Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson L) 01/20/23

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

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

• Every testimony which God gives us is infallible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] In Latin this is called Argumentum a fortiori 

[3] John 8:17

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

[5] Ibid. 5:36

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

[7] John 8:17

[8] Ibid. 8:18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIX) 01/19/23

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND HOMILETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Psalm 25:14

[2] Proverbs 3:30-32

[3] Isaiah 53:4-6

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

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

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

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

[8] John 14:1

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

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

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

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

[13] John 3:33

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

[15] John 1:6

[16] Matthew 21:25

[17] Numbers 23:19

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVIII) 01/18/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXPOSITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] Matthew 3:13-17

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

[4] Daniel 9:24-26

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

[6] John 15:26-27

[7] Ibid. 7:39

[8] Ibid. 19:35

[9] Ibid 15:26-27

[10] Ibid. 16:13

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

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

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

[14] Numbers 30:2

[15] John 5:32

[16] Ibid. 10:38

[17] Ibid. 5:32

[18] Ibid. 5:39

[19] Ibid. 3:31-33

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

[21] Ibid. 5:30-36

[22] Ibid. 8:17-19

[23] Ibid. 10:34-38

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVII) 01/17/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[3] John 19:35

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

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

[6] John 19:34-35

[7] Ibid. 19:30

[8] Ibid. 15:26

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

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

[11] John 1:13-14

[12] Ibid. 19:19

[13] Ibid. 3:13

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

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

[16] Hebrews 10:12

[17] John 1:33

[18] 1 John 1:7

[19] John 3:3

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

[21] 1 John 2:2

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

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

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

[25] The inserted words in verses seven and eight

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVI) 01/16/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Ibid. 5:16-45

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

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

[4] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15

[5] John 5:31-37

[6] Hebrews 6:17-18

[7] 1 John 1:34

[8] Matthew 27:54

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

[10] John 1:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17] John 19:34-35

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXV) 01/13/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] John 1:33

[2] Ibid. 15:26

[3] Ibid. 15:27

[4] Ibid. 4:24

[5] 1 John 1:5

[6] Ibid 4:8, 16

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

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

[9] Genesis 31:45-48

[10] Deuteronomy 31:28

[11] John 5:36; 10:25

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

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

[14] See Mark 14:56, 59

[15] John 4:24

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

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

[18] 1 John 5:8

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

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

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

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

[23] John 19:35

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIV) 01/12/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] John 19:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15] 1 John 4:2-3

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

[17] Hebrews 11:4

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIII) 01/11/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] John 5:39

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

[3] John 19:35

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

[5] 1 John 5:11

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

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

[8] John 20:31

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

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

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

[12] John 20:31

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXII) 01/10/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] Matthew 3:16-17

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

[10] Hebrews 9:22

[11] 1 John 1:7

[12] Provided by Chicago Bible Students

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXI) 01/09/23

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

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

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

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

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

This is the witness which God gives concerning his Son. It is three-fold and satisfies the condition of human testimony. We receive human testimony out of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Human witnesses may be deceptive, and they may mislead us. God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and He speaks through these things to us. Therefore, this witness of God is of greater authority than that of man. It was three-fold, was open and visible to the world, and the One whose mission was attested is a living power in the world today. This is God’s final testimony. If we receive the fallible testimony of man, what possible excuse can we give for refusing the infallible testimony of God?^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[3] Cf. Hebrews 2:16

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

[5] See 1 John 1:2

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

[7] Matthew 18:16

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

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

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

[11] John 14:26

[12] Ibid. 16:13