by Timothy Decker | Sep 29, 2025 | Apologetics, New Testament
*Editor’s Note: The following post is part of Dr. Timothy Decker’s series “A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8.” Click the following numbers to read the other parts of this series.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8
Part 6: Various Historical Interpretations and Disagreements
Despite the fact that the Comma appears as a prooftext for the Trinity (e.g. WCF & 2LCF 2.3), not all have agreed upon its meaning or even its orthodoxy, including Protestants. And if it taught heresy, as some have argued, then certainly it is a reading that must be rejected outright. In this article, we will examine the different of interpretations of the Comma, the theological implications of those interpretations, and then the legitimacy of it as a result.
Dispute over the Meaning of the Comma
If we go back to part 5 of this series, I quoted at length Gregory of Nazianzus to demonstrate the grammatical difficulty of 1 John 5:8. I’ll quote him again, this time for a different reason. Citing the three witnesses of the Spirit, water, and blood of 1 John 5:8, he wrote, “Do you think he [John] is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial [homoousios], though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial [homoousios]. For who would assert that these are consubstantial [lit. “one essence”]?” Who indeed! In no way can we say that the Spirit of God is of the same essence as either water or blood. Nor even can we say that water and blood are of the same essence or substance. So what, then, is the “oneness” behind John’s statement in v. 8?
This is a dilemma for the Comma. If it taught the unity of the essence (homoousious) among the three heavenly witnesses by the expression “these three are one,” then the paralleled expression for the earthly witness much also indicate a unity of essence (See Dabney’s interpretation mentioned in part 4). But is the “oneness” of the heavenly witnesses the same as the “oneness” of the earthly? Of course not! The Spirit, water, and blood do not declare a unity of essence with the Father, the Word, and the Holly Spirit. Neither does the first group share the same sense of oneness or essence (consubstantiality) as the second group. And neither does the earthly witnesses even share a consubstantiality among themselves. That was Gregory’s point. Not to recognize this implication could actually lead to an Arian heresy.
When the Comma is included, the unity of essence among the witnesses must not be homoousios or the “same substance” but only homoiousios or “like/similar substance.” The Arian argument goes as follows: Just as the earthly witnesses are not consubstantial with one another, not even the water and blood, but are of a like substance (both liquids) in the statement “these three are one;” therefore, the previously paralleled heavenly witnesses of whom it is also said “these three are one” cannot share the same essence but simply are of like essence with one another. It is this reason that some have postulated, quite opposite to Turretin and Owen, that the Comma was included by heretics. The only way to avoid this dilemma is to make much of the fact that v. 7’s “oneness” phrase (οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι) is slightly different than v. 8’s (οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). Conversely, if we followed Dabney’s take on the special use of the article in v. 8 (see part 4), then it is referring back to the same kind of oneness of v. 7 (see part 5). What is more, we noted in a previous post that the Latin made no distinction between the two phrases “three are one,” and it was the Latin church fathers who argued for its inclusion. So they would have to equate the same kind of “oneness” for each group of witnesses too, either homoousious or homoiousious.
Another option for interpreting the Comma of 1 John 5:7–8 is to bring agreement between the heavenly and earthly witnesses without contradicting the consubstantiality of Triune persons. In doing so, the passage only works as a proof of the Trinity in the same way that 2 Cor 12:13 does—a reference of the three persons but no mention of their shared essence. The agreement among all parties mentioned is a unity of testimony for Jesus Christ. All witnesses are testifying the same thing. This fits contextually, as it was v. 6 that turned the discussion toward bearing witness. Thus verse 9 would conclude, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness about His Son” (LSB). Without question, John’s focus is on bearing witness of Jesus as Messiah.
This was the way that Calvin and many others understood it. He wrote, “When he says, ‘these three are one,’ he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said, that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ.”[1] Likewise Matthew Poole stated, “In these two verses, the whole testimony of the truth of Christianity, which he reduces to two ternaries of witnesses. The matter of their testimony is the same with that of their faith who are born of God.”[2]
Resolving this matter, Matthew Henry opted for both: “These are witnesses in heaven; and they bear record from heaven; and they are one, it should seem, not only in testimony (for that is implied in their being three witnesses to one and the same thing), but upon a higher account, as they are in heaven; they are one in their heavenly being and essence; and, if one with the Father, they must be one God.”[3] John Gill would likewise conclude, “It follows, and these three are one; which is to be understood not only of their unity and agreement in their testimony, they testifying of the same thing, the sonship of Christ; but of their unity in essence or nature, they being the one God.” This both/and view maintains the orthodoxy of the statement while remaining faithful to the context.
However, as Luther would argue, what need is there of witnesses in heaven? He put it this way, “Where God is seen, there is no need for a testimony, but here it is needed, here we have it in the word, and we do not want to have it any other way, since there is no testimony in heaven and no faith, which are of this life. Therefore, we leave out this text.” And also, “We do not want, however, to translate it [the Comma] because of the word ‘testimony,’ because in heaven there will be no need for a testimony … as it is written: ‘we will see God face to face.’ There, the Trinity will declare Himself.”[4] Essentially, Luther was driving at those saints who are in the presence of the Lord (as the heavenly witnesses are “in heaven;” ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), where their faith will be sight and have no need of heavenly witnesses to testify that Jesus is the Christ. And for the rest of us here on earth, are the Spirit, the Scriptures, and the Sacraments (perhaps referenced in the “water and blood” of v. 8) not sufficient as a testimony at present?
