Active
1John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
I have thought on these three verses many times. There are a few different interpretations of these verses of what it really means, "Water & Blood". I thought it would be a valuable study to nail down what each of us believe about what exactly is the water & blood meaning.
I have included a statement by, Albert Barnes on some different interpretations and finally what he believes is the right one. I also will give you what I believe. Now I want to know what you fine Theologians have to say.
Come on you folk who have recently joined this great Forum. Get your feet wet, join in here with your :twocents.
This is rather long, and I feel that the information here will help you all make up your minds to the true meaning of "Water and the Blood".
Albert Barnes,
This is he - This Son of God referred to in the previous verse. The object of the apostle in this verse, in connection with 1Jo_5:8, is to state the nature of the evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. He refers to three well-known things on which he probably had insisted much in his preaching - the water, and the blood, and the Spirit. These, he says, furnished evidence on the very point which he was illustrating, by showing that that Jesus on whom they believed was the Son of God. “This,” says he, “is the same one, the very person, to whom the well-known and important testimony is borne; to him, and him alone, these undisputed things appertain, and not to any other who should claim to be the Messiah and they all agree on the same one point,” 1Jo_5:8.
That came - ὁ εἰδὼν ho eidōn. This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work. An ambassador might be said to come with credentials; a warrior might be said to come with the spoils of victory; a prince might be said to “come” with the insignia of royalty; a prophet comes with signs and wonders; and the Lord Jesus might also be said to have come with power to raise the dead, and to heal disease, and to cast out devils; but John here fixes the attention on a fact so impressive and remarkable in his view as to be worthy of special remark, that he “came” by water and blood.
By water - There have been many opinions in regard to the meaning of this phrase. See Pool’s Synopsis. Compare also Lucke, “in loc.” A mere reference to some of these opinions may aid in ascertaining the true interpretation.
(1) Clement of Alexandria supposes that by “water” regeneration and faith were denoted, and by “blood” the public acknowledgment of that.
(2) Some, and among them Wetstein, have held that the words are used to denote the fact that the Lord Jesus was truly a man, in contradistinction from the doctrine of the “Docetae;” and that the apostle means to say that he had all the properties of a human being - a spirit or soul, blood, and the watery humors of the body.
(3) Grotius supposes that by his coming “by water,” there is reference to his pure life, as water is the emblem of purity; and he refers to Eze_36:25; Isa_1:16; Jer_4:14. As a sign of that purity, he says that John baptized him, Joh_1:28. A sufficient objection to this view is, that as in the corresponding word “blood” there is undoubted reference to blood literally, it cannot be supposed that the word “water” in the same connection would be used figuratively. Moreover, as Lucke (p. 287) has remarked, water, though a “symbol” of purity, is never used to denote “purity itself,” and therefore cannot here refer to the pure life of Jesus.
(4) Many expositors suppose that the reference is to the baptism of Jesus, and that by his “coming by water and blood,” as by the latter there is undoubted reference to his death, so by the former there is reference to his baptism, or to his entrance on his public work. Of this opinion were Tertullian, OEcumenius, Theophylact, among the fathers, and Capellus, Heumann, Stroth, Lange, Ziegler, A. Clarke, Bengel, Rosenmuller, Macknight, and others, among the moderns. A leading argument for this opinion, as alleged, has been that it was then that the Spirit bare witness to him, Mat_3:16, and that this is what John here refers to when he says, “It is the Spirit that beareth witness,” etc. To this view, Locke urges substantially the following objections:
(a) That if it refers to baptism, the phrase would much more appropriately express the fact that Jesus came baptizing others, if that were so, than that he was baptized himself. The phrase would be strictly applicable to John the Baptist, who came baptizing, and whose ministry was distinguished for that, Mat_3:1; and if Jesus had baptized in the same manner, or if this had been a prominent characteristic of his ministry, it would be applicable to him. Compare Joh_4:2. But if it means that he was baptized, and that he came in that way “by water,” it was equally true of all the apostles who were baptized, and of all others, and there was nothing so remarkable in the fact that he was baptized as to justify the prominence given to the phrase in this place.
(b) If reference be had here, as is supposed in this view of the passage, to the witness that was borne to the Lord Jesus on the occasion of his baptism, then the reference should have been not to the “water” as the witness, but to the “voice that came from heaven,” Mat_3:17, for it was that which was the witness in the case. Though this occurred at the time of the baptism, yet it was quite an independent thing, and was important enough to have been referred to. See Lucke, “Com. in loc.” These objections, however, are not insuperable. Though Jesus did not come baptizing others himself Joh_4:2, and though the phrase would have expressed that if he had, yet, as Christian baptism began with him; as this was the first act in his entrance on public life; as it was by this that he was set apart to his work; and as he designed that this should be always the initiatory rite of his religion, there was no impropriety in saying that his “coming,” or his advent in this world, was at the beginning characterized by water, and at the close by blood. Moreover, though the “witness” at his baptism was really borne by a voice from heaven, yet his baptism was the prominent thing; and if we take the baptism to denote all that in fact occurred when he was baptized, all the objections made by Lucke here vanish.
