WHY 1 .7-8 is in THE WWHYHY 1 John 5.7-8 is in TTHEHE BIBLEBIBLE Product Code: A102

ISBN 978-1-86228-029-8

© Trinitarian Bible Society 1993, 2012

Registered Charity No. England 233082, Scotland SC038379

www.tbsbibles.org

2M/12/12 WHY 1 JOHN 5.7-8 IS IN THE BIBLE

6Th is is he that came by water and blood, even Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in , the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

n recent months several of the in their writings. Th e purpose of this Society’s supporters have written article is to allow these men to address Iasking about the inclusion of this issue and give their reasons for the 1 John 5.7–8, the so-called Johannine inclusion of the . Comma (the passage in bold in the above quotation), in the Bible. Th ese All around us is scholarly argument supporters have found versions which against the inclusion of this passage. omit the passage without mention;1 they As John Stott says of verse 7, have found writers who argue against the inclusion of the passage;2 they have Th e whole of this must be found preachers who avoid the passage regarded as a , as must the in order to avoid the controversy. words in earth in verse 8… Th e Th ese supporters believe the passage words do not occur in any Greek rightly belongs in the Scriptures, as MS, version or quotation before the does the Society, as did the writers of fi ft eenth century. Th ey fi rst appear the Westminster Confession of Faith3 in an obscure fourth-century and as have godly men throughout the MS and found their way into the centuries. Th ree of these men, whose AV because reluctantly infl uential works span three centuries— included them in the third edition of Matthew Henry, R. L. Dabney and his text. Th ey are rightly absent even Edward Hills—upheld this passage from the margin of RV and RSV.4

1 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible Princeton Th eological Seminary 16th century. ‘Th e oldest known citation Greek scholar B. M. Metzger states that of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus.’ 7 a manuscript of the entire dating from the late Edward Hills admits that there is fi ft eenth or early sixteenth century not as much Greek manuscript support …is the fi rst Greek manuscript for this passage as there is for many discovered which contains the other passages in the New Testament. passage relating to the Th ree However, there is an abundance of Heavenly Witnesses (1 John v.7–8).5 other ancient manuscript evidence in support of the passage. As Hills says, In the face of such statements, how ‘Th e fi rst undisputed citations of the can one argue for the inclusion of the Johannine comma occur in the writing passage? But there are ample scholarly of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… reasons for the inclusion of 1 John In the 5th century the Johannine 5.7–8, and ample scholarly men who comma was quoted by several orthodox have given those reasons. Th us we quote African writers to defend the doctrine works of three of these men. Much of of the against the gainsaying this information is reproduced verbatim of the Vandals, who…were fanatically from their writings and will be technical attached to the Arian heresy’. ‘Evidence in nature; however, the reader should for the early existence of the Johannine be able to follow the main points of the comma is found in the Latin versions position and will fi nd blessing in these and in the writings of the Latin Church men’s comments on the Word of . Fathers’. Among these is (c. 250) and (480–570), TEXTUAL EVIDENCE as well as an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the FOR INCLUSION Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It is also found in First, it must be stated that Metzger’s the great mass of the later statement, at fi rst glance, might make manuscripts and in the Clementine one believe that 1 John 5.7–8 does not edition of the Vulgate.8 appear in any writings before 1500. However, MS61 was the fi rst Greek manuscript discovered which contains INTERNAL EVIDENCE the passage. It is not the earliest FOR INCLUSION manuscript containing the passage; it was merely the fi rst manuscript found In the 17th century the framers of which contained the passage.6 Metzger the Westminster Confession of Faith later admits that the Johannine Comma accepted the inclusion of 1 John 5.7–8 also appears in manuscripts from the and used it to defend the doctrine of the 12th century, the 14th century and the Trinity. Others, believing the passage