Therefore, there are problems with either interpretation, or even a both/and interpretation.
Dispute over the Legitimacy of the Comma
While it is true that most Protestants accepted the Comma as legitimate and original, we do not often hear about dissenting voices. So what would account for the initial disagreement but eventual acceptance to include the Comma among the Protestants? It was the renewed debate about Arianism and the supposed need for trinitarian prooftexts. Think of the Radical Reformation, Severtus, or the Socinians.
Already cited above, it is well known to many that Luther rejected the Comma. One Lutheran scholar summarized the Reformer’s position: “We must point out that Luther presupposed the trinitarian faith, but he does not use 1 John 5:7 as a proof-text for this doctrine. He considered verse 7 superfluous because of its friction with the immediate context and because, after all, the Greek codices do not include it.”[5] In typical Luther fashion, he used strong language condemning the Comma, “I and others believe that it is sort of added, that it is added by some ignoramus.”[6] After he pointed out how unnecessary it was to have the Trinity bearing witness in heaven, he said, “Therefore, we leave out this text. Also the subsequent text ridicules this verse. And I can make fun of it easily because there is no more inept locus for the Trinity.”[7]
A student of Luther’s (who was also his pastor!) named John Bugenhagen took a slightly different take than his professor. Posset explained his position:
Bugenhagen dwelt more on the theological argumentation and saw verse 7 in reality as the product of the Arians themselves! It is they who introduced it into the epistle! Here, Bugenhagen went beyond any previous argumentation. Bugenhagen elaborated further on the ineptitude of the verse and declared it an “Arian blasphemy.” Bugenhagen argued that if Father, Logos, and Holy Spirit were one as Spirit, water, and blood are one, then the Arians are the winners; for this verse states (in the eyes of Bugenhagen) only a unity of consensus, not a unity of essence.[8]
Rather than a prooftext against the Arians, Bugenhagen argued it was invented by the Arians!
Eventually, most Protestants, including Lutherans who were either unaware of or in disagreement with Luther himself, would adopt the Comma as original. McDonald summed up the era this way, “Once Protestant divines began to defend the comma on doctrinal rather than textual grounds in reaction to the rise of Antitrinitarianism, it also began to reappear in Protestant bibles [sic].”[9] Such a practice is persistent still today among Protestants.
Conclusion
When it came to textual criticism of the Reformation period and scholastic period, they relied heavily upon internal evidence, as their access to and knowledge of the manuscript data was very limited.[10] Most of those from that time period, whether they accepted or rejected the Comma, did so on the grounds of internal evidence primarily, especially the intrinsic probability that the Comma teaches orthodox Trinitarianism.[11] Therefore, just as the papist had an incentive to have the Comma in Greek manuscripts to cohere with their Latin, so also the Protestants had a theological motivation to include the Comma in order to defeat a new form of Arianism as well as to defend themselves and assert their orthodoxy amid accusations of heresy. Neither qualify as good or useful methods of textual criticism.
[1] See Calvin’s commentary at 1 John 5:7. Contra Aquinas who understood the Comma to teach a unity of essence among the three persons. See ST, 1.Q36.1.
[2] See Poole’s commentary at 1 John 5:7.
[3] See Henry’s commentary at 1 John 5:6–9.
[4] WA 20: 780,21-781,2 and WA 48: 688,15-20(N0.7101) as quoted by Franz Posset, “John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 49, no. 4 (1985): 246–47.
[5] Posset, 247–48.
[6] WA 48: 688, 15-20 (N0.7101); as quoted in Posset, 246.
[7] WA 20: 780, 21-781, 2.; as quoted in Posset, 247.
[8] Posset, “John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum,” 248.
[9] G. R. McDonald, “Raising the Ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Religious Difference in Early Modern Europe” (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University, 2011), 166.
[10] This was the conclusion of Jared Ebert, “Retrieving the Reformed Methods of New Testament Textual Criticism” (Th.M. Thesis, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, 2025), 17. Parker described this situation and demonstrated Calvin relying primarily upon internal evidence. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Second ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 151ff.
[11] This is mainly true when Greek manuscripts were not studied. However, some such as Lutheran Thomas Naogeorgus inspected Greek manuscripts and therefore came to exclude it in his commentary. McDonald, “Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Religious Difference in Early Modern Europe,” 138.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
by Brice Bigham | Sep 22, 2025 | Practical Theology, Sermons
*Editor’s Note: The following is a sermon manuscript in a three-part series preached by Pastor Brice Bigham. To listen to that sermon, click here.
Once all three sermon manuscripts have been posted on the CBTS, they will be linked together here.
I. Introduction
Our subject for this evening is something that poses great danger to the unity and well-being of your families and of this church. Very often, it is excused and tolerated, even while it is destroying relationships among us. There may be someone in here who has overlooked and tolerated this sin to such a degree that you are not even sure what is going wrong in your life.
