1 John Part 13 - An Absolute Faith
Introduction:
Testimony confirming Jesus as the Christ
Jesus, who has been called ‘the Christ’ (5:1) and ‘the Son of God’ (5:5), is now further and more fully described, particularly with regard to his mission on earth. This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. Various interpretations have been given to these phrases, which Plummer calls the ‘most perplexing’ in the letter. There can be little doubt that John was using phraseology which was already familiar to his readers, either through his own teaching or through that of the false teachers, and which is not so readily understood by us. There have been three principal suggestions about the meaning of water and blood.
First, some commentators (including Luther and Calvin) have seen in them a reference to the two sacraments of the gospel. This is extremely doubtful, at least as the primary thought. If water stands for baptism, blood would be an unprecedented symbol for the Lord’s Supper. It would also be an unnatural symbol, both because blood is one of the things signified, not one of the signs, and because no reference is made to the body of Christ. Further, although it might be possible to describe Jesus as ‘coming’ through the sacraments, it is difficult to see how it could be said that he came (aorist, ho elthōn) through them. The verb clearly indicates not some present activity of Jesus but his past historical coming.
The second interpretation (adopted by Augustine and other ancient commentators) links the passage with the spear thrust and the issue of blood and water from the side of Jesus recorded in John 19:34–35. Certainly, both passages are Johannine, and both are associated with testimony, and the flow of blood and water was a past, historical event. Even so, it would be forced to say that in this incident Jesus came by (that is, ‘through’) water and blood, when in fact they came out of him. Moreover, the link between blood, water and testimony, which we have observed in both passages, is not identical. In the Gospel it is the evangelist who bears witness to them; here it is they which bear witness to Christ. Again, if in the Gospel they are taken as bearing any witness, it must be to the reality of Christ’s death, and perhaps to the saving efficacy of it; but here in the letter they bear witness to Christ’s divine-human person.
We need therefore to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and blood both historical experiences ‘through’ which he passed and witnesses in some sense to his divine-human person. The third and most satisfactory interpretation, first given by Tertullian, does this. It takes water as referring to the baptism of Jesus, at which he was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for his work, and blood to his death, in which his work was finished. True, ‘water’ and ‘blood’ remain strange and surprising word symbols, and we can only guess that they were thus used in the theological controversy which had engulfed the Ephesian church. At least this meaning of the expression tallies with what Irenaeus disclosed of the heretical teaching of Cerinthus and his followers. They distinguished between ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Christ’. They held that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary in natural wedlock, upon whom the Christ descended at the baptism and from whom the Christ departed before the cross. According to this theory of the false teachers, Jesus was united with the Christ at the baptism, but became separated again before the cross. It was to refute this fundamental error that John, knowing that Jesus was the Christ before and during the baptism and during and after the cross, described him as ‘the one who came through water and blood’. Neither word has the definite article. The author is stressing the unity of the earthly career of Jesus Christ. He who came (from heaven, that is) is the same as he who passed ‘through’ water and blood. For further emphasis he adds (using the definite article this time before each noun, and changing the preposition from dia, ‘through’, to en, ‘in’), ‘not with the water only’, since the heretics agreed that at least he was the Christ at his baptism, ‘but with the water and (with) the blood’ (RV, RSV). ‘The statement is as precise as grammar can make it’ (Brooke), and it is disappointing that neither the NEB nor the NIV expresses this precision. For full measure, in opposition to the heretics’ differentiation between Jesus and the Christ, John adds that the one who so came was Jesus Christ, one person who was simultaneously from his birth to his death and for evermore (this is the one, present tense) both the man Jesus and the Christ of God. See commentary on 4:3.
1. The “water and blood” refer to baptism (water) and the Lord’s Supper (blood). This interpretation, which goes back to the time of the Reformers, is not without its difficulties. First, John is concerned with combating false teachers who denied the human nature of Jesus. It is therefore unlikely that John would now switch topics. Second, John uses the past tense (ho elthōn, “the one who came”) which reflects a past, completed event in history, whereas baptism and the Lord’s Supper are recurring observances. Third, although water seems to be a likely synonym for baptism, the same is not true for blood and the Lord’s Supper.
2. The “water and blood” are parallel to John 19:34–35, which speaks of a spear being thrust into Jesus’ side at the crucifixion that produced “blood and water.” Again, although this view can be found as far back as Augustine, it remains problematic. First, the order has been reversed. First John speaks of “water and blood,” but the Gospel of John reads “blood and water.” Second, if “water and blood” refer to the spear thrust, then how can it be said that Jesus “came” by them? Whereas the Gospel of John indicates that “blood and water” came from Jesus, here it is said that Jesus came “by” water and blood. Third, this view does not account for the statement in v. 8 that affirms that Jesus “did not come by water only, but by water and blood.”
3. The “water and blood” refer to the terminal points in Jesus’ earthly ministry: his baptism (water) and his crucifixion (blood). This is the best interpretation and is followed by most scholars. Historically, Jesus “came” into his power by the “water” of his baptism and even more so by the “blood” of his cross. Unlike the previous two views, this explanation fits the historical context of John’s epistle. John writes this letter to counter the Gnostic tendencies of the false teachers. These false teachers, who at one time were part of the fellowship (2:19), were denying the humanity of Jesus, and so John emphasizes the reality of the Incarnation. John’s further qualification that Jesus came “not by water only, but by water and blood” is likely a direct renunciation of the false teaching (perhaps that of Cerinthus) that claimed that Jesus was born an ordinary human being but became God’s special agent when the heavenly Christ descended upon him at his baptism. The heavenly Christ abandoned him before his death and, consequently, it was only the earthly Jesus who died on the cross. In seeking to refute this teaching, John emphasizes that it was Jesus Christ who experienced both baptism and crucifixion. Marshall eloquently explains the importance of John’s teaching.
As soon as we reduce the death of Jesus to that of a mere man, so soon do we lose the cardinal point of the New Testament doctrine of the atonement, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; in the last analysis, the doctrine of the atonement means that God himself bears our sins and shows that the final reality in the universe is his sin-bearing, pardoning love, but if Jesus is not the Son of God, his death can no longer bear this significance. So-called theologies, which reduce talk of the incarnation to the status of myth, may be attractive to modern men, but they take away our assurance that God’s character is sin-bearing love.
Jesus, who is the Son of God (5:5) and the Christ (5:1), came not just by water, but “by water and blood.” This enigmatic statement has given rise in the church to many interpretations. Augustine linked the reference to John 19:34, where the piercing of Jesus’ side produced water and blood. Calvin and Luther connected it to John 4 and 6 and saw in it a reference to the sacraments. Plummer and Candlish related it to OT sacrificial symbolism, the water of purification and the blood of the sacrifice. More commentators today, however, agree with Tertullian and see the water referring to Jesus’ baptism and the blood to his death on the cross. Even though John’s Gospel does not describe the water baptism of Jesus, the Johannine community could not have been ignorant of it.
And it is the Spirit who bears witness,
And it is the Spirit who bears witness,
‘He it is who seals in our hearts the testimony of the water and the blood’ (Calvin).
For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
In other words, God’s own authority and approval have been stamped on the truth of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ.