One short passage; two huge controversies.
That, I think, is a fitting description for the infamous section of Scripture that we call I John 5:7-8. This passage has generated more than its fair share of controversy, based on two questions.
Question 1: Should it even be in the Bible?
Question 2: What does it mean? Specifically, what in the world did John mean by the water and the blood?
Let’s take these questions in order and see if we can settle the controversy once and for all. Okay, that could be a bit presumptuous, but maybe we can at least consider some possible answers. Let’s begin with the first question: should this passage actually be in the Bible?
Many of us grew up simply accepting those verses as part of John’s letter. However, as we were introduced to other Bible versions, we found out that a section comprising most of verse seven and some of verse eight seems to have disappeared. Where did it go? It seems rather unlikely for part of the Bible to just disappear.
Let’s start by looking at the whole passage in the New King James Version.
Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 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. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. 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. (1 John 5:5-9)
Before we get too deep into this, remember one thing: regardless of the controversy, this overall meaning of this passage is clear. God the Father is testifying that Jesus is His Son. John sums it up a few sentences later:
And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11-12)
If we just read through the whole passage without getting bogged down in the technicalities, it makes sense. But if you’re a serious student of the Bible, have a curious nature, or just like to engage in complicated controversies, you want answers for these things. So, should these verses be in the Bible, and why do many versions exclude them?
As we might expect, theologians have a name for the disputed section, and unsurprisingly, it is in Latin. The term is Comma Johanneum, which simply refers to a short statement (comma) given by John (Johanneum).
Here is the passage with the Comma Johanneum in caps.
For there are three that bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. (I John 5:7-8)
If you read the passage without the Comma Johanneum, you can see that John’s thought process still flows. But why does it not exist in some Bible translations?
The answer is actually rather simple. When the New Testament manuscripts were written, there were no copy machines; in fact, the printing press had not yet been invented. If someone wanted to duplicate the Scriptures, he had to copy it by hand. Those copies were in turned duplicated by others. After 1,500 years of this, handwritten copies existed all over the known world, and, as you might expect, lots of them had mistakes. Maybe someone would accidentally leave out a few lines, or they would write a note in the margin that the next guy would think was supposed to be part of the text. The result was that thousands of handwritten copies existed, many of them with variations.
By the sixteenth century, people were beginning to collect Greek manuscripts so they could put them together to try to figure out where the discrepancies were and make an edition that they hoped would be close to the original. One of these people was a scholar named Erasmus. He started with five or six Greek manuscripts and tried to compile them into one. Over the years he continued to make changes based on new manuscripts found, and after he died, others continued building on what he started. Eventually, in the nineteenth century, that whole line of editions became known as the “Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text.”
When Erasmus published his first edition, he did not include the Comma Johanneum because it did not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts in his possession. However, there was a public outcry because it was found in the Latin versions of the Bible that were in use in his day. Erasmus promised, then, that if someone could find a Greek manuscript that included that section, he would include it in his next edition. Someone found one, so he rather reluctantly added it.
Because the New Testament text of the King James Version and the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus line, the Comma is included in those versions. Others based on more critical texts, then, do not include it, because the editors do not see sufficient evidence in the manuscripts.
Some, of course, argue that Erasmus should not have included it—that it was just a note someone made that was inadvertently incorporated into the text. Others argue that it should be included because it clearly teaches the Trinity.
That may be an argument that we will never conclude, but there are two points that we must remember:
First, the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible, even without this section.
Second, John’s point in this passage is the clear with or without the section. This is what John wanted us to know: there are three witnesses that God gives about Jesus: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. John is inviting God to give a defense of Jesus, which He does by calling the Spirit, the water, and the blood to the witness stand to give evidence of the deity of Jesus.
This brings us to the next question: what does John mean by the water and the blood?
We need to remind ourselves what John was facing as he wrote this letter. He repeatedly railed against Gnosticism–a belief that Jesus came to give secret knowledge about the real God, which was not the God of the Old Testament. Part of Gnosticism included a heretical view about Jesus. Some Gnostics claimed that Jesus only seemed to be human because God could not suffer (Docetism). Others claimed that Jesus was merely a man and that deity came on Him at His baptism and left before his crucifixion.
That is why John keeps stressing the deity of Jesus. He was none other than God in the flesh. To prove his point, he calls upon God to bring evidence of Jesus. In response, God presents three witnesses: Spirit, the water, and the blood.
The identity of the Spirit clear. We saw the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove at His baptism as a witness for those who were watching. The water and the blood, however, prove slightly more difficult.
John’s wording in this passage seems to indicate that the readers took it for granted that Jesus came by water “(not by water only, but by water and blood”), but “by blood” was something that did not set well with them.
Ideas about what the water and blood mean abound, but within the context, but it seems that the best explanation is that the water refers to the baptism of Jesus and the blood refers to His death.
It is crucial to remember at this point that John is not discussing how Jesus became God, but how He was revealed as God. His baptism and death served as bookends to His ministry on earth.
Water = the baptism of Jesus
Jesus officially kicked off His ministry with His baptism. All those watching knew He was special—the Holy Spirit descended on Him and the Father spoke from Heaven. No one knew this better than John the Baptist. God had previously told him that when the Messiah came, the Spirit would descend on Him (John 1:29-34). When this happened, John understood who Jesus was. It proved His identity.
John the Apostle agreed with the Gnostics that the baptism of Jesus was a remarkable event, even though they disagreed on exactly what made it remarkable. The blood, though, was more controversial.
Blood = the death of Jesus
In referring to the death of Jesus as evidence of His deity, John was standing against the Gnostic idea that deity abandoned Jesus at the cross. John wanted to make it clear that Jesus was indeed the Christ all the way to (and through) the end. He died not as a Christ-forsaken man, but as the God-man. In dramatic fashion, God witnessed this by tearing the veil in the temple into two parts, clearing the path for everyday man to access the throne of the Father.
John referred to the death of Jesus as “blood” because that was what it was all about. It is by His blood that He entered the most holy place. He came by His blood to offer the final sacrifice.
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:11-12)
John gave evidence that Jesus was, in fact, God incarnate. God the Father attested to this fact at both the baptism and death of Jesus. Jesus was God in the beginning and God at the end.
Now for the practical aspect of John’s teaching. God gave evidence for the deity of Jesus. You can choose to believe it or reject it. However, there are consequences, as John points out in another place.
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. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:10-12)
If you reject the evidence, you do not have eternal life. If you believe the evidence, you have eternal life.
In this passage, God has made a case for Jesus. He has presented testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. The question is now: What are you going to do with it?