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
I have thought on these three verses many times. There are a few different interpretations of these verses of what it really means, "Water & Blood". I thought it would be a valuable study to nail down what each of us believe about what exactly is the water & blood meaning.
I have included a statement by, Albert Barnes on some different interpretations and finally what he believes is the right one. I also will give you what I believe. Now I want to know what you fine Theologians have to say.
Come on you folk who have recently joined this great Forum. Get your feet wet, join in here with your :twocents.
This is rather long, and I feel that the information here will help you all make up your minds to the true meaning of "Water and the Blood".
Albert Barnes,
This is he - This Son of God referred to in the previous verse. The object of the apostle in this verse, in connection with 1Jo_5:8, is to state the nature of the evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. He refers to three well-known things on which he probably had insisted much in his preaching - the water, and the blood, and the Spirit. These, he says, furnished evidence on the very point which he was illustrating, by showing that that Jesus on whom they believed was the Son of God. “This,” says he, “is the same one, the very person, to whom the well-known and important testimony is borne; to him, and him alone, these undisputed things appertain, and not to any other who should claim to be the Messiah and they all agree on the same one point,” 1Jo_5:8.
That came - ὁ εἰδὼν ho eidōn. This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work. An ambassador might be said to come with credentials; a warrior might be said to come with the spoils of victory; a prince might be said to “come” with the insignia of royalty; a prophet comes with signs and wonders; and the Lord Jesus might also be said to have come with power to raise the dead, and to heal disease, and to cast out devils; but John here fixes the attention on a fact so impressive and remarkable in his view as to be worthy of special remark, that he “came” by water and blood.
By water - There have been many opinions in regard to the meaning of this phrase. See Pool’s Synopsis. Compare also Lucke, “in loc.” A mere reference to some of these opinions may aid in ascertaining the true interpretation.
(1) Clement of Alexandria supposes that by “water” regeneration and faith were denoted, and by “blood” the public acknowledgment of that.
(2) Some, and among them Wetstein, have held that the words are used to denote the fact that the Lord Jesus was truly a man, in contradistinction from the doctrine of the “Docetae;” and that the apostle means to say that he had all the properties of a human being - a spirit or soul, blood, and the watery humors of the body.
(3) Grotius supposes that by his coming “by water,” there is reference to his pure life, as water is the emblem of purity; and he refers to Eze_36:25; Isa_1:16; Jer_4:14. As a sign of that purity, he says that John baptized him, Joh_1:28. A sufficient objection to this view is, that as in the corresponding word “blood” there is undoubted reference to blood literally, it cannot be supposed that the word “water” in the same connection would be used figuratively. Moreover, as Lucke (p. 287) has remarked, water, though a “symbol” of purity, is never used to denote “purity itself,” and therefore cannot here refer to the pure life of Jesus.
(4) Many expositors suppose that the reference is to the baptism of Jesus, and that by his “coming by water and blood,” as by the latter there is undoubted reference to his death, so by the former there is reference to his baptism, or to his entrance on his public work. Of this opinion were Tertullian, OEcumenius, Theophylact, among the fathers, and Capellus, Heumann, Stroth, Lange, Ziegler, A. Clarke, Bengel, Rosenmuller, Macknight, and others, among the moderns. A leading argument for this opinion, as alleged, has been that it was then that the Spirit bare witness to him, Mat_3:16, and that this is what John here refers to when he says, “It is the Spirit that beareth witness,” etc. To this view, Locke urges substantially the following objections:
(a) That if it refers to baptism, the phrase would much more appropriately express the fact that Jesus came baptizing others, if that were so, than that he was baptized himself. The phrase would be strictly applicable to John the Baptist, who came baptizing, and whose ministry was distinguished for that, Mat_3:1; and if Jesus had baptized in the same manner, or if this had been a prominent characteristic of his ministry, it would be applicable to him. Compare Joh_4:2. But if it means that he was baptized, and that he came in that way “by water,” it was equally true of all the apostles who were baptized, and of all others, and there was nothing so remarkable in the fact that he was baptized as to justify the prominence given to the phrase in this place.
(b) If reference be had here, as is supposed in this view of the passage, to the witness that was borne to the Lord Jesus on the occasion of his baptism, then the reference should have been not to the “water” as the witness, but to the “voice that came from heaven,” Mat_3:17, for it was that which was the witness in the case. Though this occurred at the time of the baptism, yet it was quite an independent thing, and was important enough to have been referred to. See Lucke, “Com. in loc.” These objections, however, are not insuperable. Though Jesus did not come baptizing others himself Joh_4:2, and though the phrase would have expressed that if he had, yet, as Christian baptism began with him; as this was the first act in his entrance on public life; as it was by this that he was set apart to his work; and as he designed that this should be always the initiatory rite of his religion, there was no impropriety in saying that his “coming,” or his advent in this world, was at the beginning characterized by water, and at the close by blood. Moreover, though the “witness” at his baptism was really borne by a voice from heaven, yet his baptism was the prominent thing; and if we take the baptism to denote all that in fact occurred when he was baptized, all the objections made by Lucke here vanish.
