the Spirit, the Water, the Blood

[Sinthesis]

What you are doing is making Scripture allegorical and not literal. That is one thing actually meaning another. Indeed, there are some allegorical elements in Scripture, the Passover meal (Seder) is an allegory of the Plan of Redemption. Most often sacred feast in the OT is a type of a NT event, and that is called the "anti type". I have not seen that anything in the NT is a type of something that comes afterwards. So while you may think that Water=Spirit and that blood=flesh" there has to be a reason for creating that sort of reference, AND there must be a clue from Scripture to warrant such a comparison.

Such a construction would create havoc with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus because it ultimately destroys, and reduces to symbolic gestures what Jesus did on the cross. I know that you may not have thought that through when you posted, but because I am "hard wired" to be analytical, I automatically think, "What is the end of such a thought?" Yeah, that gets me in trouble sometimes, and some may think that I am a show-off when I dissect things, but that is THEIR problem, not mine.That is a spiritual gift from God, and it is called discernment.

No, I am not scolding you, nor am I ventilating my frustrations; I am just posting as I see things.

As I see things, not everything in scripture is allegorical, nor is it all literal. Discernment lies in determining where and how these ways of interpreting scripture can best be applied to arrive at the intended message. Utilizing analogy to understand a particular passage does not require you to insert it into every other aspect of the Bible, such as the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus, if you believe it threatens your understanding of what you hold dear.

 

[for_his_glory]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 John 5:
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
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.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

If you compare John 3:5 with 1 John 5:5-8 water means word as in the word being the living water (John 4:10,11) as in the Father, the word (living water) and the Holy Spirit.
The three that bear witness is Holy Spirit, Gods living word, and the blood of Jesus who made atonement for sin that we can be reconciled back to the Father.

Everything from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is all Gods word and Holy Spirit dwelling in or falling on and come to Earth in the form of a man in Christ Jesus. It's all Gods grace freely given to all who will believe in that faith that is Christ Jesus as he spoke Gods word (living water) through Gods Spirit that dwelled in Christ and given to all to know Gods word (John 14:26) after ascending to sit at Gods right side as our intercessor before the Father.

It's Gods word that we are made righteous through Him, sanctified, justified and made Holy before Him. No dirty river water can save us, but is only an outward appearance to others that we have been washed clean (made righteous before God) by the blood of the Lamb and the renewing through the Holy Spirit.

 

[JLB]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 John 5:
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
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.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

If you compare John 3:5 with 1 John 5:5-8 water means word as in the word being the living water (John 4:10,11) as in the Father, the word (living water) and the Holy Spirit.
The three that bear witness is Holy Spirit, Gods living word, and the blood of Jesus who made atonement for sin that we can be reconciled back to the Father.

Everything from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is all Gods word and Holy Spirit dwelling in or falling on and come to Earth in the form of a man in Christ Jesus. It's all Gods grace freely given to all who will believe in that faith that is Christ Jesus as he spoke Gods word (living water) through Gods Spirit that dwelled in Christ and given to all to know Gods word (John 14:26) after ascending to sit at Gods right side as our intercessor before the Father.

It's Gods word that we are made righteous through Him, sanctified, justified and made Holy before Him. No dirty river water can save us, but is only an outward appearance to others that we have been washed clean (made righteous before God) by the blood of the Lamb and the renewing through the Holy Spirit.

So where does natural birth come into the understanding from John 3 ?

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit...12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:3-6,12

In this teaching, Jesus is discussing Natural Birth, and Spiritual Birth.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Earthly things = natural birth: for flesh gives birth to flesh.

Heavenly things = spiritual birth: for the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Born of water = natural child birth: for flesh gives birth to flesh.

Born of the Spirit = spiritual birth: for the Spirit gives birth to spirit.


Born again, and birth is what Jesus is discussing.

He uses natural birth to illustrate spiritual birth.


Jesus is fighting the Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

Jesus taught differently.


Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -


do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8


Same mindset.


JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

So where does natural birth come into the understanding from John 3 ?

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit...12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:3-6,12

In this teaching, Jesus is discussing Natural Birth, and Spiritual Birth.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Earthly things = natural birth: for flesh gives birth to flesh.

Heavenly things = spiritual birth: for the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Born of water = natural child birth: for flesh gives birth to flesh.

Born of the Spirit = spiritual birth: for the Spirit gives birth to spirit.


Born again, and birth is what Jesus is discussing.

He uses natural birth to illustrate spiritual birth.


Jesus is fighting the Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

Jesus taught differently.


Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -


do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8


Same mindset.


JLB

Natural birth has nothing to do with John 3 as everyone is born of a natural water birth or else they would not exist to begin with not needing a Savior. Being Spiritually born again is to become as renewed or given a new beginning that we stand sinless before the Father as sin can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (sin), but that which is reborn (become sinless) by the Spirit is Spirit as we now walk in the Spirit of God and not of the flesh.

Rom_8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom_8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Gal_5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal_5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[By Grace]

As I see things, not everything in scripture is allegorical, nor is it all literal. Discernment lies in determining where and how these ways of interpreting scripture can best be applied to arrive at the intended message. [END OF FIRST STATEMENT]

Utilizing analogy to understand a particular passage does not require you to insert it into every other aspect of the Bible, such as the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus, if you believe it threatens your understanding of what you hold dear.

I agree that your first statement is true; however it is the context of something that tells us to use allegory, or not. Such things include the poetry of the OT in Psalms and in the other Wisdom literature, and the Parables of Jesus.

Regarding the second statement, due to the nature of the content about water=spiritual, etc. the poster was indeed mentioning soteriology, or the way of salvation. There were statements about 'being born of the spirit" and being "born of the flesh". Then IMO that was also extended too far and cobbled into an out-of-context quote of Jesus in John 3, skipping from verses 6 to 11, focusing on verse 12, leaving out John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again [from above in the Greek) and John 3:16-17, which is the entire reason for His dialogue with Nicodemus. Surely you will agree that cutting and pasting of Scripture is not warranted, and is how the hetrodox and/or the cults work.

In reality, I do not expect you to agree with me because I am smarter than you.
2

But I do want you to think about what and why I said as I did. Part of the reason why I did as I did, is that I have studied systematic theology, and that trains your mind to think in theological terms, saying, "If that, then this, and then that". So if you can see the beginnings of how I came to the conclusions that I did, then I hope you will see that some4 of the things I said (if not all) were true. I am not in this to "beat" or "overcome" other Christians; I am in this to teach and demonstrate my thinking so that can glorify both Jesus the Son, and God the Father.

Make sense?

 

[Edward]

soteriology

Hadda look that one up. learn something new every day.

 

[JLB]

Natural birth has nothing to do with John 3 as everyone is born of a natural water birth or else they would not exist to begin with not needing a Savior. Being Spiritually born again is to become as renewed or given a new beginning that we stand sinless before the Father as sin can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (sin), but that which is reborn (become sinless) by the Spirit is Spirit as we now walk in the Spirit of God and not of the flesh.

Rom_8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom_8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Gal_5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal_5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Well, let's review John 3, and what Jesus taught Nicodemus.


3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit...

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? John 3:3-6,12


Jesus teaching here in John has everything to do with birth, both natural and spiritual.

The word born is mentioned and referred to 7 times in 3 verses.


Born again, and birth is what Jesus is discussing.

He uses natural birth to illustrate spiritual birth.

that which is born of the flesh is flesh [natural birth], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit [spiritual birth]...

Nicodemus thought that because he was a natural child of Abraham, through natural child birth, that he was automatically a child of God, and God's kingdom.


Jesus is fighting that Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

Jesus taught differently.


Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -

do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8


JLB

 

[By Grace]

Well, let's review John 3, and what Jesus taught Nicodemus.

<SNIP>

Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -

do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8
JLB

I am confused here as to your meaning, and why you posted Luke 3:8 as a back up to what you are saying?

Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
​

Are you perhaps calling posters here a "generation of vipers"?

 

[Sinthesis]

I agree that your first statement is true; however it is the context of something that tells us to use allegory, or not. Such things include the poetry of the OT in Psalms and in the other Wisdom literature, and the Parables of Jesus.

