(Text Only)
Title: “Water and Blood”
Who wants to have fun today?
Way back during the first sermon that we’d look at in I John, well over a year ago, I offered fair warning that John’s language can sometimes be difficult to understand because John can be simultaneously simple and profound.
With today’s lesson there is a tricky word phrase that we need to work through. I believe that there are no less than three viable options for understanding what John is saying when he refers to the “water and the blood”. Each of these options has merit. Each has strong points and each has flaws (that’s what makes theology fun, right?). I want to spend today looking at all three possible interpretations, and then concluding with my thoughts.
I will tell you the same thing I tell everyone I have an opportunity to teach: feel free to disagree with me, but your argument must come from Scripture.
(read/pray)
So, obviously our focus this morning is going to fall on the fact that John says “He (Jesus) came by water and blood.” What exactly does it mean for Jesus to come by water and blood? What is that a reference to?
Option One:
Water refers to the Baptism of Jesus
Blood refers to the crucifixion.
Strengths: Defendable from Scripture
Has theological merit.
In this view the Baptism is the proclamation of beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the blood is the fulfillment of Jesus’ ministry.
Weaknesses: John doesn’t directly recount the baptism of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
Contextually, there are stronger interpretations.
Option Two:
Water refers to believer’s baptism
Blood refers to the Lord’s Supper (communion).
Strengths: Has theological merit.
This interpretation puts forth the idea that now The Church, with it’s two biblical sacraments, is now “the body of Christ” here on earth.
Weaknesses: Again, John never recounts the institution of the sacraments in his gospel. Also, this argument seems a bit out of place given John’s audience and main point of his letter.
Option Three:
Water AND Blood together refer to the reality of Christ’s physical death.
Consider John 19:34 “But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a speak, and immediately water and blood came out.”
Strengths: Contextually, this fits. John is writing to refute Docetism. Docetism denies both the death and resurrection of Jesus. Docetism denies that Jesus was ever actually flesh.
Also, this fits themes and language used by John in his gospel.
The would in Jesus’ side was later used to confirm the reality of his bodily resurrection. (John 20:20, 25-17)
Weaknesses: While this view does a nice job explaining “water and blood” in v. 6, I’m not sure then what the “three witnesses on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood” refer to in verse 8.
Are we to just assume that verse 8 is talking about the Trinity? Who is the water? God the Father? Who is the blood, Jesus? While this last explanation has the most merit in terms of lining up with the gospel of John, I’m not sure it lines up with itself.
Now if “water” refers to baptism and “blood” refers to either crucifixion OR the Lord’s Supper, then verse 8 has little tension with verse 6.
It’s a mess, right?
Also, do you think that John would write “water and blood” in verse 6 and wants it to mean one thing, the write “the Spirit, the water, and the blood” only three sentences later and suppose it to mean something else entirely?
It’s confounding, and I’m mad at John.
So here’s where I attempt to calm myself, and you down, to remind us what is worth getting riled up over, and what is worth treating as a linguistic puzzle. All three of the possible explanations given are Biblical. All three have merit. Preferring one interpretation over another should NOT radically affect your faith, or do anything to the central understanding of the Gospel.
It’s also possible that multiple meanings are imbedded in the text. Whatever you decide, whatever you choose, your faith should be strengthen, your interest in scripture heightened, and your walk with Christ, deepened. Amen? I told you we’d have fun today.