I’VE SERVED ON three juries over the years and have seen some real-life courtroom drama up close. While the attorneys were mostly businesslike and competent, some came off like TV stereotypes. There was one who blatantly tried to manipulate the jury’s emotions with his oily innuendos and whose comments were immediately stricken from the record by the judge. There was one defense attorney I will forever remember as being the closest thing to a real-life Perry Mason I’ll probably ever see. His interrogations were crisp and his arguments to the point. He knew exactly what he was doing and won the case for his client.

An important contribution to that success, though, was the relative incompetence of his opponent, who was young, disorganized, and poorly prepared. His questions sometimes weren’t even questions, but meandering monologues that no one could follow, not even the judge. “Is that a question, counselor?” the judge interrupted once in frustration. “Yes, your Honor,” the prosecutor replied nervously, flipping through his legal pad as if trying to find something in his notes.

Nor had the man prepared his witnesses to give credible testimony. The case involved an automobile accident. The plaintiffs had been riding in the back of a van, and were claiming injury after the van was rear-ended by the defendant. The prosecutor had one of the plaintiffs on the stand, and was trying to establish how fast the defendant’s car had been going. “So you noticed the defendant’s car when you looked out the back window of the van, is that correct?” he asked the plaintiff.

“Yes.”

“And how long was it between the time you noticed the car and the time it struck the van?” He was probably fishing for an answer like, “Just a few seconds.”

“About three minutes,” she said.

The prosecutor faltered, surprised. “Three minutes?”

“Yes.”

“Do you know how long three minutes is?”

“Yes.”

Grasping for some kind of lifeline, he ventured, “I’m going to time three minutes on my watch so you can see if that’s how long it took.” So the courtroom sat silently for three minutes while everyone groaned inwardly and the judge rolled his eyes. The attorney had failed miserably at producing convincing witnesses.

Did I mention he lost the case?

AS WE’VE SEEN, John has been encouraging his readers by reminding them of the truth about Jesus, the truth they have already believed and held onto in the face of opposition. Were the differences of belief in the community just a matter of opinion? No, John insists, because some testimony is far weightier:

This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. (1 John 5:6-9, NIV)

Somehow, it seems, the secessionists had taken the way water had symbolized the Holy Spirit in John’s gospel and run with it, making it the core of their one-sided version. This was probably an expression of their Gnostic leanings. They didn’t want a God who had to take physical form, much less die a shameful and bloody death to atone for sin. Theirs was a neater, hyper-spiritual religion — but not the gospel of the crucified Jesus.

In the passage we just read, we can hear John emphasizing the importance of valid and reliable testimony. Then, as now, a case needed to be made on the basis of testimony not only from a credible witness, but more than one witness, with three being better than two. The secessionists may have wanted to base their religion on water and the Spirit alone, but John insists that the Spirit also testifies to the truth about Jesus, which demands the testimony of the blood. As I suggested before, there is no true gospel without the blood of Jesus, shed for us on the cross.

But John says more: the testimony of God about his Son is far weightier than any human testimony we might accept. John has taught his readers about the true identity of Jesus, but the secessionists also pushed their own views. Again, was this just a matter of opinion, one human testimony pitted against another? No, John seems to say, because his testimony was rooted in God’s testimony.

And what testimony was that? Again, think back to the baptism of Jesus, a story which even the secessionists probably appreciated. Here’s a snippet of Matthew’s version:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:16-17)

God himself spoke from heaven to testify to Jesus as his Son. Moreover, here’s part of John’s version of the story, which highlights not only God’s testimony, but the testimony of the Baptizer:

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.” (John 1:32-34)

All of this brings to a head what John declared earlier in verse 5:

Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. (1 John 5:5)

John’s readers had overcome the world, but the secessionists had not. Whether they knew it or not, their worldly beliefs had distorted the true gospel. John marshals his witnesses: not just the water, but the blood; not just the Holy Spirit, but God the Father. Even John the Baptist had once been called to the stand, with his own testimony grounded in the testimony of God to him. All testify to the man Jesus as the Son of God. All the testimonies are weighty and in agreement. And all are offered by the apostle to build his readers’ confidence.

But the case isn’t closed quite yet. John still has more confidence building to do as he makes his closing arguments.