There are many forms of symbolism other than allegory. Repeating patterns of relationship are visible all through the bible to those given eyes to see. Interpreting their significance is far more difficult because they must be in harmony with the fundamentals of Christianity.

Regarding the second statement, due to the nature of the content about water=spiritual, etc. the poster was indeed mentioning soteriology, or the way of salvation. There were statements about 'being born of the spirit" and being "born of the flesh". Then IMO that was also extended too far and cobbled into an out-of-context quote of Jesus in John 3, skipping from verses 6 to 11, focusing on verse 12, leaving out John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again [from above in the Greek) and John 3:16-17, which is the entire reason for His dialogue with Nicodemus. Surely you will agree that cutting and pasting of Scripture is not warranted, and is how the hetrodox and/or the cults work.

Good grief. I wasn't defending anyone's water=spirit blood=flesh interpretation, rather I was simply providing a counterpoint to your vague assertion that symbolism destroys the work of Christ.

In reality, I do not expect you to agree with me because I am smarter than you.
2

Why then do you expect me to agree with you? Because I'm dumber than you? How dumb would I have to be to agree with you?

But I do want you to think about what and why I said as I did. Part of the reason why I did as I did, is that I have studied systematic theology, and that trains your mind to think in theological terms, saying, "If that, then this, and then that". So if you can see the beginnings of how I came to the conclusions that I did, then I hope you will see that some4 of the things I said (if not all) were true. I am not in this to "beat" or "overcome" other Christians; I am in this to teach and demonstrate my thinking so that can glorify both Jesus the Son, and God the Father.

I don't doubt that you have your reasons for your conclusions. However, can you accept that yours are perhaps not the only valid reasons, thereby leaving room for others to hold different reasonable conclusions?

Make sense?

Maybe, but what do I know, for I have seen much in the NT that is a type of something that comes/came afterwards.

 

[JLB]

I am confused here as to your meaning, and why you posted Luke 3:8 as a back up to what you are saying?

Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
​

Are you perhaps calling posters here a "generation of vipers"?

1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" John 3:1-4


Jesus is fighting that Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

Jesus taught differently. Jesus taught that you must have a spiritual birth from God, to be God's child.


Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -

do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jesus is fighting that Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

He is. But not just natural birth, but birth into Moses via the law, symbolized in the nation of Israel passing through the waters of the Sea--a nation born through the waters of the Sea.

Jesus taught differently. Jesus taught that you must have a spiritual birth from God, to be God's child.

Water (the law) cleanses a man outwardly.

Fire (the Spirit) cleanses a man inwardly.

He's explaining to him that a person has to have BOTH to 'see' the kingdom of God. The Jews took (false) comfort in the part they knew, the washing of the outer man, the water part.

22 only the gold and the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin and the lead, 23 everything that can stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean, but it shall be purified with water for impurity. But whatever cannot stand the fire you shall pass through the water." (Numbers 31:22-23 NASB)

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

He is. But not just natural birth, but birth into Moses via the law, symbolized in the nation of Israel passing through the waters of the Sea--a nation born through the waters of the Sea.

No sir. None of what you are saying is found in the verse's in John 3:1-12

That is simply not the context, though it may have relevance elsewhere in scripture.

Jethro said -

Water (the law) cleanses a man outwardly.

So now "born of water" = the law of Moses?

Couldn't be further from the truth.

What Jesus is discussing is born of water - natural birth - to illustrate spiritual birth. For flesh gives birth to flesh.


Nicodemus, like most Pharisee's thought they we God's children through the natural birth blood line of Abraham.

Jesus taught him he must be "born again".


JLB

 

[chessman]

I would like to return to the OP and 1Jn 5:8, after a discussion of this question:
1Jn 5:6a "This is the One coming [ελθων 2aor /act/part of ερχομαι] through water and blood, Jesus Christ;" The One is Jesus the Son of God (1Jn 5:5); but where is He coming from in 1Jn 5:6?
1. Is Jesus being described as coming from heaven [on His way to the earth], or
2. Is Jesus being described as coming from the earth [on His way to heaven]?

I was interested in your answers to these questions. I don’t really have answers per se to the locations. I’m not sure that John’s so concerned about locations (Heaven vs Earth) so much as he is the timing of Jesus’ “coming”. I think John makes to point within the Epistle (as I pointed out already) that not only do believers have The Holy Spirit witness in them (on Earth) but they also have The Son witness and The Father witness in them on Earth. Even they those witnesses are in Heaven. A contradiction? No. A paradox, yes. But the location is not only an interesting study but the timing is as will.

It’s true John mentions that Jesus has “conquered the world” and God is “conquering the world” and we (our faith that is) has VICTORY over the world. But I don’t think he means the planet (Earth) so much as he does victory over sin and/or death of this world.

But it’s also interesting that in verse 4 God “conquers the world” [Tense: Present, Mood: Indicative, Voice: Active] yet in the same verse (next sentence) John says the we have “conquered the world” [Tense: Aorist, Mood: Participle, Voice: Active (which is associated with, though not directly translatable, the English past tense in the time element)]

Also the verb form of the word “come” in verse 6 is very interesting in comparison to what John says about Jesus arrival “into the world” from his Gospel.
In John 1:9, speaking of Jesus, John says:

“He was coming into the world” (“coming is in present tense yet our English translation says “was” ie past tense)​

Which is a very interesting way to say something. It sounds odd to us in the English (as does the tense of a word = “Aorist”. I still don’t really understand it very well.).
“Was” is past tense, Coming is present tense. Huh???? Which is it, past or present???? It’s almost like John’s confused as to whether Jesus’ ‘came into the world’ (past tense) or was he still here (present tense at the time John wrote his Gospel. And his “coming Kingdom” as I’ll show in a minute has the verb tense issue). How can it be both in the present and in the past? I think John means it was both! Yes both. Why? Because that’s what Jesus taught him (and the other Gospel writers as well).

Here’s another interesting example (one of only a very few where this exact form of the verb “come” is used:

Matthew 3:16 (LEB) 16 Now after he[a] was baptized, Jesus immediately went up from the water, and behold, the heavens opened (b) and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove coming [c] upon him.​

Footnotes:
a. Matthew 3:16 Here “after” is supplied as a component of the participle (“was baptized”) which is understood as temporal
b. Matthew 3:16 Some manuscripts have “opened to him”
c. Matthew 3:16 Some manuscripts have “and coming”

Why does Matthew not say he saw the Spirit come upon Jesus in the past tense? I mean it happened one day in Matthew’s past, right?

As you can imagine, the word “come” or “coming” or “came” is a very common word in the NT (637 occurrences). But this exact Greek form of the verb (Tense: Present, Mood: Participle, Voice: Middle or Passive, Case: Accusative) is rare (only 17 occurrences with many of them being repeat/parallel verses within the four Gospels and of course the 1 John usages we are discussing.)

Where are the other examples? Guess where? It’s in verses describing Jesus’ “coming Kingdom” and His 2nd coming in the clouds in addition to the spirit “coming upon” Him at His baptism. (Matt 16:28, Matt 24:30, Matt 16:64, Mark 13:26, Mark 14:62, Luke 21:27, Luke 23:26)

To my knowledge Paul never uses this form of the verb (come) but all four Gospel writers (His Apostles that lived with Jesus for 3+ years and sat under his teaching) sure do. But they do so only in association with; 1) Jesus’ baptism at the start of is ministry, 2) Jesus’ coming Kingdom and 3) Jesus’ 2nd coming. I find that very interesting.

I know of another place where this issue of Jesus’ “coming Kingdom” is interesting to study:

Luke 23:42 (LEB) And he [The repentant thief] said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” [In other words, remember me in the future.]​

Now this is NOT the same form (tense/mood) of the verb “come” as the Gospels use at Jesus’ Baptism, illusion to the cross and 2nd coming. Its tense is Aorist and mood is subjunctive. But remember, this is the thief speaking and the thief could have an incomplete understanding (or misunderstanding) of Jesus’ coming Kingdom being sometime off into the future. Maybe, just maybe, he was wrong about Jesus’ Kingdom being in the future. How do I know? Look at Jesus’ reply to him:

43 And he said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”​

Jesus didn’t have to wait until later to remember him in His Kingdom. He was already “coming” in His Kingdom that day. He had been “coming into the world” and "coming into His Kingdom" for a long, long time prior and still is today.

