the Spirit, the Water, the Blood

[Jethro Bodine]

How is it that you can just decide that John who is speaking in plain and clear literal words, just to somehow decide to change into some deep symbolic or parabolic language here in verse 6, then just go back to plain literal language.

Because ALL people are born by water and blood. I watched as all four of my kids were born. Lots of water, and lots of blood (and I assure you they were not all virgin births). This being true--that ALL births are by water and blood--we can't help but to interpret even the blood that you are talking about in a symbolic way. Your suggestion being that the blood, although literal, is symbolic of Mary's virginity.

The main thing that drives me away from the literal birth interpretation is that he stresses the point about coming not just by the water, but by the water AND the blood. No need to stress that obvious fact if he's talking about literal human birth. That's a given in every case of human birth.

The scriptures imply that something very dramatic occurred spiritually when Christ died and was pierced. Prophecy had now been fulfilled and the Spirit of prophecy was now being released to the world--released through the literal evidence of the blood and the water that flowed out of his side in conjunction with the testimony of the Spirit which caused even the centurion and those at the crucifixion to proclaim, "Truly this was the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:54 NASB). The testimony and revelation of Jesus Christ being the Son of God had come into the world by the water, the blood, and the Spirit. That proclamation now going out into all the world. That's where I'm at right now with this intriguing passage of scripture.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Because ALL people are born by water and blood.

The blood of the placenta is what all humans and animals are born with.

Every woman has her water sack break when she gives birth to a child.

Only Mary had her hymen intact when Jesus came into this world.

There is no hidden symbolic meaning in John's teaching from 1 John 5.

We don't get to "make up" some deep mysterious hidden symbolic meaning to the straight forward words that he uses.

"He came" teaches us what the authors meant. He came into this world...

If he said "He went" or "He died" by water and blood, then maybe it might be responsible to assume there was some meaning referred to in His death.

came by water = born of water; ie natural child birth - just like this same John uses in John 3:5-6

came by blood = born of blood of Mary's hymen; the only virgin birth ever.

not of water only, by He came by both water and blood.

Plain and simple. The people that read this, understood this testimony. It's clear and simple.




JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"He came" teaches us what the authors meant. He came into this world...

If he said "He went" or "He died" by water and blood, then maybe it might be responsible to assume there was some meaning referred to in His death.

IMO, Him coming into the world can also be referring to his unveiling as the Son of God to the world. He came to die and show himself to be the Son of God in accordance with prophecy, his death on the cross and His resurrection in accordance with prophecy--and the testimony of the Spirit about that--all coming in agreement to testify to the world that He is the Son of God, making him now known to the world.

came by water = born of water; ie natural child birth - just like this same John uses in John 3:5-6

But we don't know what the water is referring to in that passage either. Jesus didn't say, and there are multiple possibilities. Since he's talking to Nicodemus, I'm of the opinion that the water in John 3:5 is symbolic of being 'born' into the kingdom of God via the waters of repentance, John's baptism--law keeping. He was instructing Nic that he not only had to repent via Moses, and be 'born' into the kingdom that way, but he also had to be born from above via the Spirit. The Jews understanding the water part very well, but seemingly oblivious to what their own scriptures taught about becoming a new person by the Spirit of God and the necessity to do that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Only Mary had her hymen intact when Jesus came into this world.

There is no hidden symbolic meaning in John's teaching from 1 John 5.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. I'm not suggesting that she really wasn't a virgin. I'm citing the simple fact that a woman's hymen may or may not remain intact before she has intercourse for the first time (learned that way back in Sex Ed). This being true we have no choice but to accept your interpretation as being symbolic, also. The blood being symbolic of her virginity, not that she actually still had her hymen intact. That may, or may not have been true.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion that the blood refers to her virginity, whether literally, or symbolically. We're all certainly entitled to our opinions about what the water and blood means because this is one of those passages that we really don't know what water and blood John was referring to, he doesn't say, just as we don't know what water--literal or symbolic--Jesus was referring to in John 3:5.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

IMO, Him coming into the world can also be referring to his unveiling as the Son of God to the world

Was there water and blood associated with this unveiling?

Jethro said -

The blood being symbolic of her virginity, not that she actually still had her hymen intact. That may, or may not have been true.

The blood of a woman's hymen is not symbolic.

It is literal blood, that demonstrates a literal virginity.

It's the only proof there is that a woman is a virgin.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion that the blood refers to her virginity, whether literally, or symbolically. We're all certainly entitled to our opinions about what the water and blood means because this is one of those passages that we really don't know what water and blood John was referring to, he doesn't say, just as we don't know what water--literal or symbolic--Jesus was referring to in John 3:5.