I’m talking about sinful anger.
I’m talking about the man who loses his temper at someone at customer service. The mother who yells at her kids. The church member who’s offended by another member. The one who loses his temper in traffic. Or the one who yells at his computer screen. The sister who feels bitter at someone who left her out. The wife who feels resentful because she can’t get her husband to understand her. The husband who feels angry that his wife doesn’t consider his needs.
In his book Uprooting Anger, Robert Jones says,
“Anger is a universal problem, prevalent in every culture, experienced by every generation. No one is isolated from its presence or immune from its poison. It permeates each person and spoils our most intimate relationships. Anger is a given part of our fallen human fabric…Sadly this is true even in our Christian homes and churches.”[1]
And brethren, we are not immune to this deadly sin.
What is anger? Anger is a passion that is aroused by a sense of injustice carried out against us or against someone else. Jones defines it as “a whole-personed active response of negative moral judgment against perceived evil.”
But if you read this definition carefully, anger is not always sinful. The Apostle Paul makes this clear in our text, Ephesians 4:26, where he says, by the Holy Spirit:
“Be angry and do not sin.”
Over the next three weeks, I’ll be preaching on the subject of sinful anger. My hope in this series is to help you discern where sinful anger is at work in your life, and to equip you with Scripture truth that will help you to bring it into subjection to Christ.
Tonight, my goal is to help you distinguish righteous anger from sinful anger and to discern the causes of both. In this first sermon, I will address: I. Distinguishing Two Kinds of Anger, II. The Roots of Righteous Anger, and III. Some Roots of Sinful Anger.
But before we begin, let’s pray and ask God for help and understanding…
II. Two Kinds of Anger
Jonah was very angry. And the Lord appeared to him and asked, “Do you do well to be angry?” And this is the big question that the Lord wants us to ask ourselves when we are angry.
The Bible teaches that there are two kinds of anger, righteous anger and sinful anger. In our text, “be angry and do not sin,” we learn that not all anger is sinful. There is such a thing as righteous anger. God himself is sinlessly angry, and we may be sinlessly angry. However, we must never assume that anytime we are angry, it is righteous anger. In fact, most of the time that we’re angry, it is sinful anger.
The Lord condemns sinful anger, and it ought not characterize a Christian. The Lord told his disciples that “anyone who is angry with his brothers is liable to the judgment”, likening it to murder (Matthew 5:22). The Holy Spirit desires that “men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Tim. 2:8). The Apostle says that we are to “put away anger and wrath” (Col. 3:8) and he condemns “fits of anger” (Gal. 5:20). All of these are in reference to sinful anger.
Now, on the surface, some might read our text, “Be angry, and do not sin,” as if it implies that the internal feeling of anger is neutral, and only its fruit or expression is sinful. But I believe this way of reading the text is unbiblical.
God does not ever permit us to harbor sinful beliefs and feelings. We know that sin is not only committed with our mouths or hands, but with our minds and our hearts. So, this text is not teaching that we may harbor sinful anger so long as it doesn’t leak out from the heart into the mouth. No, Jesus teaches that it is the heart that defiles us, and that out of the heart flow sinful actions. If our mouths speak angrily, it is because we have angry hearts. And that is the real problem.
Paul is commanding the Ephesians to be righteous in anger, and not to sin. There are things in this world that should make Christians righteously angry. But there are also sinful reasons to be angry. Moreover, there are righteous ways to express anger, and there are unrighteous ways to express anger. This text teaches that we are to be only righteously angry both internally, in our minds and hearts, and externally, in our words and actions.
There are at least two things to look for in knowing whether our anger is righteous or sinful. The first is the root, or motivation, of the anger. That’s what we’ll focus on this evening. The second is the expression of the anger, or the fruit of the anger, or what anger does – Lord willing, we’ll talk about that next week.
But now that we have noted the two kinds of anger, let’s move to our second heading, the root of righteous anger.
III. The Root of Righteous Anger
We know that there is such a thing as righteous anger, because our God is righteously angry.
Psalm 7:11 says, “God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.” Nahum 1:2-3 says, “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.”
God never sins when he is angry. His anger is always righteous. When God is angry, he is angry with actual sin, or sinners, in the purest sense. God is angry for righteous purposes because his own holy and perfect will is being violated. He’s angry with sin that opposes his very character, rule, and rights. God is goodness itself, so to oppose God is to oppose all that is good and beautiful.
And then, God always expresses his anger in a righteous and holy manner, consistent with his revealed moral will. His anger is not arbitrary (random) or uncontrolled, but it is holy and absolutely virtuous in its expression.
Our Lord Jesus was righteously angry. In Mark 3:4, we are told that he was angry with the Pharisees and grieved at their hardness of heart. The Lord Jesus was zealous for the glory of God, and so he was angry with sin. Yet the Lord was never sinfully angry. He was never angry for sinful reasons, and His anger was never expressed in sinful ways.
