Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson L) 12/23/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Deuteronomy 6:4

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

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

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

[5] John 5:9-10

[6] John 14:1

[7] 1 John 5:7

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

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

[10] 1 Corinthians 15:28

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

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

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

[14] John 1:14

[15] See 1 John 5:8

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

[17] See Deuteronomy 6:4

[18] 1 Timothy 3:16

[19] 1 Corinthians 2:6

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

[21] John 15:26

[22] Ibid. 1:29

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

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

[25] Acts of the Apostles 2:1

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLIX) 12/22/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND HOMILETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Ibid. 8:13-14

[2] Psalm 33:6

[3] Isaiah 61:1

[4] Matthew 3:16

[5] Ibid. 17:1-5

[6] John 8:18

[7] Ibid. 8:54

[8] Ibid. 10:37-38

[9] Ibid. 12:28

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

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

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

[13] John 10:30

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

[15] Matthew 12:30

[16] John 10:30

[17] 1 John 5:7

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

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

[20] Luke 3:16

[21] 1 John 5:8

[22] Acts of the Apostles 1:5

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVIII) 12/21/22

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

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

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

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

EXPOSITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] John 14:18

[2] Deuteronomy 19:15

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

[4] John 14:18

[5] Ibid. 3:3-5

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

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

[8] Ibid 4:6

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

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

[11] John 19:34

[12] John 1:31, 33

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

[14] John 1:32–34

[15] Matthew 3:17

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

[17] Hebrews 2:3-4

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVII) 12/20/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] 1 John 4:6

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

[3] Ibid. 15:26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] Ibid. 4:2

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

[13] John 19:34

[14] 1 John 1:7

[15] John 1:34

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

[17] John 19:34-35

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

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

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

[21] John 19:34

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

[23] 1 John 4:9

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

[25] Ibid. 5:1a

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

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

[28] 1 John 1:1-3

[29] John 19:34

[30] Ibid. 19:35

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

[32] John 1:26, 31,33

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

[34] Ibid. 2:1-12

[35] Ibid. 3:5, 8

[36] Ezekiel 36:25-27

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVI) 12/19/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] Romans 6:3-6

[3] Ibid. 3:25

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

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

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

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

[8] Ibid. 3:23

[9] Ibid. 4:2

[10] Ibid. 5:6

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

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

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

[14] Ibid. 1:7

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

[16] 1 John 4:1-3

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

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

[19] See John 19:34-35

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

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

[22] 1 John 1:9

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

[24] Ibid. 1:15, 27

[25] Ibid. 3:31

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLV) 12/16/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] Cf. Galatians 5:13

[3] John 19:30

[4] Ibid. 19:34

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

[6] John 15:26

[7] Ibid. 14:6

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

[9] John 19:34

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

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

[12] John 14:6; 18:37

[13] Ibid. 5:16-18

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

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

[16] Cf. 1 John 2:18ff

[17] John 14:6

[18] Ibid. 15:26

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

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

[21] See 1 John 5:7-9

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

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

[24] 1 Peter 1:23

[25] John 3:3

[26] Ibid. 3:5

[27] 1 Peter 3:20-22

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

[29] John 1:32-34

[30] Mark 1:11

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLIV) 12/15/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[3] 1 John 2:22

[4] 1 Corinthians 15:57

[5] Leviticus14:52; Hebrews 9:19

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

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

[8] Ibid. 5:13

[9] Ibid. 2:26

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

[11] See ibid. 1:7, 9

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

[13] 1 John 4:9, 10

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

[15] Matthew 3:17; 17:5

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

[17] John 1:32-34

[18] Ibid. 6:52-55

[19] John 19:35

[20] Ibid. 7:38-39

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

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

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

[24] John 19:34

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLIII) 12/14/22

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

As a Messianic scholar,[1] Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889) speaks about the symbolic meaning of the Water and Blood flowing from His pierced side, on which the Apostle John focuses here in verse six. But, to its external expression in the symbolism of the two Sacraments (baptism and communion), we can only point the devout Christian. The two Sacraments mean that the Anointed One had come and that Death and Corruption had no power over Him who was crucified for us and loved us unto death with His broken heart and lives for us with the pardoning and cleansing power of His offered Sacrifice.^[2]

Like a spiritual farmer planting the seed of God’s Word, Henry A. Sawtelle (1832-1913) admits there have been endless disputes about what the Apostle John meant by the water and the blood. Yet, both are closely connected with our Lord’s earthly history as witnesses that He was the Messiah, the guiding Light, spiritual and eternal Life. Some scholars understood water to be the water that came from the Savior’s pierced side; some, the baptism commanded for believers in the Great Commission;[3] some, the Word of God;[4] some, Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River. A careful weighing of the entire section and its purpose leaves hardly a doubt that “water” refers to our Lord’s baptism, a most important event of His earthly manifestation, and pointing, as John shows,[5] to Jesus as the Possessor and Giver of life, and hence the Anointed One. John calls it water because it is an element rather than an act, considered a witness.