What we aren't entitled to is making up whatever we think a scripture means and saying these literal words are now redefined by my own personal imagination, so that I have my own "private interpretation" of what a scripture means.

Example: 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 1 John 5:1

Is this verse literal or symbolic?

It's a matter of eternal life or eternal damnation in the everlasting fires of hell.

Muslims believe Jesus is a good man. Some Muslims even believe Jesus is a Prophet.

I think that a loving God would not send a a good Muslim man to hell if he "technically" didn't understand what Christ meant.

Isn't Jesus a good man after all.

Let's not be too dogmatic about it.

Let's not offend the good Muslim man over minor technicalities in the word of God.


If a Muslim man believes that the word Christ could symbolically mean Jesus is a good man, then that should be good enough for that Muslim man to counted as God's child and therefore he is born of God.


It just don't think that we get to decide that when a writer of the New testament is speaking in plain literal words, we don't just get to symbolize or spiritualize or redefine what they are saying.


This does great harm to God's word and those who are seeking to know the truth.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Was there water and blood associated with this unveiling?

Yes, the issue of water and blood from his side.

The blood of a woman's hymen is not symbolic.

It is literal blood, that demonstrates a literal virginity.

It's the only proof there is that a woman is a virgin.

But you're referring to a specific blood--blood from the hymen--that may or may not have flowed when Mary gave birth. Which doesn't discount your theory, just makes it so that the blood can be symbolic of her virginity in your theory.

What we aren't entitled to is making up whatever we think a scripture means and saying these literal words are now redefined by my own personal imagination, so that I have my own "private interpretation" of what a scripture means.

What we aren't entitled to is being dogmatic about what scripture itself does not make clear, not that we can't have a private interpretation about what scripture does not make clear.

Example: 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 1 John 5:1

Is this verse literal or symbolic?

Do you mean literally true, or speaking truth in literal terms? The new birth is literally true, but it is not literally a new human being.

But to get to the point...honestly, not all truths that the Bible does not fully reveal need to be understood to be saved and live a pleasing and productive life for God.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Yes, the issue of water and blood from his side.

So you are teaching us this water and blood from His side was the unveiling of Jesus as The Christ, the Son of God.

It wasn't at His Baptism, where God's Voice from Heaven spoke and declared Him as His Son, but the water and blood from His side, this was the unveiling of Jesus Christ?

Jethro said -

But a specific blood--blood from the hymen--that may or may not have flowed when Mary gave birth. Which doesn't discount your theory, just makes it so that the blood can be symbolic of her virginity in your theory.

? huh?

Here it is again -

The blood of a woman's hymen is not symbolic.

It is literal blood, that demonstrates a literal virginity.

It's the only proof there is that a woman is a virgin.

Jethro said -

What we aren't entitled to is being dogmatic about what scripture itself does not make clear, not that we can't have a private interpretation about what scripture does not make clear.

It is clear! It is perfectly clear to me.

So it is me that is explaining the only thing it can mean.

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood.

Jesus Christ came into this world by both water and blood, proving with the only proof that He was born of a virgin. The Spirit witnessing this extraordinary event.

What John is explaining to us that three witnesses were present to verify this truth. The Spirit the water and the blood.

The water from Mary's water sack when Jesus came into this world.

The blood from Mary's hymen when Jesus came into this world.

The Spirit of God who witnessed this very thing, Who also is living in me bearing witness to my spirit that this is the truth.

Does the Spirit bear witness with anyone else's spirit that that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born?


JLB

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Do you mean literally true, or speaking truth in literal terms?

Is there some other kind of true?

Maybe in your vocabulary there are different types of truth?

Jethro said -

But to get to the point, honestly, not all truths that the Bible does not fully reveal need to be understood to be saved and live a pleasing and productive life for God.

So with your statement here, do you feel you don't really feel the need to as truthful with some scriptures, as maybe with others?


JLB

 

[th1b.taylor]

You just helped me remember the passage in John I was thinking of but couldn't put my mental finger on:

"34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN." 37 And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." (John 19:34-37 NASB caps in original)

I would cry BINGO but you already did here. I was trying to remember, also, as I read but you beat me to it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So you are teaching us this water and blood from His side was the unveiling of Jesus as The Christ, the Son of God.

