It may be a stuffy academic tome and a whopping $277, but the book, Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism in the New Testament has one major thing going for it.  It’s the only source I’ve found in more than ten years of study which accurately interprets the water in 1 John 5:6 and by extension John 19:34.  The water in both verses refers to Jesus’ divinity.

Not By Water Only

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. (1 John 5:6)

At its most basic, 1 John 5:6 is a counter claim to a belief that Jesus Christ came in water but not in blood.  John beleives Jesus came both in water and blood.  Some opposing group appears to beleive that He came only in water.

Great.

So what does each element mean? Here are the authors of the Mystery of God, with only brief comment from me.

The Standard View: Water and Blood as Baptism and Death

It is tempting to suppose that the reference to water in this passage is a reference to Jesus’ baptism and the blood to his death on the cross.  In that case, it would appear that we have a repudiation of a Christology which asserted that only the baptism, and not the suffering of the cross, was part of the coming of Christ.

This is how the New Living Translation “translates” it, “And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross – not by water only, but by water and blood.

Put like this, the similarities with Gnostic Cerinthus’ teaching seem very marked indeed (see Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26).  After all, according to Irenaeus, Cerinthus believed that Christ descended in the form of a dove, but departed from him, so that only the human Jesus suffered and rose again, while the divine Christ remained impassable.  1 John 5:6 would seem to indicate that the false teachers accepted the presence of the heavenly Christ at baptism but not at the crucifixion.

John actively opposed Cerinthus and his teaching during his ministry in Ephesus.  Thus Cerinthus becomes the key to unlocking the meaning of water and blood.

Problems with Water Refering to Baptism and the Cross

But there’s several problem’s with this interpretation.

First of all, it is by no means obvious that the coming of Christ spoken of in 1 John refers to the events which characterized his life as a whole but speak rather of the mode of his coming (i.e. his incarnation, the reality of his humanity).  This seems to be the case in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7, where the coming on both occasions is linked explicitly with the humanity of Jesus.

1 John 4:2 states, “by this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”  2 John 7 reads, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.“

A more natural explanation of 5:6, therefore, is to suppose that the water and the blood refer to the nature of the incarnate Christ rather than events in his life.  This is a view which would seem to be confirmed by the passage in John 19:34, which seems to parallel 1 John 5:6.

John 19:34, the only mention of blood in the crucifixion is an element of Christ’s body and not simply the representation of an event.  It says, “But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.”

The point is further supported by a study of blood in the writings John.  Though the only reference to blood in John (1:7) may seem to point to the event of Jesus crucifixion its more likely that it refers to the physical nature of his sacrifice.  In the gospel of John (specifically 1:13, 6:53) blood and flesh have a synonymous meaning.

Secondly, the other passage dealing with the false teaching in 4:2 is not so easy to interpret in the light of the teaching of Cerinthus as many have supposed. The issue here, and for that matter also in 2 John 7, is not the extent of the presence of the heavenly Christ throughout the life of Jesus of Nazareth, but the reality of the humanity of Jesus Christ. There seems to be no question here of the problem of a separation between the divine Christ and the humanity of Jesus.  Rather, the author of 1 John repudiates the views of the those who reject the reality of the incarnation. This was not, as far as one can ascertain, part of Cerinthus’s Christology.  Thus, if we start with 4:2 as a summary of the Christology of the false teachers, we are driven to conclude that the issue was the reality of the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Amen.  So what then does the water mean?

Blood and Water as the Human and Devine Natures of Christ.

How then are we to understand 5:6 in this light?  Is this a separate christological deviation, or can it be related to the other aspects of the false teachings?  The reference in 1 John 5:6 is not to events in Jesus’ life but an affirmation of the reality of the incarnation by pointing out the character of Jesus’ nature, in much the same way as the parallel passage in John 19:34.  This view has the advantage of being consistent with 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7. There are two further factors to be borne in mind when interpreting the passage in the latter way, either the reference to water and blood could reflect ancient beliefs about human beings, or the water and the blood could represent the two aspects of Jesus’ nature, the water the divine, the blood the human. The second alternative fits better with the fact that the writer wants to deny a view that Jesus Christ came by water only, an idea which is not completely comprehensible if this passage is merely about the make-up of humans.

Emphasis on blood as a sign of the reality of the incarnation is found also in Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, and such an emphasis contrasts with those who deny the reality of his humanity by suggesting that the body of Jesus was made up of some other substance.

Ignatius in his letter says, “Let no man be deceived.  Even the heavenly powers and the glory of the angels and the principalities both visible and invible, except they believe in the blood of Christ.”  In speaking of those who deny this he goes on to state, “They have no thought for love, nor for widow, the orphan, the afflicted, the prisoner, the hungry nor the thirsty.  They withhold themselves from Communion and prayer, because they confess not that communion is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which in His loving-kindness the Father raised up.”

Wengst rightly points out the difficulty of finding examples of Gnostic teachers who considered that Jesus was made up of a watery substance, without any human blood.  There is some evidence, however, to suggest that some later Gnostics did think of Christ as consisting of an ethereal substance (Tertullian, De carne Christi 6 and Adv. Marc. 3.11).