Furthermore, says Sawtelle, the water of His baptism symbolized the spiritual Life He had without measure or the Spirit of eternal Life belonging to Him, and hence was a witness that He was the Son of God. Are these not the points John aims to establish on various testimonies that the Anointed One is the Fountain of Life?[6] And if Fountain of spiritual and eternal Life, He is God’s Son. Then, blood is another witness. The blood does not refer to the wine at the Last Supper but to the death of the Anointed One. And John uses the term blood because it is not the death John had in mind, but the spiritual and eternal Life poured out,[7] of which blood is the symbol.[8] The Anointed One’s blood of sacrifice pointed to the spiritual and eternal Life He gave for mankind and hence bore witness to Him as the Possessor and Giver of eternal life. So, our life is in the blood. And the Author of spiritual and eternal Life is the Anointed One. Not by water only, but by water and blood.

And it is the Spirit who also bears witness. The Spirit, given in connection with the Anointed One’s coming, both at Pentecost and as a permanent blessing in the Church, is the most direct witness[9] to the same fact that the Anointed One is the Source and Giver of spiritual and eternal Life, therefore, the Son of God because the Spirit is the truth. Not as a symbol, like water and blood, but the truth itself, directly uttering God’s nature. For that reason, a witness must be at once acknowledged and speak directly about what the others utter indirectly.^[10]

With the ability of a linguist’s concentration, Marvin R. Vincent (1834-1921) notes that the true principle of interpretation appears to be laid down in the two canons of Dordrecht.[11] (1) Water and blood must point both to some purely historical facts in the life of our Lord on earth, and some still present witnesses for the Anointed One. (2) They must not be interpreted symbolically but understood as something so real and powerful, as God’s testimony given to believers, and eternal life assured to them. Thus, the sacramental reference, though secondary, need not be excluded. The first proof of the Messiahship of Jesus lay in His complete historical fulfillment of Messiah’s work once and for all, in bringing purification and salvation; that proof continues in the experience of the Church in its two separate parts. Therefore, we are led to the ideas underlying the two sacraments of water and blood.^[12]

Noting the Apostle John’s doctrinal implications, John James Lias (1834-1923) comments that the language of the Apostle John certainly implies that the work of Jesus the Anointed One was a double work. Those who only regard one part of that work receive a defective impression of the nature of the Gospel. The first work is the taking away from us what we have – namely, a sinful nature; the second is the giving us what we don’t have – that is, fellowship with the Divine nature. We may also take Water as a type of cleansing from sin. Finally, blood is a phrase used to denote the impartation of the Anointed One’s righteousness. Let us regard each of these:

            (a) The first step is a sense of reconciliation with God. To express this, we have a variety of words in the English Bible. Reconciliation and atonement (both renderings of the Greek noun katallagḗ,) justification, adoption, grace, and the like, are used to convey it. All these imply the removal of the alienation between God and man, which is the necessary consequence of sin, and the substitution in its place of the confidence to speak boldly, the access, the assurance of fatherly love on God’s part which Jesus the Anointed One revealed.

            (b) The next step is stirring us up to fight against sin. God’s object is not merely the removal of the spiritual death sentence but the cause of the sentence. The renewed life is entirely irreconcilable with sin and must be in dead defying hostility with it.[13] And the object of the renewed energy is the expulsion of evil. The cleansing, or washing, involves the gradual detachment of the soul from all sinful habits.

            (c) We are sustained in this conflict by the assurance of victory.[14]  From this point of view, water is regarded as refreshing as well as cleansing aspects. It implies the confidence with which the Christian warrior advances to the battle, armed with the shield of faith; the sustained energy they display in the conflict; the renewed vigor they demonstrate when downcast or wearied when they return to the Fountain and is invigorated by fresh breezes of the water of life.