"No element of Greek language is of more importance to the student of the New Testament than the matter of tense. A variation in meaning exhibited by the use of a particular tense will often dissolve what appears to be an embarrassing difficulty, or reveal a gleam of truth which will thrill the heart with delight and inspiration. Though it is an intricate and difficult subject, no phase of Greek grammar offers a fuller reward. The benefits are to be reaped only when one has invested sufficient time and diligence to obtain an insight into the idiomatic use of tense in the Greek language and an appreciation of the finer distinctions in force." (Dana & Mantey, pgs 176-7).

 

[JLB]

I was interested in your answers to these questions. I don’t really have answers per se to the locations. I’m not sure that John’s so concerned about locations (Heaven vs Earth) so much as he is the timing of Jesus’ “coming”. I think John makes to point within the Epistle (as I pointed out already) that not only do believers have The Holy Spirit witness in them (on Earth) but they also have The Son witness and The Father witness in them on Earth. Even they those witnesses are in Heaven. A contradiction? No. A paradox, yes. But the location is not only an interesting study but the timing is as will.

It’s true John mentions that Jesus has “conquered the world” and God is “conquering the world” and we (our faith that is) has VICTORY over the world. But I don’t think he means the planet (Earth) so much as he does victory over sin and/or death of this world.

But it’s also interesting that in verse 4 God “conquers the world” [Tense: Present, Mood: Indicative, Voice: Active] yet in the same verse (next sentence) John says the we have “conquered the world” [Tense: Aorist, Mood: Participle, Voice: Active (which is associated with, though not directly translatable, the English past tense in the time element)]

Also the verb form of the word “come” in verse 6 is very interesting in comparison to what John says about Jesus arrival “into the world” from his Gospel.
In John 1:9, speaking of Jesus, John says:

“He was coming into the world” (“coming is in present tense yet our English translation says “was” ie past tense)​

Which is a very interesting way to say something. It sounds odd to us in the English (as does the tense of a word = “Aorist”. I still don’t really understand it very well.).
“Was” is past tense, Coming is present tense. Huh???? Which is it, past or present???? It’s almost like John’s confused as to whether Jesus’ ‘came into the world’ (past tense) or was he still here (present tense at the time John wrote his Gospel. And his “coming Kingdom” as I’ll show in a minute has the verb tense issue). How can it be both in the present and in the past? I think John means it was both! Yes both. Why? Because that’s what Jesus taught him (and the other Gospel writers as well).

Here’s another interesting example (one of only a very few where this exact form of the verb “come” is used:

Matthew 3:16 (LEB) 16 Now after he[a] was baptized, Jesus immediately went up from the water, and behold, the heavens opened (b) and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove coming [c] upon him.​

Footnotes:
a. Matthew 3:16 Here “after” is supplied as a component of the participle (“was baptized”) which is understood as temporal
b. Matthew 3:16 Some manuscripts have “opened to him”
c. Matthew 3:16 Some manuscripts have “and coming”

Why does Matthew not say he saw the Spirit come upon Jesus in the past tense? I mean it happened one day in Matthew’s past, right?

As you can imagine, the word “come” or “coming” or “came” is a very common word in the NT (637 occurrences). But this exact Greek form of the verb (Tense: Present, Mood: Participle, Voice: Middle or Passive, Case: Accusative) is rare (only 17 occurrences with many of them being repeat/parallel verses within the four Gospels and of course the 1 John usages we are discussing.)

Where are the other examples? Guess where? It’s in verses describing Jesus’ “coming Kingdom” and His 2nd coming in the clouds in addition to the spirit “coming upon” Him at His baptism. (Matt 16:28, Matt 24:30, Matt 16:64, Mark 13:26, Mark 14:62, Luke 21:27, Luke 23:26)

To my knowledge Paul never uses this form of the verb (come) but all four Gospel writers (His Apostles that lived with Jesus for 3+ years and sat under his teaching) sure do. But they do so only in association with; 1) Jesus’ baptism at the start of is ministry, 2) Jesus’ coming Kingdom and 3) Jesus’ 2nd coming. I find that very interesting.

I know of another place where this issue of Jesus’ “coming Kingdom” is interesting to study:

Luke 23:42 (LEB) And he [The repentant thief] said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” [In other words, remember me in the future.]​

Now this is NOT the same form (tense/mood) of the verb “come” as the Gospels use at Jesus’ Baptism, illusion to the cross and 2nd coming. Its tense is Aorist and mood is subjunctive. But remember, this is the thief speaking and the thief could have an incomplete understanding (or misunderstanding) of Jesus’ coming Kingdom being sometime off into the future. Maybe, just maybe, he was wrong about Jesus’ Kingdom being in the future. How do I know? Look at Jesus’ reply to him:

43 And he said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”​

Jesus didn’t have to wait until later to remember him in His Kingdom. He was already “coming” in His Kingdom that day. He had been “coming into the world” and "coming into His Kingdom" for a long, long time prior and still is today.

"No element of Greek language is of more importance to the student of the New Testament than the matter of tense. A variation in meaning exhibited by the use of a particular tense will often dissolve what appears to be an embarrassing difficulty, or reveal a gleam of truth which will thrill the heart with delight and inspiration. Though it is an intricate and difficult subject, no phase of Greek grammar offers a fuller reward. The benefits are to be reaped only when one has invested sufficient time and diligence to obtain an insight into the idiomatic use of tense in the Greek language and an appreciation of the finer distinctions in force." (Dana & Mantey, pgs 176-7).

His Kingdom will come when all the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.

For now the kingdom in within you.

The Day will come, when He will put an end to all rule and authority.

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24

Daniel says it this way -

34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.


Look at what this verse says -

...the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found.


"Them" is the kingdoms of this world...

No trace of them was found!

John saw this in the future: 15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" Revelation 11:15

"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.

That Day will come when The Lord returns, and removes all the wicked and lawless rulers and people from this world

 

[By Grace]

<SNIP>

I don't doubt that you have your reasons for your conclusions. However, can you accept that yours are perhaps not the only valid reasons, thereby leaving room for others to hold different reasonable conclusions?

It is not a matter of me being right or wrong. Instead it is my explanation of why I believe a certain thing is as I see it. Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation; it is not an art form where free reign is permitted. Hermeneutics teaches us to compare Scripture with Scripture, look at things in the original languages, in context, and in the setting that we have a certain thing stated.

So to answer your question, if there is another interpretation that is congruent to the principles of hermeneutics, and does not contradict anything in the Bible, I can accept that. I post as I do not to say I am the only one who is correct on a matter (what gave you that idea?) but to have people look at things in a clear and systematic manner, and then to base their opinion on solid principles.

Not to derail this thread, but I will give the recent example of "soul sleep" as a place where there was lots of opinion, but zero digging into Scripture within its context to support that hetrodox belief.

Maybe, but what do I know, for I have seen much in the NT that is a type of something that comes/came afterwards.

Interesting statement. Could you elaborate?

 

[By Grace]

Hadda look that one up. learn something new every day.

Good!
Your homework is to use it in a sentence, and to study for the vocab test on Friday.

2

You can take the retired teacher out of the classroom, but you can't take the classroom out of the teacher!

 

[By Grace]

1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" John 3:1-4


Jesus is fighting that Jewish mindset that says - because I am born a natural descendant of Abraham I am a member of God's kingdom.

Jesus taught differently. Jesus taught that you must have a spiritual birth from God, to be God's child.


Remember what John the Baptist told the Pharisee's -

do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Luke 3:8

JLB

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So now "born of water" = the law of Moses?

Water signifies the waters of repentance. Water in that passage is a metonymy for coming to God in repentance. You have to have more than that to see the kingdom--you must also be born inwardly, by immersion into the Spirit.

What Jesus is discussing is born of water - natural birth - to illustrate spiritual birth. For flesh gives birth to flesh.

There's no reason to make the point of being born by water if it simply signifies the birth of the flesh body. And if it does mean physical birth as a Jew that kind of leaves the vast numbers of gentiles unable to see the kingdom. But if water signifies outward repentance then it can and does include the gentiles.

