusion. Hence, He came by water and blood. The Lord Jesus did not show Himself to the world as the Son of God before His baptism, nor did the world get a view of Him after the cross. He came in by water and passed out by blood. One was the entrance, the other the exit. He came to fulfill all righteousness in His baptism and accomplished that upon the cross, crying, “It is finished.” John the Baptist came baptizing in water so that Jesus might be shown to Israel. The only contact that Jesus had with John the Baptizer was at His baptism and during the subsequent testimony given by John a few days afterward. It will thus be seen that Jesus entered His personified form on the earth, among men, at the time of His baptism. He terminated that physical existence at the time of His death by pouring out His blood on the cross. As He disappeared from the world’s view in blood, He also passed before God’s face through His blood. It was the blood of the brazen altar before the mercy seat combined. It was the body without the camp and the blood within the veil. Mankind saw one, and the other was visible to God alone.^[1]

With his Spirit-directed calculating mind, Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) sees the Apostle John appealing to the daily experience of every victorious Christian that Jesus is God’s Son. The faith that conquers is no vague belief in the existence of God but a definite demand in the Incarnation.[2] This verse shows that John’s “liar”[3] does not mean “supreme liar.” Therefore, here in verse six, “He that overcomes” cannot mean “the supreme conqueror.” The sole Victor is the Anointed One in the highest and most unique sense.[4] Belief in the Anointed One is confidence in God and man at once. It lays a foundation for love and trust toward our fellow believers. Thus, the instinctive distrust and selfishness, that reign supreme in the world, are overcome.

Closely connected with what precedes, is that this Son of God is He that came. The identity of the historical person, Jesus with the eternal Son of God, is once more insisted upon as the central and indispensable truth of the Christian faith. Faith in this truth is the only faith that can overcome the world and give eternal life. And it is a truth attested by witnesses of the highest and most extraordinary kind, water, and blood. It is the most perplexing passage in the Epistle and one of the most mysterious in the Final Covenant. A significant number of interpretations of water and blood have been suggested. But a few of the principal explanations, and the reasons for adopting the one preferred, may be stated with an advantage. The water and the blood have been interpreted to mean: (1) The Baptism by means of water in the Jordan River and the Death by means of blood upon the Cross. (2) The water and blood which flowed from the Anointed One’s pierced side. (3) Purification and Redemption. (4) The Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.

These are representative interpretations; the first two making the water and blood refer to facts in the earthly career of the Messiah; the last two making them symbolical of mysteries. It will be observed that these explanations are not all exclusive: either of the last two may be combined with either of the first. The problematic passage in John 19:34 and the difficult passage before us do not explain one another. That these two passages alone, of all Scripture, are blood and water placed together would, if true, amount to nothing more than a presumption that one may relate to the other. The change of order would at once weaken such a presumption: instead of the “blood and water” of John’s Gospel, we have here “water and blood” in this Epistle. But the statement in John’s Gospel has nothing to do with crucifixion and baptism.[5] It would be ridiculous that John would speak of outpourings of the blood from the dead body of Jesus as the Son of God “before water?”

Moreover, on this interpretation, what can be the point of the emphatic addition, “not in the water only, but in the water and the blood?” At the piercing of Jesus’ side, the blood (representing the crucifixion), not the water (indicative of baptism) came first. So that, to make the reference clear, the whole sentence ought to run somewhat in this manner: “This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus the Anointed One; not by water only, but by water and blood.”^[6]

Prolific writer on the Epistles, George G. Findlay (1849-1919) comments that by the time of the Apostle John, “Jesus the Anointed One” and “Jesus the Son of God” had become terms synonymous in Christian speech. John insists upon the oneness of Jesus the Anointed One and makes it the test of genuine Christianity.[7] The name thus appended to verse six is no idle repetition; it is a solemn reassertion and summation of the Christian creed in two words – Jesus the Anointed One. And He is Jesus the Anointed One since He “came through water and blood – not in the water only.” This passage brings to a point the verbal attack aimed towards which the whole Epistle, in one way or other, has been directed: “I am writing these things,”[8] John explained, “to warn you about those who want to lead you astray,”[9] namely, the “antichrists” and “false prophets.”[10]

The heretics whom the Apostle opposes allowed, and maintained in their way, that Jesus the Anointed One “came by water” when He received His Messianic anointing at John’s baptism and the man Jesus thus became the Anointed One, but the “coming through blood” they despised. They regarded the death on the cross, happening to the human Jesus, as a punishment of shame inflicted on the flesh, in which the Divine Anointed One could have no part. Upon this Cerinthian view, the Anointed One who came “through water” went away rather than came “through blood.” In the death upon the cross, the Docetists saw nothing that witnessed to the Godhead in Jesus the Anointed One, nothing that spoke of Divine forgiveness and cleansing,[11] but an eclipse and abandonment by God, a surrender of the earthly Jesus to the powers of darkness.