            (d) But it is the life of the Anointed One which does all. As we have already seen, the water, after all, only represents one particular effect of the blood gift. It is the blood that cleanses us from sin.[15] It is to the blood that we owe our justification, adoption, peace,[16] and all the refreshment and strength that a Christian can receive through faith. But these ideas are not immediately connected in our minds with blood. Hence this aspect of the Divine life is represented to us under the figure of water.

            (e) Exhortation to confidence in the Christian walk.[17] ^[18]

With his systematic mindset, Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836-1921) also points to water as an implication of Jesus’ baptism. Therefore, our Lord could say, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.”[19] Because only through the final baptism of suffering and death, which this baptism in water foreshadowed, could He “put an end of sin” and “bring in everlasting righteousness”[20] to the condemned and ruined world. He could not be “the Lord our Righteousness,”[21] except by first suffering death due to the nature He had assumed, thereby delivering it from its guilt and perfecting it forever.

All this was indicated when He was first “made manifest to Israel.”[22] In His baptism in Jordan, He was buried in the likeness of His coming death and raised in the likeness of His following resurrection.[23] His baptism in water was the beginning of His ministry, and His shedding of blood was the closing of that ministry. As Jesus’ baptism pointed forward to His death, our baptism points backward to that death as the center and substance of His redeeming work, the one factor by which we live. We who are “baptized into the Anointed One” are “baptized into His death.”[24] That is, into spiritual communion and participation in that death which He experienced for our salvation. In short, we declare symbolically that His death became ours in baptism.^[25]

A tried and tested biblical scholar who believes in the up-building of the Christian life, Robert Cameron (1839-1904) points out that in the first part of this chapter, the Apostle John told how our faith overcomes the world, which for a few days tolerated the Anointed One, but in the end, shook Him from its lap, condemned Him to death, and put Him upon a cross. We, however, take that same Jesus crucified by the combined hatred of Jews and Romans and make Him our Lord and our God. We acknowledge that we owe everything to Him, and without Him are nothing and have nothing. Very naturally, then, John asks the question: On what authority do we devote our interests for time and eternity to this Anointed One? What extraordinary facts lead us to accept Him despite such universal condemnation?

John then proceeds to say, notes Cameron, that Jesus came by water and blood; also, that He has three witnesses testifying to His character – the Spirit, the water, and the blood. There has been very much dispute about what is meant by Jesus’ coming by water and blood and how the Spirit, the water, and the blood bear witness to His character. Concerning this, we may say, first, that these words point to some purely historic facts apparent in the life of our Lord on earth. Secondly, it is assumed that these facts are so actual and evident that they serve as the introduction and boundary of God’s testimony to those who put their trust in Him. It will be readily seen and admitted that the two great facts which correspond to these conclusions are the baptism and the death of our Lord. The exact expression here is both by and in, water and blood. The one implies the means through which, and the other the element in which He came.

Hence John says, “He … came by water and blood,” as if to impress his readers with the fact that the Son of God was fulfilling everything that these types caused them to expect. He manifested Himself utilizing water and blood. He came and symbolically fulfilled all the promises made to the apostolic fathers concerning the Messiah in the act of baptism. Thus, the fulfillment was made a reality at His death. Therefore, “He that came” is equivalent to “He has fulfilled the promises to the apostolic fathers, as the Savior sent from God.”

---

[1] Messianic refers to a Jewish convert to Christianity

[2] Edersheim, Alfred: The Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 2, Ch., 15, Crucified, Dead, and Buried,” p. 485

[3] Matthew 28:19

[4] John 3:5

[5] Ibid. 1:31, 33

[6] Ibid. 4:14

[7] Cf. Deuteronomy 12:23

[8] Leviticus 17:11

[9] John 15:26

[10] Sawtelle, Henry A., Commentary on the Epistles of John, op. cit., pp. 56-57

[11] The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands is popularly known as the Canons of Dort (or the Five Articles Against the Remonstrates [members of the Arminian party in the Dutch Reformed Church]). It consists of statements of doctrine adopted by the great Synod of Dort which met in the city of Dordrecht in 1618–1619. Although this was a national Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, it had an international character, since it was composed not only of sixty-two Dutch delegates but also of twenty-seven foreign delegates representing eight countries.