And because our Lord is righteously angry, God’s image bearers may also be righteously angry. We may feel and express anger in a way that is consistent with God’s moral will. If we witness egregious sin against God or his image bearers, anger is an appropriate and even righteous response. If some things don’t make us angry, we need to check our pulse, because we may be spiritually dead. Sin should make us angry. How can we say that we love God if we don’t hate sin?
But then, because of our fallen nature, the opposite is often true. We’re not angry with what God is angry with, and we are angry at things that God is not angry about. What is it that makes anger righteous, and how do we know when it crosses the line into sin?
Robert Jones draws from Scripture three helpful criteria for righteous anger. These three standards mark God’s righteous anger, and they should mark ours as well.
First, righteous anger must be in reaction to actual sin. Second, it focuses on God and His Kingdom, rights, and concerns, and not on me and my kingdom, rights, and concerns. Third, it is accompanied by other godly qualities and expresses itself in godly ways.
I’d like to flesh these out just a bit and give some examples from Scripture.
First, righteous anger must be in reaction to actual sin. And this means, brethren, that we need to ensure that we have a thorough knowledge of the moral will of God. This is why 1/3 of our catechism is about the law of God. The question you must ask yourself when you are angry is, “What is the sin that I am angry with?” If there is no sin, then you are the first to sin by becoming angry at something that is not the moral will of God. Another good question to ask would be, “Is God angry about this?” If not, then that should give us immediate pause. Who are we to be angry at something that God is not angry at? To be angry at such things makes us like Cain.
Cain was angry with Abel, because Abel’s sacrifice was accepted, and his was not. Because of his anger at another’s righteousness, he became the sinner against God, one worthy of death. The subject of our anger must be actual sin.
Second, righteous anger is focused on God and His concerns, and not on me and my concerns. This means that righteous anger must flow out from that prayer of the Lord that we often pray, “Your Kingdom come, and your will be done.” He is the priority. If we are to be righteously angry, we must be angry for the cause of God and for what concerns him. If we become angry for ourselves alone, then sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you.
Early in his reign, Saul exemplified this kind of righteous anger. Saul became angry for God and His people when under threat from the Ammonites. He righteously focused his anger, mustered his troops, and with holy zeal for God defended the cause of God and His people. But then, at the end of his reign, he became angry at the popularity of David, because it was a threat to his own rule, and that anger conceived and gave birth to murder. He was seeking his own kingdom, rights, and concerns, and not the Lord’s. Brethren, if you’ve been angry this week, was it because of zeal for God’s kingdom and God’s will? Or was it for your own Kingdom, like Saul?
Third, righteous anger must be accompanied by godly qualities and express itself in a godly manner. We can be angry for something that is actual sin, and with a Godward concern, but then we can sin in reaction to it. Lord willing, we’ll talk in more detail about godly expressions of anger in the weeks that follow.
These are some of the roots of righteous anger, and anytime we feel anger arising, we must evaluate whether we do well to be angry. We are commanded, be angry and do not sin. We are to be angry at the things that made our God angry, that made the Lord Jesus angry.
And, ask yourself, what is it that should be the most common occasion of anger in our hearts? We don’t know anyone like we know ourselves. We see our sinful thoughts like no one else does. And so, should we not be angry most often with our own sin?
In 2 Corinthians 7:11, the Apostle praises the Corinthians because of their godly grief and their indignation toward their own sin. It is a most righteous anger and pleasing to God when it is first directed humbly and sincerely toward our own sins and failures. I hope that you have a righteous frustration with your own sin. One that drives you regularly to humble repentance and earnest hope for future glory.
But then, what are the roots of sinful anger?
IV. The Roots of Sinful Anger
There may be a few people in this room who have felt helplessly guilty about sinful anger. You know it’s wrong to yell at your kids. You know it’s wrong to blow up at your wife. You try to control it, and you have a good week or two, but then there you are doing it again. Why are our efforts unsuccessful?
Many times, when we’re angry, we blame it on a catalyst, or a person or event that caused it. But if we do that, the solution will be superficial. Something like, “I just need to avoid this person.” But this is not enough. We need to go deeper, or we will not mortify this sin.
Jerry Bridges, in his book Respectable Sins, says,
“In facing up to our anger, we need to realize that no one else causes us to be angry. Someone else’s words or actions may become the occasion of our anger, but the cause lies deep within us — usually our pride, or selfishness, or desire to control… or some idol of the heart we are protecting…we need to repent not only of our anger but also of our pride, selfishness, and idolatry.”[2]
What happens when we’re angry? There is a spark created by some catalyst, but the fuel for the fire lies spilled carelessly all over the floor within our hearts. No spark can burn without fuel; it will just flash and go out. Other sinful dispositions or attitudes are the lighter fluid and dried brush that are ready to be set ablaze by even the smallest spark. And it would certainly be a mistake to conclude that the spark is the only problem. We must deal with the flammable mess that is ready to be set ablaze in our hearts.
The real issue is the condition of our heart that reacts sinfully to something that has happened. And the Word of God is not only concerned with outward sins, but it discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
This is why, in chapter 4 of his epistle, James asks, “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?”