2 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible to be Scripture, have given internal too like a…repetition of what was evidence for the inclusion of the included in v. 6… Th is does not passage. Th is evidence, which comes assign near so noble an introduction from the passage itself, has been cited of these three witnesses as our throughout the centuries in defence present reading does. of the passage and of the Trinity which it supports. (2.) It is observed that many copies read that distinctive clause, upon the earth: Th ere are three that Th e 18th century: bear record upon the earth. Now Matthew Henry this bears a visible opposition to some witness or witnesses Matthew Henry (1662–1714), elsewhere, and therefore we are the Welsh Nonconformist Bible told, by the adversaries of the commentator, ‘was a faithful, humble, devout, orthodox minister of the text, that this clause must be , a loving pastor of souls, and a supposed to be omitted in most wise spiritual father. [He was] famous books that want v. 7. But it should for his Exposition of the Old and New for the same reason be so in all. Testaments, now commonly known as Take we v. 6… It would not now Matthew Henry’s Commentaries… naturally and properly be added, Th e value of his Commentaries lies not For there are three that bear in their critical, but in their practical record on earth, unless we should and devotional emphasis’.9 Henry10 suppose that the apostle would tell was not unconcerned about the Greek us that all the witnesses are such manuscript support of 1 John 5.7–8, as are on earth, when yet he would but regarding it he says, ‘It is alleged assure us that one is infallibly true, that many old Greek manuscripts have or even truth itself. it not. We shall not here enter into the (3.) It is observed that there is controversy. It should seem that the a variety of reading even in the critics are not agreed what manuscripts Greek text… have it and what not; nor do they suffi ciently inform us of the integrity (4.) Th e seventh verse is very and value of the manuscripts they agreeable to the style and the peruse… But let the judicious collators of our apostle… It is of copies manage that business. Th ere most suitable then to the diction are some rational surmises that seem to and to the gospel of this apostle 11 support the present text and reading’. thus to mention the Holy Ghost as In this regard, Henry gives several a witness for Jesus Christ. Th en, ‘rational surmises’: (5.) It was far more easy for a (1.) If we [delete] v. 7, [v. 8] looks transcriber, by turning away his