[12] Vincent, Marvin R: Word Studies in the New Testament: op. cit., p. 365

[13] See 1 John 1:6, 9; 2:5, 15; 3:3, 9, 10; cf. Romans 6; 8:2, 4. 7

[14] See John16:33; 1 Corinthians 15:57; 1 Thessalonians 1:5

[15] 1 John 1:7; cf. Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 12:24; Revelation 1:5; 7:14

[16] Romans 3:24-26

[17] 1 John 5:13, 18, 20; Romans 5;1

[18] Lias, John James: The First Epistle of St. John with Homiletical Treatment, op. cit., pp. 363-369

[19] Matthew 3:15

[20] Daniel 9:24

[21] Jeremiah 23:6

[22] John 1:31

[23] 1 John 5:6

[24] Romans 6:3

[25] Strong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, op. cit. p. 304

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLII) 12/13/22

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

With expertise in holiness doctrine, Daniel Steele (1824-1914) points out that the identity of the Rabbi of Nazareth with the eternal Son of God is again emphasized as the central truth of Christian theology. This reception is necessary to attain victory over the world and transferred out of the moral ignorance of darkness and into the marvelous spiritual enlightenment of truth. Then follow the witnesses to this truth: which are “the water and the blood.” Many are the explanations for these words. The ritualists understand them to signify baptism’s sacraments and the Lord’s Supper. Others see only symbols of purification and redemption.

But it seems that John uses these words as a summary of the Anointed One’s earthly life and mission, baptism in the water of Jordan, and His sacrificial death by the shedding of His blood for the world’s redemption. The cardinal truths of His gospel are here briefly stated; for at His baptism with water with the Holy Spirit attending the Divine announcement of His Sonship to God implied that He is God’s Son in a sense unique and peculiar. It was a sufficient opening and explanation of His whole ministry. His public and tragic death is at once the close and the description of His life of self-sacrifice.

Now, the Gnostic teachers, against whom John is writing, admitted that the Anointed One came “through” and “in” water; at His baptism, they said, that the Divine Word united Himself with the human Jesus. However, they denied that the Divine Anointing had any share in what was achieved “through” and “in” blood. According to them, the Word departed from Jesus at Gethsemane. John emphatically assures us that there was no such separation. It was God’s Son who was baptized; it was the Son of God who was crucified; and it is faith in this vital truth that produces brotherly love, that overcomes the world, and is eternal life. Besides, the Spirit’s testimony to the Divinity of the Anointed One and the absolute truth of His Gospel.[1] There are six other witnesses cited in John’s Gospel: The First Covenant Scriptures,[2] John the Baptizer,[3] the Disciples,[4] the Anointed One’s works,[5] His words,[6] and the Father.[7]

In this Epistle, John adds two more witnesses, the water and the blood, thus making eight witnesses in all. That John is not a favorite with the so-called liberal religious teachers is not extraordinary. “The Spirit is truth.” Hence His testimony is infallible in glorifying the Anointed One[8] identifying Him as Jesus. “Just as the Anointed One is Truth,[9] the Spirit sent in His name is Truth.”

With a studious monk’s spiritual insight, Bede the Venerable (672-735 AD), notes that the Latin Vulgate Version reads thus: “The Spirit is He who testifies that Christ is the Truth” with a very vigorous style, to denounce those who deny the reality of our Savior’s human body. To this, he responds: “Since, therefore, the Spirit testifies that the Anointed One is the Truth and since He surnames Himself the Truth, and John the Baptizer proclaims Him to be the Truth, and the Son of thunder in his evangel heralds Him as the Truth, let the blasphemers who dogmatically declare that He is a phantom hold their tongues; let their memory perish from the earth who deny either that He is God or that He is a real man.” The whole truth revealed by the Anointed must be believed no matter how much one may disagree. It is morally impossible to be a picky believer, receiving only the pleasant parts of Christianity. It is putting corrupt taste above the infallible Teacher, to whom the human intellect and the human will must bow when we exercise saving faith. Here, John’s speech concerning the Anointed One is also said of His representative, the Holy Spirit.^[10]

After sufficient examination of the Greek text, Brooke F. Westcott (1825-1901) notes that the two parts of the historical witness to the Anointed One are distinguished by the different forms of outward symbols used in corresponding clauses. He came “by water and blood,” and again “not in water only, but in water and in blood!” The pronoun “He” (KJV) in verse six goes back to the subject of the last sentence of verse five, “That Jesus is the Son of God.” The compound title at the end of the clause, “Jesus the Anointed One,” emphasizes the truth established by the manner of the “coming of” Jesus. He came, whose Divine Office is expressed by the full name He bears, Jesus the Anointed One.

