1 John 5:6-8 (KJV, not trying to debate the Comma)

[God'sElectSaint]

Hey Brethren! I am seeking some guidance in these verses. Their is a whole lot to digest in here. 1 Jn 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood." What does water and blood equate to in these verses? Next question 1 Jn 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" Does this mean that the Truine God is bearing record to us from heaven? And lastly of course what would be meant by the Spirit, the water and the blood? Is this the same water and blood from verse 6? Just looking for some clarification from some more experienced brethren.

 

[Justified]

I've always understood the water to refer to Jesus' baptism and the blood his crucifiction. Sort of the two bookends of Jesus' ministry. I'm sure others can elaborate more.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Thanks Evan, that's along the lines of what I was thinking. So I am assuming you see this definition in both verses?

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Others, like Augustine, have seen it as a Trinitarian reference:

"If we wish to inquire about these things, what they signify, not absurdly does the Trinity suggest Itself, who is the one, only, true, and highest God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concerning whom it could most truly be said, Three are Witnesses, and the Three are One. By the word spirit we consider God the Father to be signified, concerning the worship of whom the Lord spoke, when He said, God is a spirit. By the word blood the Son is signified, because the Word was made flesh. And by the word water we understand the Holy Spirit. For when Jesus spoke concerning the water which He was about to give the thirsty, the evangelist says, This He spake concerning the Spirit whom those that believed in Him would receive. "

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Others, like Augustine, have seen it as a Trinitarian reference:

"If we wish to inquire about these things, what they signify, not absurdly does the Trinity suggest Itself, who is the one, only, true, and highest God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concerning whom it could most truly be said, Three are Witnesses, and the Three are One. By the word spirit we consider God the Father to be signified, concerning the worship of whom the Lord spoke, when He said, God is a spirit. By the word blood the Son is signified, because the Word was made flesh. And by the word water we understand the Holy Spirit. For when Jesus spoke concerning the water which He was about to give the thirsty, the evangelist says, This He spake concerning the Spirit whom those that believed in Him would receive. "

Very interesting! Will certainly consider this interpretation

 

[Romans922]

Read Matthew Henry

 

[Shimei]

Does anyone pause before using the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7)?

Just curious, would you still base your doctrine on said text when it does not exist pre 1600s? Or would you have an issue basing doctrine on text such as the ending of Mark 16 or the adulterous woman found in John 8?

I realize that the thread does not want to debate it, I was merely wondering whether this is an issue at all?

God bless,
William

 

[MW]

The earthly witness is given in historical earthly events, and this is in keeping with the emphasis in First John upon Christ coming in the flesh and being declared by those who saw and handled Him.

The three witnesses are testifying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The water and the blood likely refer to the baptism and the crucifixion. The other reference is not so apparent. Testimony was given at the incarnation in connection with the work of the Holy Spirit. This would preserve the chronological order of spirit, water, and blood in verse 8. The other possibilities are the resurrection (the catalyst for the new age of the spirit) or Pentecost (the outpouring of the Holy Spirit), or a combination of both. The chronological order of verse 8 would be disrupted, but this might be in keeping with verse 6, which mentions the Spirit after water and blood.

If one believes verse 7 is original there is every reason to appeal to it as an explicit reference to the Trinity, especially since it clarifies the divinity of the Son so decisively, and brings the Trinity and the Son's divinity into such close connection with the doctrines of salvation and faith. The unbelief of some does not make the faith of God without effect. What is the chaff to the wheat? There are many throughout history who have appealed to the three heavenly witnesses to establish and strengthen their faith.

 

[JimmyH]

Does anyone pause before using the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7)?

Just curious, would you still base your doctrine on said text when it does not exist pre 1600s? Or would you have an issue basing doctrine on text such as the ending of Mark 16 or the adulterous woman found in John 8?

I realize that the thread does not want to debate it, I was merely wondering whether this is an issue at all?

God bless,
William

If you have the time and the inclination here are two long and hard fought threads on the topic ;

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/84468-Verse-differences

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/84893-Dr-James-White-would-not-preach-on-these-texts!

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Does anyone pause before using the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7)?

Just curious, would you still base your doctrine on said text when it does not exist pre 1600s? Or would you have an issue basing doctrine on text such as the ending of Mark 16 or the adulterous woman found in John 8?

I realize that the thread does not want to debate it, I was merely wondering whether this is an issue at all?

God bless,
William

William I think it would effect doctrine yes if you believe something is not original but that is why I said I didn't want to debate on the Comma in this particular thread. But yes it is an issue to me definitely but as my friend Jimmy pointed out there is much debate on it in other threads.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'm actually preaching on 1 John 5:6-8 this coming Sabbath and after doing a lot of research (mostly on the Johannine Comma) I think in this case the simplest answer is the most likely, referring to His baptism and crucifixion. As was noted above it works with the witnesses (especially when you consider the Mosaic requirement for two or three witnesses), as they are two public acts.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I'm actually preaching on 1 John 5:6-8 this coming Sabbath and after doing a lot of research (mostly on the Johannine Comma) I think in this case the simplest answer is the most likely, referring to His baptism and crucifixion. As was noted above it works with the witnesses (especially when you consider the Mosaic requirement for two or three witnesses), as they are two public acts.

Will you be preaching from a comma is authentic perceptive? just curious?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'm actually preaching on 1 John 5:6-8 this coming Sabbath and after doing a lot of research (mostly on the Johannine Comma) I think in this case the simplest answer is the most likely, referring to His baptism and crucifixion. As was noted above it works with the witnesses (especially when you consider the Mosaic requirement for two or three witnesses), as they are two public acts.

Will you be preaching from a comma is authentic perceptive? just curious?

As authentic

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I'm actually preaching on 1 John 5:6-8 this coming Sabbath and after doing a lot of research (mostly on the Johannine Comma) I think in this case the simplest answer is the most likely, referring to His baptism and crucifixion. As was noted above it works with the witnesses (especially when you consider the Mosaic requirement for two or three witnesses), as they are two public acts.

Will you be preaching from a comma is authentic perceptive? just curious?

As authentic

I take it as such myself since I have grown to rely on the KJV quite a bit and don't have much knowledge I just take it in faith.