James points out that conflicts and anger arise from underlying sins of the heart. Anger management that fails to address these underlying sins will be temporary and inadequate.
In our remaining time, I want to consider some of those underlying sins that act as fuel for any spark that comes along to ignite an inferno of anger. Time fails us to speak comprehensively of this, but I think this will give you a base for further reflection in the Word of God on some of the true causes of your anger. If we’re going to bring our sinful anger into subjection to Christ, we must address the underlying causes.
Why are we angry? According to James, one reason is that we “desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.” This is covetousness. When James uses the word murder here, I believe it’s consistent with the way Jesus uses it in Matthew 5, where the word describes not only murder but speaking in hatred toward someone else.
If you have kids, how many quarrels begin like this: “I had it first!” or “That’s mine!” This is a common problem with kids. But it’s a problem with adults, too.
Perhaps some of you men struggle with coveting the lives of others. You see the way that other people live, and you feel inadequate with what you provide. You work hard to make a better life for them, but you feel frustrated that you can’t provide those better things. Such a state leads to constant discontentment rather than joy, and you are resentfully nagged by that covetous desire for things the Lord has not yet given to you; perhaps you even think hateful thoughts towards God. And then, without realizing it, this discontent shows forth in a lack of patience with your wife and children, and you become easily angry in the home.
Why are we angry? James says, “Why are there quarrels and fights among you? Because your passions are at war within you…you do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.” This is selfishness.
A common source of anger is considering ourselves to be more significant than others. This, of course, is the opposite of Paul’s instruction in Philippians 2, where he says: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” When we aim to be the center of the universe and to please ourselves, we are sure to be angry people when our self-centered goals or desires are constantly frustrated. So, we react angrily with others when they deny us what we believe that we deserve.
We can also selfishly use anger to manipulate others to do what we want them to do, controlling them through the threat of an angry response. Or we can become angry if we can’t control a situation in a way that we think is best for ourselves.
Why are we angry? James asks, “What is the cause of quarrels among you? You do not have because you do not ask. You adulterous people, friends of the world, idolaters. We become angry because of idolatry.
The gods that we worship are exposed by what we think and what we desire. And while professing that we love God, we can accumulate idols for ourselves. When we build our lives around such idols, we no longer see people in the way God tells us to see them, but we see them as threats to the way that we want to live, as interruptions, inconveniences, and even adversaries. This is certain to make us very angry people.
For example, imagine a mother who desires to be like the seemingly perfect and industrious family she follows on YouTube and Instagram. But she feels guilty and frustrated that she can’t live up to this standard, and in attempting to do so, she even leaves off things that God commands her to do. Prayer and Bible reading get in the way of her primary goals. She feels guilty, overwhelmed, unaccomplished, and unappreciated, and anyone who contributes to her failure to become the image that she wants to be is met with anger and rage. What has happened? Is she still worshiping God? Or is she living more consistently with the expectations of a god of human hands?
Why are we angry? It often arises because of pride within the heart. The Bible says that pride is thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. So, anger arises in our hearts toward any person who pokes a hole in our elevated self-image. Saved sinners should be the first to admit and consider that we can be in the wrong, but in our pride, we feel threatened, and so we lash out in anger.
Because pride is a kind of lying to ourselves, thinking the best of ourselves, it often results in thinking the worst about others. So, we exaggerate the faults of others, casting them in a very negative light. Anger arises toward the person for their imaginary or exaggerated fault.
Imagine a wife and husband disagreeing, and the husband says something about her that contains an exaggerated detail to make what she did look worse than it is. The wife is offended and responds with another exaggerated accusation. Now they’ve moved far beyond the subject of the disagreement into new sins of vengeance and exaggeration.
Brethren, there are many ways that pride pulls the strings of anger in our hearts. The anger is exposing that we are thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think.
Why are we angry? It can arise because of a desire for vengeance. When someone hurts us, we are tempted to strike back in return. When someone insults us, we desire to hurl an insult back. When someone brings up one of our failings or sins, we feel the need to bring up one of theirs.
When we desire personal vengeance like this, we desire something that only God has the right to dispense. He delegates this to men in a limited sense, but we often want it in a way that God has not permitted. The Lord says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.”
We see this attitude represented by David. When he was insulted by Nabal, he was ready to kill him and all the males of his house. I think all of us are familiar with this temptation. Someone offends us, and our heart is ready to strike back with greater force.
Well, these are just some of the ugly roots of sinful anger in the heart. Because of these underlying sins, we give in to anger and do great damage to our relationships in the home and the church. There are many more that we could identify. But I hope these examples help you to learn to evaluate the causes of your anger Biblically.
When we’re angry over things that God is not angry with, we are actually opposing him and acting like Cain, and even participating with the Devil. In our selfish rage, we kill, steal, and destroy what the Lord seeks to build up. We tarnish our witness. We embitter others. We hurt those who are closest to us, for whom we are responsible to love and to build up. We are guilty. We have done damage in our homes, in our workplaces, in our church.
V. Conclusion
What can we do, brethren? I know some of you feel in the tight grip of this sin.
Praise God that we our Father is the one called “slow to anger.” The Scriptures teach that God is slow to anger, and quick to forgive those who repent. Psalm 103:9 says, “He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever.” Micah 7:18 says, “He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.”
He should be righteously angry with us for our sinful anger, but he is quick to forgive. If you feel dominated by sinful anger, you must come to the Lord, confess your sin, and find him to be the gracious fountain for your sin and uncleanness. He is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Though your anger is hot with sin, the Lord is compassionate and gracious toward his sinful children. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
But, Brothers and Sisters, true change is possible. Power is available to you to put this sin to death by the grace of God. The Holy Spirit will work in us, by the Word of God, a peaceful spirit in place of an angry one. If you have struggled with this sin, come as the persistent widow came, and seek the Lord that he might free you of this sin, and replace it with patience, love, and godly zeal.
But for those here who are outside of Christ, your life is full of sinful anger. But instead of being angry with others, you must realize that you are actually the greatest offender. And God is angry with you every day. You must humble yourself, repent of your sin, and call upon the Lord Jesus. Only through his wrath-bearing death may you be reconciled to God. Rage no more, come to Him today.
[1] Jerry Bridges, Respectable Sins (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2017), 117.
[2] Jerry Bridges, Respectable Sins (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2017), 121.
Brice Bigham serves as the Director of Development & Marketing at CBTS. He is an M.Div. Student at CBTS and serves as a Deacon at Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY. He lives with his wife Alina and their four children. Brice particularly enjoys church history, homesteading, and spending time with his family.
by Timothy Decker | Sep 22, 2025 | Apologetics, New Testament
*Editor’s Note: The following post is part of Dr. Timothy Decker’s series “A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8.” Click the following numbers to read the other parts of this series.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8
Part 5: Examining the Strongest Argument of Internal Evidence
After admitting the scant external evidence (see parts 2 & 3), those who defend the originality of the Johannine Comma offer their strongest evidence for its inclusion from the basis of internal evidence. In part 4, we answered some weaker arguments from internal evidence in favor of the Comma. But I’ve saved their strongest argument for last. To be fair, this is a strong argument and it has been recognized even by those who do not have a text that includes the Comma.
The argument is one of grammar: that without the Comma the grammar is discordant and unharmonious, yet with the Comma, it flows smoothly and easily. But the question that must be asked up front is this: even if that is the case (and I’ll push back against it a bit), is that enough to overturn so much preserved manuscript data? There are several places in the NT that do not adhere to standard grammatical rules, many of them by the same apostolic author—John.[1] If that infrequently occurs in the NT, then is a grammatical solecism at 1 John 5;7–8 enough to overturn the 98% of Greek manuscripts that do not include the Comma? Indeed, there are times where the notions of constructio ad sensusm (“construction according to the sense/meaning”) is permissible or even expected. It will be argued here, that the simple solution to the grammatical dilemma is this very notion of constructio ad sensum, the grammar is constructed in such a way to fit the sense of the text.
The Grammatical Argument Asserted
I want to begin by quoting a native Greek speaker from the early church—Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration XXXI). He was faced with the grammatical difficulty too:
What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are “Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood”? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using “Three” in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine “Three” first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?
The primary issue is simply this: in Greek the words “three” and the articular participle “the ones bearing witness” are all masculine, while the three earthly witnesses are all neuter words. Proper grammar would not have a discordance of gender between the malleable adjective “three” and articular participle “the ones bearing witness.” On the other hand, with the Comma included, the first two of the three heavenly witnesses are grammaticalized masculine (“Father” and “Word”). Therefore, with the Comma included, there is every reason to expect the masculine “three” and “the ones bearing witness,” but without the Comma, there is the breaking of grammatical rules—namely gender matching.
There are a couple of observations to make before we move on. Notice that Gregory seemed unaware of the Comma. He cited 1 John 5:7–8 as it appears in most of our versions that exclude the Comma. There does not seem to be a knowledge of any reference to or manuscript that reads “the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.” If there were, he almost certainly would have mentioned that in this Oration in order to make his case for Trinitarian orthodoxy. Additionally, Gregory was arguing against the absurd notion that the three witnesses of “Spirit, water, and blood” are consubstantial. This will be an important point for later.
Strongest Argument Affirmed
Now that there is a sense in which the grammatical argument has been stated, let us proceed to see how supporters of the Comma speak of this matter. In a more modern work, C. H. Pappas has argued:
If the Trinitarian passage is omitted, how are we to explain the masculine adjective, “τρεις” (three), the masculine article “οι” (the plural), as well as the masculine participle “μαρτυρουντες” (bear witness) in the eighth verse of this fifth chapter? The adjective, article, and the participle are all masculine. The problem arises when we consider the mixture of the masculine with neuter substantives which immediately follow. The three nouns that follow are “the spirit, and the water, and the blood” which are all neuter. As the reader can readily see, there is no agreement between these nouns with the masculine article, adjective, and participle that precedes them; they stand in opposition to them. Immediately, one should detect that there is a serious grammatical problem if the Comma is omitted.