No, I'm suggesting it. That, or that the water is symbolic of his birth or baptism, and the blood being symbolic of his death, and the Spirit, along with those testimonies, testify that Jesus is the Son of God who came to the earth to die for the sins of mankind. I may actually be leaning toward the latter.

It wasn't at His Baptism, where God's Voice from Heaven spoke and declared Him as His Son, but the water and blood from His side, this was the unveiling of Jesus Christ?

That could be the water aspect of the triple testimony of the water, the blood, and the Spirit.

It's just that at the Crucifixion something different and all encompassing seems to have happened in regard to the veil being pulled away as to who Christ was.

? huh?

Here it is again -

The blood of a woman's hymen is not symbolic.

It is literal blood, that demonstrates a literal virginity.

Only if Mary did indeed have a flow of blood as the result of an unruptured hymen being broken by the birth of Jesus. We simply don't know if Mary had that blood flow then or sometime before that as the result of, say, riding a horse.

Truthfully, I'm uncomfortable talking about this very private matter of a woman's physiology :blush. I think the explanation I've given so far is sufficient to make my point.

It is clear! It is perfectly clear to me.

So it is me that is explaining the only thing it can mean.

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood.

Jesus Christ came into this world by both water and blood, proving with the only proof that He was born of a virgin. The Spirit witnessing this extraordinary event.

What John is explaining to us that three witnesses were present to verify this truth. The Spirit the water and the blood.

The water from Mary's water sack when Jesus came into this world.

The blood from Mary's hymen when Jesus came into this world.

The Spirit of God who witnessed this very thing, Who also is living in me bearing witness to my spirit that this is the truth.

Does the Spirit bear witness with anyone else's spirit that that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born?


JLB

The main thing I see wrong with your interpretation is because John is talking about three things being things that testify, the water and the blood being symbolic of Mary's literal birth experience can't be testimonies for the rest of us because there are no outside witnesses to those things.

But the water and the blood being the historical fact itself of Christ's birth (or water baptism) and the blood/water being the historical fact of Christ's death makes those things effective as testimonies in the world, along with the voice of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

The more I think about it the more I'm leaning toward the water being Jesus' public water baptism, the blood being his blood publicly shed on the cross, and the Holy Spirit the public testimony of God himself in the world. All three being a culmination of public testimony at the moment of his death on the cross. And a testimony that continues to this day.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Is there some other kind of true?

Maybe in your vocabulary there are different types of truth?

The new birth is literally true. But the new birth is not literally a new human being. It's a new version of one already in existence. That's how something can be literally true, yet not be literal but only spoken about using literal terms.

So with your statement here, do you feel you don't really feel the need to as truthful with some scriptures, as maybe with others?

What I'm saying is there are things we simply don't need to know the particulars about when they don't affect our salvation or how we live for God. You don't need to know what the blood and the water are that testify to have the testimony of those things at work for you. If you believe and are save, whatever they are, they have done that for you already, whether you know it or not.

 

[Gregg]

Why do you believe there are two different types of water in John's teaching here?
What word or phrase indicates or causes you to believe such a thing?
I am curious as to how you perceive these verses and what gives you the inclination or idea for such a statement.
Please share with me why you believe there are two different water's being mentioned in these verses.
Please help me to understand how you decide that there are two different waters mentioned.

The word "witness" regarding the Spirit, the water, and the blood:

I understand the [continuing] witness of the Spirit (1Jn 5:6, Jn 15:26, Act 5:32, Rom 8:16, Heb 10:15).
I understand the [continuing] witness of the blood of Jesus (Heb 12:24; and Heb 9:12-14, Eph 2:13, Col 1:20, Rom 3:25, 5:9).

But what quality or characteristic of "water" has an ongoing witness? I am thinking that "water" in 1Jn 5:8 represents the witness of God the Father, as His witness is mentioned in adjacent verses . . .

(1Jn 5:9-10 LITV) "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; because this is the witness of God which He has witnessed about His Son. The one believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself. The one not believing God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning His Son."

The witness of God is His word. An there is precedence for the word of God being referred to as water:

- "that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the Word" (Eph 5:26).
- "if one does not receive birth out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3:5).
- "our hearts having been sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our body having been washed in pure water;" (Heb 10:22)

Please acknowledge that you understand what I wrote about real literal blood that comes from Mary's hymen, which proves that she was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Please let me know if you understand what a hymen is?

Yes, Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus; fulfilling Scripture. 1Jn 5:6-8 is not talking about Mary's blood at the birth of Jesus; as what about her blood is a continuing witness? 1Jn 5:6 talks about "the water and the blood", things commonly associated with Christ and the gospel. Let's take Mary's blood off the table as being referred to in 1John.