Now, the verb “came” is used with an apparent reference to the technical sense of “He that comes.”[11] Thus “He that came”’ is equivalent to “He that fulfilled the promises to the patriarchs, as the Savior sent from God.”[12]  The sense of “He that came” distinctly points to a historical fact and determines that these terms must have historical meaning and refer to actual events characteristic of how the Lord fulfilled His office upon the earth. He was proven to be the Anointed One – by water and blood. “Water” and “blood” contributed in some way to reveal His work’s nature and fulfillment. There can be no doubt that Death on the Cross satisfies the conception of “coming by blood.”’ By so dying, the Lord made known His work as Redeemer; and opened the fountain of His life to humanity.^[13]

After observing the Apostle John’s attention to detailJohn Stock (1817-1884) states that the Apostles delighted to dwell upon the Lord Jesus, His salvation, and His name to those who love the Lord like ointment poured out on His name.[14] John here asserts that our Lord came by water and blood, both of which, in what they signify, are indispensably requisite for salvation. Not only by water or blood alone, both of which issued from His pierced side[15] denoting His death. All who believe are sanctified and perfected by His blood allowing His Spirit access to work in them to will and do everything according to God’s good pleasure.[16] One sanctification protects us from sin and its deserved death; the other remold us into the lost image of God. Our Lord saves His people from their sins, guilt, and power, saying, “Sin shall not have dominion over you.”[17] Had the Lord only come by blood, salvation from death would not have qualified us for heaven. By bringing deliverance to the pit where there was no water,[18] He came by water, and His Spirit makes us eligible to be partakers of the saints’ inheritance in the Light.[19] ^[20]

---

[1] John 15:26

[2] Ibid. 5:39-47

[3] Ibid. 1:7

[4] Ibid. 15:27; 16:30

[5] Ibid. 5:36; 10:23, 38

[6] Ibid. 8:14, 18; 18:37

[7] Ibid. 5:37; 8:18

[8] Ibid. 16:14

[9] Ibid. 14:16

[10] Bede, The Venerable: Ancient Christian Commentary, Bray, Gerald, ed., op. cit., Vol. XI, p. 223

[11] Matthew 9:3; Luke 7:19ff; cf. John 1:15, 27; 6:14; 11:27; 12:13; see also John 1:30; 10:8

[12] John 2:18

[13] Westcott, Brooke F., The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text with Notes op. cit., p. 181

[14] Song of Solomon 1:3

[15] John 19:34

[16] Luke 12:32

[17] Romans 6:14

[18] Zechariah 9:11

[19] Colossians 1:12

[20] Stock, John: An Exposition of the First Epistle General of St. John, op. cit., pp. 315-316, 323-324

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLI) 12/12/22

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

As a faithful and zealous Bible aficionado, William Graham (1810-1883) infers that the Witness of the Spirit concludes verse sixth – “And it is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is truth.” How does the Spirit bear witness to Christ? (1) The Holy Spirit gave witness to the Son of God in the person of the Redeemer, for the power of the Holy Spirit generated Him.^[1]Furthermore, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove at His baptism.^[2]The Spirit then guided Him into the wilderness and the rest of His ministry in humility and self-denial.^[3]He also performed His miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit.^[4] Finally, the Holy Spirit raised Him from the grave. And after His resurrection, our Lord was filled with the immeasurable power of the Holy Spirit, whereby He became the head of the new dispensation of grace, from whom all the needy creatures of God are to receive the divine mercy and goodness forever.

(2) The Holy Spirit also testified about the Redeemer. Especially to His death and resurrection and His gifts^[5]of a miraculous spiritual endowment to the Church. From the Day of Pentecost to the present, it enabled the Church to testify of the resurrection and glory of the Lord Jesus the Anointed One. There is no testimony so noble, so convincing, none so overpowering to the convictions of sinners, or so unassailable to the infidel, as a Church filled with the fruit of righteousness walking in the ways of the Lord. Such a Church is the work of the Holy Spirit. He built the house, inhabiting it; He formed the temple and worshiped in it.

(3) The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Savior by the prophecies which are fulfilled and fulfilling in Him, and hence it is written, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”[6]The Holy Spirit is the divine inspirer, and all holy Scripture is inspired by God,^[7] for “holy men of God spake as the Holy Spirit moved them.”^[8] So, then, the Holy Spirit bears testimony to the Lord Jesus in His person and work, the persons and results of the redeemed Church, and the great system of providence and prophecy. Therefore, the Apostle John might well say, “And it is the Spirit that bears witness because the Spirit is truth.”^[9]

With the spiritual zeal of a sacred text examiner, William E. Jelf (1811-1875) comments that the Apostle John forcibly states the object and grounds of this faith. Faith is such an essential element, or rather, so indispensable a foundation of the Christian character, that John repeatedly refers to, “this is God’s Son.” Others state that it is an acknowledged fact that Jesus was baptized and crucified. The point to be insisted on against Jews, Gentiles, and certain heretics was that Jesus the Anointed One, or the Messiah was and is the Son of God who came.[10]There are many interpretations of this most challenging passage: (1) The water and the blood which flowed from our Lord’s pierced side as evidence of His actual death, or as types of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (2) The sacraments. (3) The water signifies our Lord’s baptism; the blood, His death. (4) The water signifying the sacrament of baptism; the blood, the Anointed One’s death; and others which it is not worthwhile mentioning.

We may observe that the “water” and “blood” are not yet spoken of as witnesses but as circumstances accompanying our Lord’s mission on earth. “Is come” expresses properties or qualities, or additions to the action defined by “has come,” and, therefore, it is in our Lord’s mission on earth that we must find the meaning of “water” and “blood.”  We need not look in anything that He instituted or in anything merely viewed as evidence; they must express His characteristics on earth. In our Lord’s life as the Messiah, there are two circumstances where the notions of water and blood find a place. One in His baptism, which was, as it were, His inauguration into the Messianic office, the first step in carrying out God’s will as the Anointed One, a fulfilling of all righteousness. Another was His death on the cross as the Redeemer’s last of His mission on earth.

We might agree that “by water” is more challenging to assign a particular meaning. Everybody probably would at once connect “by blood” with Jesus’ death. But, whatever sense we give to this, we must provide an equivalent one to “by water” so that we may not suppose the former to mean a circumstance belonging to the Anointed One and the latter a rite instituted by Him. The best interpretation is that His water baptism and crucifixion blood characterized His Messianic mission. The Apostle John may have mentioned the water and blood because of what he relates in his Gospel.[11] He may also have had the water and blood of the two sacraments in his mind. But this notion is a needless refinement to the passage, which adds nothing to its force, and confuses its meaning.

If Jesus’ mission had been marked only by His baptism, He might have been merely a Prophet, coming from God indeed, to save mankind by a moral system. His shed blood on the cross gives the Christian structure its characteristic of redemption, and therefore it is thus definitely stated by John. The article “by” marks the identity of each with the water and blood mentioned above. There are also a variety of interpretations given to the word “Spirit,” which commonly refers to the Holy Spirit. He bore witness to the Anointed One’s mission, either in His miracles on the Day of Pentecost, or perhaps both. The force of the witness borne by the Spirit lies in that He is Truth itself and cannot deceive or be deceived.^[12]

With an inquiring spiritual mind, Johannes H. A. Ebrard (1819-1893) asks what power “the Anointed One has come” has that causes Him to work in us, activating true belief. We see this unfold in verse six. It is self-evident that the verse serves as the confirmation of the central proposition of verse five, “Who is he that overcomes,” and not to the support of the lesser clause, “that Jesus is the Son of God.” It is not necessary now that the Apostle John should establish the general proposition that Jesus is the Son of God, for he has already amply and comprehensively revealed the consistency and harmony of this proposition in chapter four with the principles of all knowledge of God. The fact that verse six does not establish the suggestion that Jesus is the Son of God will be shown by carefully examining the meaning of  “Jesus the Anointed One is the one who came. He came with water and with blood. He did not come by water only. No, Jesus came by both water and blood.” On the whole, these easily understandable words have been explained in various strange ways by different expositors.

To begin with, it is plain that “witnessing” cannot stand without knowing its object. Therefore, it will not suffice to supply “that Jesus is the Anointed One” from verse five. “Witnessing,” in verse six, must have its object; and even more, because in verse seven, it stands without one, which would be acceptable by specifying the item in verse six. Therefore, “the Spirit tells us that this is true because the Spirit is the truth” as an impartial proposal. The Spirit of God, who is effectual in us as the Spirit of faith and love, lays down His testimony before the world to this: That this spirit of Christian faith and of Christian love is the truth. The Spirit demonstrates by His power and operation what is true.