Nicodemus, like most Pharisee's thought they we God's children through the natural birth blood line of Abraham.

Correct. But Jesus is referring to a more encompassing 'birth' that includes gentiles, too--a birth into the nation of God through the waters of baptism for repentance and being set apart for obedience to God's commands. The baptism the nation of Israel itself went through at the Red Sea which every native born Jew goes through vicariously by virtue of being a descendant of their Fathers who did that.

All this is why the water in John 3:5 NASB has nothing to do with the water in 1 John 5:6 NASB. There is no correlation.

 

[chessman]

His Kingdom will come when all the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.

Not a bad observation. However, let's not ignore when else Scripture(s) say His Kingdom is coming (such as the ones I posted) and:

Luke 17:20-21 (LEB)

20 Now when he was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with things that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Behold, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”​

 

[Deborah13]

Huh, well I think JLB is partially correct. John 1,2, and 3 is over and over talking about false prophets and false teachers. He clearly addresses those who do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh.
Jesus was conceived by the Spirit and flesh. He was both God and man in the flesh. Flesh and blood.
water - Spirit
blood - flesh

This was my post.

What you are doing is making Scripture allegorical and not literal...So while you may think that Water=Spirit and that blood=flesh" there has to be a reason for creating that sort of reference, AND there must be a clue from Scripture to warrant such a comparison.
Such a construction would create havoc with the Crucifixion/Atonement of Jesus because it ultimately destroys, and reduces to symbolic gestures what Jesus did on the cross. ....
No, I am not scolding you, nor am I ventilating my frustrations; I am just posting as I see things.

I have limited worry over the 'scolding' from men/women. My only concern is getting it right with my God.

No I cannot see what you are saying. What has works got to do with my words.
Saying that Jesus was God/man, God manifested in the flesh and blood body of a man has absolutely nothing to do with works that we do.
I have no idea how you got there. So please point out exactly my words that lead you to your conclusion. I hate to think that I had presented what I see in this scripture so poorly that I corrupted God's Word to the extent that you believe I have. I need to know.

A good teacher would respond to this request, would he not?
You have not answered one of my questions, not one. A good teacher does not make statements and just expect the student to blindly agree with them. A good teacher answers the questions put to them.
So I ask again, please answer these questions.
Where do you see in My original post that it has anything to do with 'works' or an example for others to follow?
Where do you see, in MY original post Not JLB's, that I have "created havoc" with the atonement?
Where do you see in My post, that there is any wording that leads to any ideas of "born again" or "soteriology"?
If you can't or won't I will have to regard your statements as being like a couple professors I had in college. If they were challenged in their statements they were very talented at avoiding.
YLT
1Jn 5:6 This one is he who did come through water and blood--Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,
1Jn 5:7 because three are who are testifying [interpolation, D13]
1Jn 5:8 [interpolation D13], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1Jn 5:9 If the testimony of men we receive, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that He hath testified concerning His Son.

I have taken the liberty of editing out the interpolation that Mr. Young wrote in italicized words, signed D13.
I see this scripture as being about one thing, God's testimony concerning His Son. v9
I see that the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of who Jesus was. v6
I see that Jesus was not only water (spirit/God) v8
I see that Jesus was also blood (flesh/man) v8

When I read the context of John 1,2, and 3, I see that John is defending this truth of who Jesus was against the false teachings of some sects.
One said that Jesus was just a spirit that to men appeared to be a flesh and blood man.
One said that Jesus was a spirit that could manifest Himself in the flesh when He chose to.
One must read the writing of the church fathers to know something about these sects but Paul speaks on this same subject and names a couple of their leaders.
John says that neither of these heretical teachings were true. Jesus was God come in the flesh.
He says that to believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist.

I don't teach because God has not shown me that I should be. But as a student I do expect those who proclaim themselves to be lead by God to be a teacher, teach. That means one does not confuse the statements of one students with someone else's. They point out the exact statements of the student, point by point, that they see as incorrect and Why. So I ask you to preform as the teacher you proclaim to be.