 

[JLB]

The word "witness" regarding the Spirit, the water, and the blood:

I understand the [continuing] witness of the Spirit (1Jn 5:6, Jn 15:26, Act 5:32, Rom 8:16, Heb 10:15).
I understand the [continuing] witness of the blood of Jesus (Heb 12:24; and Heb 9:12-14, Eph 2:13, Col 1:20, Rom 3:25, 5:9).

But what quality or characteristic of "water" has an ongoing witness? I am thinking that "water" in 1Jn 5:8 represents the witness of God the Father, as His witness is mentioned in adjacent verses . . .

(1Jn 5:9-10 LITV) "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; because this is the witness of God which He has witnessed about His Son. The one believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself. The one not believing God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning His Son."

.



Yes, Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus; fulfilling Scripture. 1Jn 5:6-8 is not talking about Mary's blood at the birth of Jesus; as what about her blood is a continuing witness? 1Jn 5:6 talks about "the water and the blood", things commonly associated with Christ and the gospel. Let's take Mary's blood off the table as being referred to in 1John.

Blood as a continuing witness?

6 This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6

The witness of the virgin Birth is the Spirit.

The Spirit witnessed both the water and the blood as Jesus came into this world.

The water and the blood testify to the virgin birth of a human.

Jesus is called the Son of man.

He had to be a man for the sins of the world to legally leave through a man.

However, to born without sin, He could not have the bloodline from a father who was tainted with sin.

The water testifies to his humanity, for all are born of water.

The blood testifies to His birth from a virgin, testifying to a sinless bloodline.

The Spirit bears witness to this miracle, because the Spirit is truth.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

The new birth is literally true. But the new birth is not literally a new human being. It's a new version of one already in existence. That's how something can be literally true, yet not be literal but only spoken about using literal terms.

To be born again is to be born of God, literally.

The scripture doesn't say a new human being.

For the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

So the new birth is a literal truth.

We are literally born of God.


JLB

 

[Free]

The blood of the placenta is what all humans and animals are born with.

Every woman has her water sack break when she gives birth to a child.

Only Mary had her hymen intact when Jesus came into this world.

There is no hidden symbolic meaning in John's teaching from 1 John 5.

We don't get to "make up" some deep mysterious hidden symbolic meaning to the straight forward words that he uses.

"He came" teaches us what the authors meant. He came into this world...

If he said "He went" or "He died" by water and blood, then maybe it might be responsible to assume there was some meaning referred to in His death.

came by water = born of water; ie natural child birth - just like this same John uses in John 3:5-6

came by blood = born of blood of Mary's hymen; the only virgin birth ever.

not of water only, by He came by both water and blood.

Plain and simple. The people that read this, understood this testimony. It's clear and simple.

It isn't that clear and simple and likely doesn't mean what you are arguing it means. It likely is referring to his baptism in water and his death on the cross--the beginning of his ministry and the ending, dying for the sins of man. To make it as though it is speaking of his birth is rather a weak view, as pointed out already.

 

[chessman]

What is this verse referring to?

I believe it's a summary/conclusion verse of the major points throughout John's Epistle. Much like Chapter 1 is his introduction (LEB):

1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard, we announce to you also, in order that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:7, 9 But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
...
If we confess our sins [at the urging of The Holy Spirit], he [The Father] is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ​

And in chapters 2 and 3.

What is the water and the blood?

Water=The Father's cleansing of our sin via Baptism in (receiving indwelling/fellowship with) the Holy One (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit). (See verse 1:9) and

1 John 2:20-21 And you have an anointing from the Holy One, ...
​

Blood=Jesus' cleansing of our sin via belief in Him as The Father's Son and His death and resurrection. (See v 1:7)

Spirit=The Holy Spirit who convicts us to confession of our sins to The Father and believing in The Son and his blood (not Mary's of course) at the urging of The Holy Spirit.

Does 1 John 5:8 refer to the Trinity?

Yes

 

[Gregg]

1Jn 5:6 "And the Spirit is the One witnessing, because the Spirit is the truth."
1Jn 5:7 "For there are three witnessing:"

In these two verses the voice, tense, and mood of witnessing is present active participle. Because witnessing is a participle, to know the time-frame [if any] of the action of witnessing, it is required to look at the leading verb and assume its time-frame. In both cases the leading verb is a form of ειμι ['is' and 'are' bolded in the above verses], both present active indicative; meaning the action of witnessing is present tense [and perhaps continuing as suggested by the participle].

