I have never read commentaries on 1 John 5:6-8 but as I said, I have been reading it again and I came to the above passage.
The wording is peculiar, and I tried to impose the means of grace in this reading: Here is how I take it...The Spirit of Truth is the Word, water - stands for Baptism, and blood for the Lord's Supper. It seems it makes sense to me. Now so I picked up a reading from a commentator, who referred this to the Atonement of Jesus.
Whereas it is noble idea, I prefer the means of grace reading of this and I find I am not alone. Harold Lindsell's comments referred to this as the ordinances so named.
But being what I am - I connect this to the means of grace - Word, Baptism, Supper.
I believe this concept of means of grace have been around when the Epistles were being written that is why you cannot do raw exegesis, at the end, your hermeneutic has to kick in on the means of grace. Why? Because the disciples had this notion earlier in our history already. Read the NT with that hypothesis and it does not do damage to anything in its internal consistency.
Take a look.
8 comments:
Read the NT with that hypothesis and it does not do damage to anything in its internal consistency.
Take a look.
You may say that regarding any hypothesis.
"The Spirit of Truth is the Word, water - stands for Baptism, and blood for the Lord's Supper ."
Blood only? And where is Body?
LP Cruz,
You might probably want to read this also. I think it offers some very interesting view-points.
Blood only? And where is Body?
Oh, come on, Dismas, remember "the Blood of the Lamb".
The Spirit is the Spirit of Annointment, by Whom the Father annointed Christ before all ages, because the Father constantly pours out His Holy Spirit, and this Spirit rests on Christ, as it was also manifested at His Baptism.
Spirit, water, and blood represent the three innitiatic Mysteries into the Christian religion: Baptism, Myrrh-Unction, and the Eucharist.
And where is Body?
Good question.
I think this is implied because before the body can be eater, blood must first be spilled.
LPC
You may say that regarding any hypothesis.
Not really, first verifiability is required then falsifiability is needed.
Being falsifiable but not actually falsified are two different things.
To see if the hypothesis is wrong, an actual counter example is needed. You just need to demonstrate that.
LPC
Here's another post on the same subject. (How did You all manage to synchronize Yourselves like this? :-\ )
Lucian,
Perhaps the HS is trying to show us all again the promises found in the means of grace? For they are attached in the elements God's promise to be with us, on account of Christ.
LPC
Post a Comment