Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Water and Blood in 1 John 5:6

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Estrada
    Hi Matthew, 1) In spite of the Genesis allusion, of which there are many throughout Jn 1-2:11 (apxn forming an inclusio from Jn 1:1-2:11), I still believe that
    Message 1 of 33 , Aug 18 2:52 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Matthew,

      1) In spite of the Genesis allusion, of which there are many throughout Jn
      1-2:11 (apxn forming an inclusio from Jn 1:1-2:11), I still believe that John's
      "water" baptism is from "above" in that it is the Father's "ministry". John
      definitely shows this baptism to be subordinate to Jesus' baptism, but this is
      only in regards to the promise-fulfillment scheme, not in regards to "earthly"
      versus "heavenly". Remember, "the Law and the Prophets", which is what "water"
      by itself represents, is perfect as far as for completing the purpose for which
      it was given.

      2) I still disagree with what you are trying to do with Jn 2: You are trying
      very hard to identify as one the two symbols "water" and "wine" when John
      definitely is making a distinction between the two. Perhaps this is because, in
      one sense, they are "one", as is stated in I Jn 5:6-8, and once one understands
      that "water" symbolizes "the Father and his Law and the Prophets" and that
      "wine" symbolizes "the Holy Spirit". Yes, the Trinity is One. However, John's
      symbols "water" and "wine" are distinct. As you know, I do identify "wine" in Jn
      2 with "living water" in Jn 4, but I maintain the distinction between "water"
      and "living water" and their meanings as is spelled out in Jn 4.

      3) Finally, in Jn 3: D.A. Carson is the one who said that "whoever unlocks the
      key to John's symbolic meaning of 'water' will have uncovered a major theme in
      John's gospel" (paraphrased as it has been years since I read his commentary).
      He himself admitted to not knowing the "water" symbolism meaning. I continue to
      see "water and Spirit" in Jn 3 as distinct (yet as One) in Jn 3. John only
      explains what it means to be born of the Spirit, which is an extension of God's
      program beginning in birth of "water", because they are distinct.

      They are distinct even as the 3 persons of the Trinity are distinct, and they
      are the same even as the Trinity is One.


      Matt Estrada

      From: Matthew Miller <logosmadeflesh@...>
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 12:34:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Water and Blood in 1 John 5:6


      You said

      > But this still differentiates the Holy Spirit
      > (the "water from above") from the Baptist's "water" (= the Law and the
      > Prophets,
      > which is really also from above, since the Father is the One who acts
      > through
      > them).
      John's baptism is not from above if you accept the implicit allusion to
      Genesis 1:6-8. The Holy Spirit represents water from above and John's
      baptism represents water below.

      > I still do not see how
      > you are connecting the Holy Spirit to "water" in Jn 2 except that the
      > "water"
      > was transformed into "wine"
      Please read John 2:9. What does the headwaiter taste? He tastes "Water...
      which had become wine." John doesn't actively describe the water's
      transformation instead he modifies the noun 'water' with the description
      "which had become wine." This suggests to me that wine is apart of John's
      water motif. If you believe wine equals the Holy Spirit and you believe
      living water equals the Holy Spirit, why don't you see the strong potential
      for a correlation between these two symbols?

      > Thirdly, in Jn 3, you again want to identify "water" with the Holy Spirit
      > since
      > the preposition that governs both "water and the Spirit" seems, in your
      > view, to
      > make these two identical.
      It's not simply my view and not simply because the preposition governs both
      "water and the Spirit." 1) It's held by a prominent NT scholar, D.A.
      Carson. 2) "born of water and Spirit" in 3:5 is a restatement of "born
      again" in 3:3 which also suggests its one birth and not two. 3) Again
      translates the Greek word anothen which means "from above." Water from
      above is implicitly how John describes the Holy Spirit in John 1. 4) it
      makes sense in light of the totality of John's water motif.

      Matthew Miller

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matthew Miller
      ... Essentially.
      Message 33 of 33 , Aug 20 2:37 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        > I believe that I understand your argument: You want to interpret the first thing
        > in the comparison (water) in a literal fashion- as normal earthly "water" that
        > can only do what it was meant to do in whatever context it is found within John,
        > and then you want to interpret the second thing being compared/contrasted as
        > referring to something "symbolic"- something "more" than what the first thing
        > can do that is being compared/contrasted. Thus your "earthly" and "heavenly"
        > descriptions. Am I correct?

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.