Tertullian states, “Thus the official record of both substances represents him as both man and God: on the one hand born, on the other not born: on the one hand fleshly, on the other spiritual: on the one hand weak, on the other exceeding strong: on the one hand dying, on the other living.  That these two sets of attributes, the divine and the human, are each kept distinct from the other, is of course accounted for by the equal verity of each nature, both flesh and spirit being in full degree what they claim to be: the powers of the Spirit of God proved Him God, the sufferings proved there was the flesh of man.”

Indeed, in a passage which explicitly quoted John 19:34, Origen himself seems to make a similar point against celsus in Contra Celsum 2.36.  In this passage Origen sees the water which flowed from the side of the crucified Jesus as a miraculous indication of his divinity.

Celsus had asked, “What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus?  Is it such as flows in the bodies of the immortal god’s”.  Celsus had drawn this conclusion in part from the Illiad, where Homer states concerning the wounding of Aphrodite, “and blood immortal flowed from the goddess, ichor, that which funds in the veins of the blessed divinities; since these eat no food, nor do they drink of the shinning wine, and therefore they have no blood and are called immortal.’  As these authors say, Origen counters Celsus’ spirit of mockery but does not deny that the water is a representation of Christ’s diety.

Finally it should be noted that the notion of the water being a celestial substance which was part of Jesus’ make-up is not as far-fetched as may appear at first sight.  After all, it is apparent from certain Jewish cosmogonies that water is one of the pre-existent substances which is used to make the world.  It is not inconceivable therefore, that the author of 1 John wants to make the point that, as well as a celestial substance, there was human blood in Jesus’ veins.

Context is the key to understanding the meaning of water in John 3:5.

I tell you the truth no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

But John 3:5’s context extends far beyond Jesus’ conversation with Nicodimus.  In all, there are 12 scenes involving water in John, of which the overwhelming majority are unique to John alone.   From Jesus changing water into wine to the washing of His disciples’ feet, each plays an important role in revealing the water’s intended meaning.

In this post, I want to show you how John in part defines the meaning of water by creating features common to these scenes.

Common Element #1:

Something Jesus supplies is said or shown to be greater than water.

John the Baptist’s Testimony (1:19-34):  Jesus baptism in the Holy Spirit is said to surpass John’s water baptism. John states three times that he baptizes in water (1:26, 31, 33).  In each, he contrasts his water baptism with the supremacy of the one to come.

Jesus Wedding Miracle (2:1-11):  Jesus’ “water-turned-wine” is better than the choice wine/water which came before. John establishes a subtle connection between wine and water.  Although the wedding has run out of wine, Jesus fills not the empty wine jars but six water jars with water. Jesus of course surpasses the water by transforming it into wine but the headwaiter also testifies that his wine surpasses event that which preceded it.

Jesus Conversation by the Well (4:4-26): Jesus’ living water is greater than Jacob’s water. When Jesus offers the Samaritan woman living water she responds by asking if he he is “greater” than Jacob who gave them the well.   By contrasting the limitations of the well water with the never-ending water he supplies, Jesus affirms He is.

His Healing by the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-9):  Jesus’ healing is greater than the stirred water of the pool. While the man looks to the water to heal him, he is powerless to reach it. Jesus turns the mans attention to himself, telling the man to pick up his mat and walk.  Because Jesus reaches the man at his need, His power is revealed to be greater than the stirred water’s of the pool

Jesus’ Invitation to Drink (7:37-39):  Jesus “living water” is greater than the feasts water ceremony.  Jesus invitation occurs on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.  On this day the High Priest poured out water in the temple as a symbol of the later day river that would flow from the temple (Ez. 47:1-12; Zech. 14:8).  Jesus’ invitation and reference indicates that he is the scriptures true fulfillment.

Common Element #2:

While each scene varies as to the source of water (i.e. baptism, waterpot, well, pool) all are united in connecting water with ritual and tradition.

John the Baptist’s Testimony (1:19-34):  Water is the medium of baptism – a more or less traditional ritual of purification.  While John’s baptism may be unique in that it is a one-time event, such water rituals were common in the first century Judaism.

Jesus Wedding Miracle (2:1-11):  The water which becomes wine is drawn from containers used for ritual purification.  This is important.  Though Jesus could have reused the empty wine jars, he instead has the servants fill six waterpots which John tells us were “set there for the Jewish custom of purification.”

Jesus Conversation by the Well (4:4-26):  The Samaritan woman’s well is a traditional site analogous to the Samaritan’s worship on the mountain.   The woman points to the greatness of the well by pointing to the tradition that “father” Jacob had dug and drank from it himself.  The word “father” is again used when the topic of conversation moves from well to worship.  Just as ‘father” Jacob gave the well, the Samaritan “fathers” had given them worship on the mountain.

Jesus’ Healing by the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-9): The waters of Bethesda are a traditional site of healing.  While the tradition mentioned in 5:3 may not be original to John’s gospel, it indicates a need to explain the man’s prior belief in the water.  Such a tradition appears to be in line with connection made in the previous accounts.

Jesus Invitation to Drink (7:37-39):  Jesus invitation to drink corresponds to the time and place of a well known water ritual.  Though not specifically mentioned in the text, the above instances suggest that once again a water ritual is in view.

Conclusion

By contrasting water with what Jesus supplies, John reveals Jesus’  supremacy over ritual and tradition.

What do you think?