Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVII) 01/17/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[3] John 19:35

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

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

[6] John 19:34-35

[7] Ibid. 19:30

[8] Ibid. 15:26

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

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

[11] John 1:13-14

[12] Ibid. 19:19

[13] Ibid. 3:13

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

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

[16] Hebrews 10:12

[17] John 1:33

[18] 1 John 1:7

[19] John 3:3

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

[21] 1 John 2:2

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

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

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

[25] The inserted words in verses seven and eight

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXVI) 01/16/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Ibid. 5:16-45

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

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

[4] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15

[5] John 5:31-37

[6] Hebrews 6:17-18

[7] 1 John 1:34

[8] Matthew 27:54

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

[10] John 1:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17] John 19:34-35

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXV) 01/13/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] John 1:33

[2] Ibid. 15:26

[3] Ibid. 15:27

[4] Ibid. 4:24

[5] 1 John 1:5

[6] Ibid 4:8, 16

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

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

[9] Genesis 31:45-48

[10] Deuteronomy 31:28

[11] John 5:36; 10:25

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

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

[14] See Mark 14:56, 59

[15] John 4:24

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

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

[18] 1 John 5:8

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

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

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

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

[23] John 19:35

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIV) 01/12/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] John 19:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15] 1 John 4:2-3

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

[17] Hebrews 11:4

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIII) 01/11/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] John 5:39

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

[3] John 19:35

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

[5] 1 John 5:11

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

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

[8] John 20:31

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

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

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

[12] John 20:31

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXII) 01/10/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] Matthew 3:16-17

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

[10] Hebrews 9:22

[11] 1 John 1:7

[12] Provided by Chicago Bible Students

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXI) 01/09/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[3] Cf. Hebrews 2:16

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

[5] See 1 John 1:2

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

[7] Matthew 18:16

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

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

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

[11] John 14:26

[12] Ibid. 16:13

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LX) 01/06/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[3] Leviticus 8:30

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

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

[6] John 17:20ff

[7] 1 John 5:12

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

[9] 1 Corinthians 13:1

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIX) 01/05/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] Ibid. p. 277

[3] Ibid. pp. 316-317

[4] John 19:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LVIII) 01/04/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] 2 Corinthians 13:1

[3] John 5:36

[4] Matthew 17:5

[5] John 6:44

[6] Ibid. 10:30

[7] John 3:13

[8] Romans 1:4

[9] Psalm 51:12

[10] Revelation 19:10

[11] Colossians 2:12

[12] Exodus 24:8

[13] Romans 6:4

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

[15] 2 Corinthians 5:21

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

[17] Ibid. 3:12

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

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

[20] John 20:25

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

[22] Ibid. p. 667