3 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, the credentials the Saviour brings it being obliterated or defaced on with him, and of the evidences the top or bottom of a page, or of our , that is to be worn away in such materials as found, I think, in the book of God, the ancients had to write upon, upon which single account, even to lose and omit the page, than waiving the doctrine of the divine for an interpolator to devise and Trinity, the text is worthy of all insert it. He must be very bold acceptation.12 and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and ‘Having these rational grounds on profane too, who durst venture to our side’, Henry says, ‘we proceed’.13 make an addition to a supposed He than continues with a discussion sacred book. And, of the passage itself with its ‘trinity of heavenly witnesses’,14 ending this (6.) It can scarcely be supposed section by stating that ‘Th ese three that, when the apostle is witnesses (being more diff erent than representing the Christian’s faith the three former) are not so properly in overcoming the world, and said to be one as to be for one, to be for the foundation it relies upon in one and the same purpose and cause, adhering to Jesus Christ, and the or to agree in one, in one and the same various testimony that was given thing among themselves, and in the to Jesus Christ in the world, he same testimony with those who bear should omit the supreme testimony record from heaven’.15 that attended him, especially when we consider that he meant to infer, as he does (v. 9)… Now Th e 19th century: in the three witnesses on earth Robert Lewis Dabney there is neither all the witness of God, nor indeed any witness In addition, 1 John 5.7–8 is not who is truly and immediately without witnesses in the 19th century. God. Th e antitrinitarian opposers Well known among these is Robert of the text will deny that either Lewis Dabney. Dabney ‘was the most the Spirit, or the water, or the conspicuous fi gure and the leading blood, is God himself; but, theological guide of the [American] upon our present reading, here Southern Presbyterian Church, the is a noble enumeration of the most prolifi c theological writer that several witnesses and testimonies Church has as yet produced… As a supporting the truth of the preacher, as a teacher and as a writer Lord Jesus and the of equally he achieved greatness… [He his institution. Here is the most helped] reorganize the historical faith excellent abridgment or breviate of the Reformed Churches in the face of of the motives to faith in Christ, of the theological ferment which marked 4 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible the earlier years of the Nineteenth the three earthly witnesses testify to Century’.16 Of the Johannine Comma that aforementioned unity which the Dabney says, ‘Th e oft en-contested text Father, Word, and Spirit constitute.18 in 1 John v. 7 also furnishes us a good instance of the value of that internal Th ere is a coherency in the whole evidence which the recent critics which presents a very, strong internal profess to discard’.17 evidence for the genuineness of the received text.19 Th e internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following Dabney then reminds his readers strong points: of the circumstances under which the apostle John wrote his fi rst epistle. ‘Th e First, if it be made, the masculine purpose of his writing was to warn article, numeral, and particle…are [the recipients] against seducers (ii.26), made to agree directly with three whose heresy, long predicted, was now neuters—an insuperable and very developed, and was characterized by bald grammatical diffi culty. But if a denial of the proper sonship (ii.26) the disputed words are allowed to and incarnation (iv.2) of Jesus Christ.’ stand, they agree directly with two In response to these heresies, in 5.7 the masculines and one neuter noun… apostle declares ‘the unity of the Father, where, according to a well known Word, and Spirit, and with the strictest rule of syntax, the masculines among accuracy’. He declares the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them… the proper humanity of Jesus, and the actual shedding and Second, if the excision is made, the application by the Spirit of that eighth verse coming next to the sixth, water and blood of whose eff usion gives us a very bald and awkward, he was himself eye-witness, and to and apparently meaningless, which he testifi es in his gospel so repetition of the Spirit’s witness emphatically, in chapter xix.34,35 twice in immediate succession. … Now, when we hear the apostle tell his ‘children,’ in the chapter Th ird, if the excision is made, then above cited from his own Epistle, the proposition at the end of the that the two heresies against eighth verse [and these three agree whose seductions he designed in one], contains an unintelligible by this writing to guard them reference… ‘And these three agree were these, the denial of Christ’s to that (aforesaid) One’… What is sonship to God and the denial of that aforesaid unity to which these his incarnation, and…we see him three agree? If the seventh verse is in his closing testimony exclude exscinded, there is none… Let the precisely these two errors… Is it seventh verse stand, and all is clear: not hard to believe that he should, 5 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible under the circumstances, write the weight of probability is greatly anything but what the received in favor of this theory, viz., that text ascribes to him? If we let the Anti-trinitarians, fi nding certain the seventh verse stand, then the codices in which these doctrinal whole passage is framed, with readings had been already lost