Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LVII) 01/03/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] Matthew 28:19

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

[4] John 19:34-35

[5] John 1:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LVI) 01/02/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

[6] John 19:34-35

[7] Isaiah 1:18

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LV) 12/30/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] See John 4:21

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

[11] Ibid. 4:13

[12] Ibid. 3:24

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIV) 12/29/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LIII) 12/28/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Isaiah 66:1

[7] See 1 Timothy 3:15-16

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LII) 12/27/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[2] Genesis 1:6-7

[3] Job 26:11

[4] Genesis 1:26

[5] Numbers 6:24-26

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

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

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

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

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

[11] Deuteronomy 32:43

[12] Ibid. 6:13

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

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

[15] Romans 8:16

[16] Ibid. 6:4

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LI) 12/26/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Ephesians 5:25-27

[2] John 6:44

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

[4] John 10:30

[5] 1 John 5:6

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

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

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

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

[10] Cf. Ephesians 4:11

[11] Matthew 11:9, 11

[12] 1 John 5:8

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

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

[15] Cf. John 1:18

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

[17] See 1 Peter 1:2

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson L) 12/23/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Deuteronomy 6:4

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

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

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

[5] John 5:9-10

[6] John 14:1

[7] 1 John 5:7

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

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

[10] 1 Corinthians 15:28

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

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

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

[14] John 1:14

[15] See 1 John 5:8

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

[17] See Deuteronomy 6:4

[18] 1 Timothy 3:16

[19] 1 Corinthians 2:6

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

[21] John 15:26

[22] Ibid. 1:29

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

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

[25] Acts of the Apostles 2:1

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLIX) 12/22/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND HOMILETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Ibid. 8:13-14

[2] Psalm 33:6

[3] Isaiah 61:1

[4] Matthew 3:16

[5] Ibid. 17:1-5

[6] John 8:18

[7] Ibid. 8:54

[8] Ibid. 10:37-38

[9] Ibid. 12:28

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

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

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

[13] John 10:30

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

[15] Matthew 12:30

[16] John 10:30

[17] 1 John 5:7

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

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

[20] Luke 3:16

[21] 1 John 5:8

[22] Acts of the Apostles 1:5

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson XLVIII) 12/21/22

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

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

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

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

EXPOSITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] John 14:18

[2] Deuteronomy 19:15

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

[4] John 14:18

[5] Ibid. 3:3-5

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

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

[8] Ibid 4:6

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

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

[11] John 19:34

[12] John 1:31, 33

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

[14] John 1:32–34

[15] Matthew 3:17

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

[17] Hebrews 2:3-4

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