That begs the question, to what is the Spirit bearing witness? Is it meant to be assumed, from the fact that the Spirit of God is truth, that He cannot possibly keep silent but must offer His testimony? The emphasis, however, does not rest here upon the assumed idea but upon the affirmed fact that the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with His testimony. Therefore, because the Spirit is truth, His testimony is steadfast and sure. But has it been revealed what the Spirit is testifying? Yes! “Jesus the Anointed One is the one who came by water and blood.”[13]

After inspecting John’s train of thought, William Kelly (1822-1888) comments that here we are led from the person of the Anointed One, which had just been before us, to the work of the Anointed One characterizing His person. For His ministry is that which furnishes the witnesses. God deigns to give us more than sufficient testimony. The Law required two witnesses in the things between humans; three were better still.[14] Here God provides fully. He presents three witnesses of the most significant conceivable weight for leading to the truth. “This is He that came,” neither by human birth, might, or wisdom, nor yet by divine power or glory.

It was not through His incarnation nor His unequaled ministry. “This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus the Anointed One.” He who was the true God and life eternal came to die as any human, yet as no other could die, He came from God to save sinners and wash them, not only purified inwardly but in God’s sight whiter than snow through His blood.[15] Yes, His death alone could blot out sin and glorify God.[16] The allusion is unquestionable to our Lord on the cross, dead already, pierced by the soldier to make sure of His death, out of whose side flowed blood and water. In history, the blood caught the eye first, of course, and so there was first named. Had anyone heard that blood and water should issue out of the side of a dead man? Yet so they did here.[17]

Familiar with the Apostle John’s writing style, William B. Pope (1822-1903) states that this is a problematic passage. First, it is governed by human and Divine testimony that “Jesus is the Anointed One” and “the Son of God.”  Secondly, the terms used in verse six imply a symbolical meaning underlying the literal, for we cannot understand “water” and “blood” as merely pointing to historical facts. Thirdly, the Apostle John has in view the misinterpretations of his time concerning the manifestation of Jesus in the flesh. “This Person Jesus the Anointed One” who “came” not into the world, but His Messianic office as the Anointed One, “by water and blood.”

There are two leading interpretations of those words. One of them understands by “water” the instituted baptism of John the Baptizer, which inaugurated Jesus into His Messianic office, and by “blood” His passion and death. The other explanation regards John fixing his thought upon the mysterious “sign” that he watched after the Savior’s death. It occurred when the piercing of His side was followed by the double stream of blood and water – the blood of atonement and water of life – flowing together as the symbol of one eternal life from His sacrifice. The latter we hold to as the true meaning. But let us do justice to the former.^[18]

With precise spiritual discernment, William Alexander (1824-1911) extensively exposes verse six. He focuses on the fact that “He did not come by water only.” It may have been that the Apostle John had the followers of Cerinthus in mind. They separated Jesus from the divine Spirit placed upon Him at His baptism, then left before His death on the cross. These misled people could not bring themselves to believe that a person could be both human and divine in one body without some infusion of power from above. But John utterly denies such thinking. There is only one authentic Lord Jesus, the Anointed One – declared to be One in His baptism and by the passion of His blood on Calvary. The Jews already incorporated this by pouring water and wine on the sacrifices at the Altar. As the Lamb of God, we read that when Jesus died on the Cross, one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out.^{[19] [20]}

---

[1] Luke 1:35

[2] Matthew 3:16

[3] Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1

[4] Matthew 12:28

[5] Romans 1:11; 12:6; 1 Corinthians 7:7; 12:4, 9,28,30-31; 2 Corinthians 1:11; 1 Peter 4:10

[6] Revelation 19:10

[7] 2 Timothy 3:16

[8] 2 Peter 1:21

[9] Graham, William: The Spirit of Love, op. cit., p. 322-323

[10] Cf. Matthew 16:16

[11] John 19:34

[12] Jelf, William E., Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John, op. cit., pp. 70-72

[13] Ebrard, Johannes H. A., Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, op. cit., p. 315

[14] Matthew 18:16

[15] Isaiah 1:18

[16] John 13:31-32

[17] Kelly, William: An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, op. cit., p. 362

[18] Pope, William B., The International Illustrated Commentary on the N. T., Vol. IV, p. 37

[19] John 19:34

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