apostolic wisdom, to exclude at through the licentious criticism of once both heresies.20 and his school, industriously diff used them, while they also Dabney freely admits that, according did what they dared to add to the to strict Greek manuscript tradition, omissions of similar readings.24 there is not strong manuscript support for the inclusion of 1 John 5.7. But here Th e 20th century: ‘the Latin Church stands opposed to the Greek’ church.21 ‘Th ere are strong Edward F. Hills probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East During the 20th century more and received a mischievous modifi cation at more Christians have been led into the hands of the famous Origen.’22 the belief that the Johannine Comma is not properly part of Scripture by Th ose who are best acquainted its exclusion from, or bracketing with the history of Christian in, many of the modern versions of opinion know best, that Origen the Scriptures. However, godly men was the great corrupter, and the and women continue to uphold the source, or at least earliest channel, inclusion of the passage. Among of nearly all the speculative errors these is Edward Freer Hills. Hills ‘was which plagued the church in a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta aft er ages… He disbelieved the Kappa graduate of Yale University. full inspiration and infallibility of He also earned the B.D. degree from the Scriptures, holding that the Westminster Th eological Seminary inspired men apprehended and and the Th .M. degree from Columbia stated many things obscurely… Th eological Seminary’, and the Th .D. in He expressly denied the New Testament from consubstantial unity of the Persons Harvard.25 Yet in the midst of these and the proper incarnation of the text-critical schools, Hills maintained Godhead—the very propositions a strict conservatism which has placed most clearly asserted in the him among the staunchest supporters doctrinal various readings we have of the . under review.23 Hills asserts that the Comma, Let the candid reader choose…in indeed, does not have the Greek the light of these facts. We think manuscript support of many passages that he will conclude with us that of Scripture. Erasmus omitted the 6 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible Comma from the fi rst edition (1516) of combination, never met with his printed , but elsewhere, the Father, the Word, restored it in his third edition (1522).26 and the Holy Spirit? Some believe the inclusion to be the result of trickery; ‘but whatever may In the second place, the omission have been the immediate cause, still, of the Johannine comma seems to in the last analysis, it was not trickery leave the passage incomplete. For which was responsible for the inclusion it is a common scriptural usage to of the Johannine comma in the Textus present solemn truths or warnings Receptus but the usage of the Latin- in groups of three or four, for speaking Church. It was this usage example, the repeated Th ree things, which made men feel that this reading yea four of Proverbs 30, and the ought to be included in the Greek constantly recurring refrain, for text and eager to keep it there aft er its three transgressions and for four, of inclusion had been accomplished. Back the prophet Amos… It is in accord of this usage, we may well believe, was with biblical usage, therefore, the guiding providence of God’.27 to expect that in 1 John 5.7–8 the formula, there are three that As noted, Hills gives ample evidence bear witness, will be repeated at that the passage was in use well before least twice. When the Johannine the 15th century. But there is more comma is included, the formula evidence for the inclusion of the is repeated twice. When the passage than just this. ‘On the basis comma is omitted, the formula is of the external evidence it is at least repeated only once, which seems possible that the Johannine comma is a strange. reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was In the third place, the omission of preserved in the Latin text through the the Johannine comma involves a usage of the Latin-speaking Church, grammatical diffi culty. Th e words and this possibility grows more and spirit, water, and blood are neuter more toward probability as we consider in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they the internal evidence’.28 are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is In the fi rst place, how did the hard to explain this irregularity. Johannine comma originate if it be It is usually said that in 1 John 5.8 not genuine, and how did it come the spirit, the water, and the blood to be interpolated into the Latin are personalized and that this is New Testament text?… Why does the reason for the adoption of the it not contain the usual trinitarian masculine gender. But it is hard formula, namely, the Father, to see how such personalization the Son, and the Holy Spirit? would involve the change from Why does it exhibit the singular the neuter to the masculine. For 7 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly verse 8. If, however, the Johannine refers to the Holy Spirit, the comma is retained, a reason for Th ird Person of the Trinity. Surely placing the neuter nouns spirit, in this verse the word Spirit is water, and blood in the masculine ‘personalized’, and yet the neuter gender becomes readily apparent. gender is used. Th erefore, since It was due to the infl uence of the personalization did not bring nouns Father and Word, which are about a change of gender in masculine. Th us the hypothesis verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded that the Johannine comma is an as the reason for such a change in interpolation is full of diffi culties.29 s