The masculine adjective “three,” and the masculine article “the” with the masculine participle “bear witness” (or record) of verse eight, is only understood by the attraction of the three witnesses of verse seven which are masculine. It is the Father and the Word and the Holy Ghost of the previous verse that explains the masculine adjective, article and participle in verse eight.
Therefore, insisting that the seventh verse is to be omitted creates confusion.[2]
Let it be stated that while including the Comma helps the grammatical issues, it does not totally resolve them! Among the heavenly witnesses, one of the three is neuter (“Holy Spirit”). And the earthly witnesses are all neuter. The TR rendering of v. 8 also has “three” and “the ones bearing witness” in the masculine. The problem has not been averted; it has only been avoided for later.
Pappas, along with Dabney, predicted this counter argument and head it off at the pass. They both account for the same grammatical tension in v. 8 that they avoided by including the Comma with a notion they called “attraction.” Dabney explained what attraction would do saying, “The Πνεῦμα [“spirit”], the leading noun of this second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a species of masculineness superinduced upon it by its previous position in the masculine group.”[3] Therefore, because “spirit” is in the first group, and the first group could naturally be rendered with the masculines “three bearing witness,” then the second occurrence of “spirit” would attract the same masculines “three bearing witness.”
My response is quite simple. It seems that Dabney and Pappas can argue for the constructio ad sensum when it suites their purposes, for that is what “attraction” is. But will they allow others to do the same when they propose an interpretation without the Comma? Further, the constructio ad sensum that Dabney argued for is one of personification. If the “Spirit” in the first group receives personhood or has “masculineness superinduced upon it,” and that personhood of “Spirit” continues into the second group, and that personhood or personification is extended to the other neuters (“water” and “blood”), then can we not also reasonably conclude that personification of neuters is a sufficient constructio ad sensum? I think Dabney would have to agree in order for his argument to stand. As will be demonstrated below, this is the exact argument made when the Comma is omitted: personification and the constructio ad sensum to highlight the three witnesses.
Strongest Argument Answered
The answer to this dilemma is simple enough. The text without the Comma is speaking metaphorically, personifying water and blood as witnesses along with the Spirit. Culy commented on the use of the masculine words in the same way: “The writer chooses a masculine form of both the participle and the numeral even though the ultimate referents are all neuter (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα), perhaps due to the fact that the three are personified as ‘witnesses.’”[4] If we allow for the constructio ad sensum for v. 8 when we include the Comma, then by the same rationale of constructio ad sensum we can also allow a personification of v. 8 without the Comma, thus accounting for the masculine words.[5]
The idea of personification is strengthened when comparing v. 6’s notion of a “witness” to that of v. 8. In v. 6a, Jesus came by water and blood. In v. 6b, this was confirmed by the Spirit of God: “It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth” (LSB). The phrase “the Spirit who bears witness” literally reads in Greek “the Spirit is the witness” (τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν). The person of the Spirit is bearing witness to Jesus Christ, that he came and came by water and blood. The word “witness” in v. 6 is gendered as a neuter, just like the term “spirit.” Therefore, we have no grammatical discordance.
Hills took this as an argument for the Comma: “Surely in this verse the word Spirit is ‘personalized,’ yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore, since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as a reason for such a change in verse 8.”[6] However, it was only the Spirit called on as a witness in v. 6. And as the Spirit is a divine person, no personification or personalization was necessary and therefore no constructio ad sensum was required. The neuter “witness” may be left as neuter. However, later, the Spirit along with the very same water and blood mentioned in v. 6 are all three declared as witnesses at v. 8. And as water and blood are not sentient, they can only bear witness in a metaphorical sense. Therefore, John must personify them with the masculine “three” and “the ones bearing witness.”[7] He would have to alter the Spirit’s “witness” from neuter in v. 6 to masculine in v. 8 in order to extend the personification to the water and blood, thus making it obvious. This is a textbook case of constructio ad sensum, and it is a very natural way to read 1 John 5:6–8 when excluding the Comma.
In one sense, my argument is that the constructio ad sensum resolves the grammatical tension that Gregory of Nazianzus was pointing out and that defenders of the Comma insist upon when the Comma is excluded. The only difference here is that the “sense” governing the construction of the three neuters (“Spirit, water, and blood”) is not the masculineness or personhood transferred from the heavenly witnesses of v. 7. It is rather that the personification of the three neuters of Spirit, water, and blood with the masculines “three are bearing witness” is required by the very notion that they operate as witnesses! Those for and against the Comma arrive at the same conclusion of v. 8 and the three neuters (a constructio ad sensum). We just get there from slightly different routes.
For those who might object to this explanation of personification, they end up arguing against constructio ad sensum. How ironic it is that those who demand grammatical precision and concordance at 1 John 5:7–8 are willing to allow for grammatical disruption and dissonance at other pet verses like Psalm 12:6–7. Why must we allow a supposed constructio ad sensum at Psalm 12:6–7 arguing for the preservation of Scripture (see blog article here), yet we cannot make use of that same kind of argumentation of at 1 John 5:7–8 (excluding the Comma)? In comparison, we are straining the grammatical boundaries far less than Ps 12.