This witness is present tense. It is occurring at this very moment.

Those witnessing at this very moment are:
1) the Spirit
2) the water
3) the blood - Jesus the Son of God

I understand the witness of the Holy Spirit and the blood of Jesus [rather Jesus Himself]; but what of the 'water'? What water has a witness that is present tense?

This is partly why I said earlier that I was thinking that 'water' here in 1Jn 5:8 is a metaphor for the word of God, the witness of God at this very present time.

If indeed water here is referring to the word of God, there are other [profound] implications; of which deserves another post if this matter here can be resolved.

- - -

1Jn 5:6-8 does make a direct reference to the Trinity of God, as chessman posted #36.

 

[chessman]

Only Mary had her hymen intact when Jesus came into this world.

There is no hidden symbolic meaning in John's teaching from 1 John 5.

JLB

If there's no hidden meaning, then why assume John's referencing Mary's virgin blood? It would be helpful to your case if John had seen and witnessed Jesus' virgin birth via Mary. He didn't.

1 John 1:1-3 (LEB) What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched, concerning the word of life— and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us— what we have seen and heard, we announce to you also, in order that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

...1 John 5:6 (LEB) This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
​

Since John's adding The Holy Spirit's testimony (post-Pentacost) to his eye-witness testimony it would be helpful to your case for Mary's virgin blood being in view to verse 5:8 if;
1. John had mentioned Mary or better yet, her hymen or best of all that it was her blood cleansed us of our sins.

2. John hadn't mentioned the fact that it was Jesus' blood that cleanses us of sin.

1 John 1:7 (LEB) But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. ​

 

[JLB]

I believe it's a summary/conclusion verse of the major points throughout John's Epistle. Much like Chapter 1 is his introduction (LEB):

1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard, we announce to you also, in order that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:7, 9 But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
...
If we confess our sins [at the urging of The Holy Spirit], he [The Father] is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ​

And in chapters 2 and 3.


Water=The Father's cleansing of our sin via Baptism in (receiving indwelling/fellowship with) the Holy One (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit). (See verse 1:9) and

1 John 2:20-21 And you have an anointing from the Holy One, ...
​

Blood=Jesus' cleansing of our sin via belief in Him as The Father's Son and His death and resurrection. (See v 1:7)

Spirit=The Holy Spirit who convicts us to confession of our sins to The Father and believing in The Son and his blood (not Mary's of course) at the urging of The Holy Spirit.

Yes

Mr Chessman,

what is it in John's teaching here in 1 John Chapter 5, that leads you to believe there is some "symbolic" language being conveyed.

Why is verse 6 here some hidden "symbolic" language, or a reference to some parabolic teaching, when all John is saying is just literal straight forward phrases.

How is it you decide that water and blood is symbolic of "something else"?

Please do share with us, how you decide here what is symbolic and what is not and what the symbolic water and blood means?

What does came by water mean?

What does came by blood mean?

1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.
5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him 1 John 5:1-15


JLB

 

[JLB]

1Jn 5:6 "And the Spirit is the One witnessing, because the Spirit is the truth."
1Jn 5:7 "For there are three witnessing:"

In these two verses the voice, tense, and mood of witnessing is present active participle. Because witnessing is a participle, to know the time-frame [if any] of the action of witnessing, it is required to look at the leading verb and assume its time-frame. In both cases the leading verb is a form of ειμι ['is' and 'are' bolded in the above verses], both present active indicative; meaning the action of witnessing is present tense [and perhaps continuing as suggested by the participle].

This witness is present tense. It is occurring at this very moment.

Those witnessing at this very moment are:
1) the Spirit
2) the water
3) the blood - Jesus the Son of God

I understand the witness of the Holy Spirit and the blood of Jesus [rather Jesus Himself]; but what of the 'water'? What water has a witness that is present tense?

This is partly why I said earlier that I was thinking that 'water' here in 1Jn 5:8 is a metaphor for the word of God, the witness of God at this very present time.

If indeed water here is referring to the word of God, there are other [profound] implications; of which deserves another post if this matter here can be resolved.

- - -

1Jn 5:6-8 does make a direct reference to the Trinity of God, as chessman posted #36.

Verse 7 is a reference to the Father, The Word and The Spirit.

Verse 7 -

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Verse 6 and verse 8 refer to literal blood and literal water.

Jesus came by water... A clear reference to his natural child birth as a human being.

not only by water, but by water and blood...

A clear reference to Him being born of a virgin.


JLB