Th e 21st century: Conclusions

Th e view on 1 John 5.7 through the centuries, held by many godly men, has been that the passage and its testimony of the Trinity by every right must maintain its place in the Scriptures. Th us the Trinitarian Bible Society continues to uphold this passage as inspired by God and profi table for doctrine. As with our brethren in previous centuries, we maintain the faithful testimony to the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity as found in 1 John 5.7–8 in order that all men may know our Triune God: Father, Word and Holy Ghost.

8 Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in Th e Bible Endnotes: 1. At the time this article was originally written (1993), 7. Metzger lists Greg. 88 from the 12th century, included in the English versions which omit the passage Tisch. w 110 from the 16th century and Greg. 629 without note were the American Standard Version, the from the 14th century as containing 1 John 5.7 (Ibid., New Century Version, the Revised Standard Version, pp. 101–102). the Good News Bible (which some Bible societies use as the basis for their modem translations into other 8. Th e Spanish bishops are and Idacius languages), the Revised English Bible, the Modern Clarus (Edward F. Hills, Th e Language Bible, the New English Bible and the New Defended [Des Moines, Iowa, USA: Th e Christian Testament in Modern English by Phillips. Additionally, Research Press, 1984], pp. 209–10). some versions add to the confusion over this passage by 9. Elgin S. Moyer, Th e Wycliff e Biographical Dictionary renumbering the verses. Among these are the American of the Church (Chicago, IL, USA: Moody Press, 1982), Standard, the New American Standard Bible and the p. 188. Revised Standard Version. A further problem is that many English versions since 1993 have been updated 10. Th e section in Henry’s commentary on 1, 2 and or edited, sometimes without indicating where changes 3 John was completed posthumously using Henry’s have been made. Th us, the list above may not refl ect notes and writings. current translations of 1 John. 11. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on 2. See the quotation from John Stott in the text. the Whole Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa, USA: Riverside Book and Bible House, n.d.), VI.1090–91. 3. Westminster Confession of Faith, II.3. In the Scripture proofs for the statement of the Trinity, ‘God 12. lbid., VI.1091–92. the Father, , and God the Holy Ghost’, 1 John 5.7 is quoted. 13. Ibid., VI.1092.

4. J. R. W. Stott, Th e Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI, 14. lbid. USA: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 180. 15. lbid., VI.1094.

5. MS61 [Bruce M. Metzger, Th e Text of the New 16. R. L Dabney, Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration biographical sketch by B. B. Warfi eld, 2 vols. (Carlisle, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 62]. PA, USA: Th e Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), back book 6. Th is type of information, which has made its way jacket. into the margins of many editions of the Bible, has led 17. Ibid., 1.377. to much confusion in our times, and thus confusion among Christians as to the validity of the passage. As 18. Ibid., 1.378. of 1993, the Ryrie Study Bible said that ‘verse 7 should end with the word witness. Th e remainder of v. 7 and 19. Ibid., 1.380. part of v. 8 are not in any ancient Greek manuscript, 20. Ibid., 1.379–81. only in later Latin manuscripts’ (p. 1918). Th e 1984 New International Version claims that vv. 7–8 are from 21. Ibid., 1.381–82. ‘late manuscripts of the Vulgate’ and are ‘not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century’ 22. lbid., 1.382. (p. 906). Th e original New American Standard Bible 23. Origen’s ‘opinions on the Trinity veered between says that ‘a few late [manuscripts] read’ the disputed and Arianism’ (Ibid., 1. 383–84). passage (p. 1066). Th e New Revised Standard Version says that ‘a few other authorities read (with variations)’ 24. Ibid., 1.389. the verses (p. 261) Th e Amplifi ed Version has the disputed words in italics but gives no notation as to why 25. Hills, back cover. (p. 380). Th e Scofi eld Reference Bible states that ‘it is 26. According to Hills, Erasmus reinserted the passage generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has ‘on the basis of manuscript 61, which was later supported been inserted’ (p. 1325); the New Scofi eld Reference by the presence of the verse in Codex Ravianus, in the Bible reiterates this sentiment. Even the New King margin of 88, and in 629’ (Ibid., p. 209). James Version indicates that the passage is not worthy of status as Scripture [‘NU, M omit the words from in 27. Ibid., pp. 209–10. heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late Mss. contain these words in Greek’ (p. 1346)]. 28. Ibid., p. 210. But with the continual editing of these versions of the 29. Ibid., pp. 210–12. English Bible, these notes are subject to change.

9 The Aims of the Society

To publish and distribute the Holy Scriptures throughout the world in many languages.

To promote which are accurate and trustworthy, conforming to the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament, upon which texts the English Authorised Version is based.

To be instrumental in bringing light and life, through the Gospel of Christ, to those who are lost in and in the darkness of false religion and unbelief.

To uphold the doctrines of reformed Christianity, bearing witness to the equal and eternal of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, One God in three Persons.

To uphold the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

For the Glory of God and the Increase of His Kingdom through the circulation of Protestant or uncorrupted versions of the Word of God.

Trinitarian Bible Society Product Code: A102 ISBN 978-1-86228-029-8 8JMMJBN5yndale House %FFS1BSL Road London SW19 3NN, England email: [email protected] www.tbsbibles.org