This error revived in a new form what the Apostle Paul had called “the scandal of the cross.”[12] As the crucifixion seemed to him, in his Jewish unbelief, a disproof of Jesus’ Messiahship, so to these later misbelievers, it was evident that Jesus, who had been one with the Anointed One, was a helpless, forsaken man. But John found in the shedding of the Anointed One’s blood grander evidence of His Sonship to God, the demonstration of His perfect harmony with and understanding of the Divine will and love to humankind.[13] ^[14]

With his stately speaking style, William Macdonald Sinclair (1850-1917) says that “water” and “blood” are referred to as two of the three great witnesses, or sets of evidence, for the Anointed One. They are symbols and look back to two of His personal history’s most characteristic and significant acts. The one is His baptism, the other His cross. Why His baptism? The baptism of John was the seal of the Law. It served as the outward sign by which those who repented at the Baptizer’s preaching showed their determination to keep the Law no longer in the letter only but also in the spirit.

Jesus, too, showed this same determination. Baptism in water was His outward seal to the First Covenant: He did not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law; not to supersede the prophecies, but to claim them. It was to show that in Him, the righteousness and purification which the Law intended was to be a reality, and through Him to be the law of His kingdom. Thus, it pointed to all the evidence that the First Covenant could afford Him, and, through the First Covenant, it pointed to the dispensation of the Father. Thus, when this most symbolic act was complete, the Almighty Giver of the old Law or covenant was heard saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[15] ^[16]

Undoubtedly, says Charles Gore (1853-1932) the dependence of The Apostle John’s First Epistle on the Gospel is nowhere more evident than in this passage. The meaning of “water” is to be found by reference to John the Baptizer’s testimony as given in John’s Gospel to the significance of the baptism of Jesus.[17] The witness of the blood is to be interpreted in the light of where “flesh” expresses our Lord’s human nature, given for the life of the world. Also, when the word “flesh” causes scandal,[18] “blood” is added to it to emphasize the reality of sacrificed manhood – of which the “blood is the life.” The combination of water and blood that flowed from our Lord’s pierced side is emphasized without explanation in John’s Gospel,[19] and here interpreted as the union in Jesus of the divine and human elements. The term “witness of the Spirit” must be thought of in the light of (1) When Jesus said, “living water,” He was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in Him.[20] (2) Of the last discourses about the Spirit,[21] were, to a degree not commonly recognized, the Spirit is spoken of as “the Spirit of truth.” Again, the idea of a divine witness to the Anointed one overshadowing the human witness, which is to be appropriated as divine by the individual, requires interpreting by John[22] and other passages.^[23]

Esteemed ministry veteran James B. Morgan (1859-1942) says we see that the Apostle John, the author of this epistle, records a circumstance that occurred during the crucifixion of our Lord – “One of the soldiers, with a spear, pierced His side, and out came blood and water.”[24] Some suppose there is a reference to this incident here in verse six and that John suggests in it an illustration of the design of the Anointed One’s mission. Thus, the water and the blood are theoretically suggestive of the two great blessings of redemption, purity, and pardon, more technically expressed sanctification and justification. The blood represents justification and water is illustrative of sanctification. Such expositions are to be handled with care. There is a much more natural meaning in the facts recorded by the evangelist.

---

[1] Cameron, Robert: The First Epistle of John, or, God Revealed in Light, Life, and Love, op. cit., p. 221

[2] Cf. 5:1; 2:22; 3:23; 4:2, 3

[3] 1 John 2:22

[4] 1 Corinthians 15:57

[5] Leviticus14:52; Hebrews 9:19

[6] Plummer, Alfred: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, N. T., Vol. IV, pp. 157-160

[7] 1 John 5:1; cf. 2:22; 3:23; 4:2, 3 15

[8] Ibid. 5:13

[9] Ibid. 2:26

[10] See ibid. 2:18, 26; 4:1-6

[11] See ibid. 1:7, 9

[12] 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5

[13] 1 John 4:9, 10

[14] Findlay, George G: Fellowship in the Life Eternal: An Exposition of the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 381

[15] Matthew 3:17; 17:5

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

[17] John 1:32-34

[18] Ibid. 6:52-55

[19] John 19:35

[20] Ibid. 7:38-39

[21] Ibid. 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15

[22] John 3:31-34; 5:31-47

[23] Gore, Charles: The Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 196

[24] John 19:34