Conclusion
In the end, the majority reading (the shorter reading excluding the Comma) is not grammatically wrong, for it is also used in the TR for v. 8’s earthly witnesses. We have similar methods from John himself, who would break grammar rules and use unconventional stylings (e.g. Rev 1:4). It really comes down to this: Are we willing to overturn so much manuscript data and external evidence based on this one strange grammatical rendering which a reasonable answer can be offered? Is the internal evidence for the Comma that strong to undue over 500+ Greek manuscripts, all the versions save some Latin, and much of the church fathers? It seems to me that this kind of special pleading for the Comma works against the notion of providential preservation.
[1] For an excellent treatment of grammatical “solecisms” in the book of Revelation, see G. K. Beale, “Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old Testament Allusions: A Selective Analysis of Revelation 1–22,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 421–46.
[2] C. H. Pappas, In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, Second Ed. (Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2016), 45.
[3] Robert L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review xxii, no. 2 (April 1871): 221.
[4] Martin M. Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text, BHGNT (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004), 127. See also Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 281.
[5] Contra Hills who said, “It is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine.” However, if we allow for constructio ad sensum, there is no difficulty. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1997), 212.
[6] Hills, 212.
[7] Additionally, Westcott said, “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες expresses the actual delivery of the witness, and this is a present, continuous, action.” B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, Second Edition: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, Second Ed. (Cambridge & Londong: MacMillan and Co., 1886), 184.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
by CBTS Student | Sep 19, 2025 | Historical Theology, Practical Theology
Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) was one of the most influential theologians and pastors in Particular Baptist history. His life and ministry in England were marked by a resolve to proclaim the Word of God, for the people of God, unto the glory of God. His burning heart for the gospel was inextinguishable. From early in his ministry, Keach obeyed Paul’s words to Timothy: “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season” (2 Tm. 4:2). Keach experienced tumultuous times during the Restoration of the 1660s. Yet his ministry proved to be as expansive as it was multifaceted. He not only preached the Word with his voice, he also published its truths with his pen. He has been deemed both an effective preacher and a productive penman. Keach interpreted the advent of the printing press and the advancements that followed as a means to pastor his flock and the broader church. Consequently, he became one of the most prolific publishing pastors in the seventeenth century. It is the goal of this post to briefly present the authorship of Benjamin Keach as a vital part of his pastoral practice. First, a short survey of Keach’s authorial forms will be considered. Second, a few of his pastoral motives for writing will be assessed. Finally, some applications will be given for today’s pastors as they evaluate their own ministries, congregations, and the glory which belongs solely to Christ the Lord.
A Variety of Authorial Forms
It is imprudent to attempt to provide an exhaustive list of every form Keach employed in his writing. Therefore, the following section will only provide a general review of Keach’s sermon publication, a single confession of faith, and his more unique works of allegory, poetry, and hymnody.
Keach’s sermons constitute the majority of his publications. Austin Walker notes that these works emerged from sermons he preached on the Lord’s Day and, occasionally, at other venues.[1] Often upon request from his congregation at Horselydown, Keach would compile his manuscripts from a series of sermons, and then lightly edit them for ease of reading. Keach viewed this task as tending to his pastoral duties of preaching and teaching the flock under his care. His high view of preaching led him to publish a total of roughly two hundred sermons by the end of his life in 1704.[2] Some examples of these sermons turned books are The Marrow of True Justification (1692), The Everlasting Covenant (1693), A Golden Mine Opened (1694), The Display of Glorious Grace (1698), and An Exposition of the Parables (1701). These sermons will come under consideration below when Keach’s motives for writing are evaluated in detail.
An objection to Keach’s practice may arise at this point. Do the publications of his own sermons suggest an underlying intention of self-promotion? It is true that a man must spiritually discern his ambition, and Benjamin Keach surely battled his flesh until the day of his death. But the evidence suggests that his intentions in writing so prolifically were spiritual, pastoral, and pure. In the preface to The Everlasting Covenant he commented, “Though the substance of what is herein contained you have heard from the pulpit, yet I am persuaded it will not be unpleasing to you to see [emphasis added] those great truths presented to your view from the press.”[3] Here one finds that Keach’s aim fell short of self-promotion. He fixed his eyes on Christ and his own usefulness in His kingdom. Keach believed in the power of the human senses. The senses are instrumental in a person’s learning and experience of the truth. Preaching appeals primarily to the ear. Writing appeals to the eyes. Keach perceived that the visual element of the written word served to further cement deep truths in the hearts and minds of his people.
In addition to his sermons, Keach also published his church’s articles of faith. He observed that the majority of the people under his care were unlearned in orthodox Christianity. He sought to remedy this through the printing of affordable confessions and catechisms. Not only did he teach the truth to his people verbally, he also documented their common statement of faith in order to warmly encourage their long-lasting biblical literacy.[4] At the time of its publication, Keach knew his remaining time was short. He did not know “how soon [he] may put off [his] tabernacle.”[5] So, he committed himself to this task. His love for the people compelled him to leave them access to biblically grounded articles of their own faith.
Keach tinkered with the genres of allegory, poetry, and hymnody as well in his writing. His most widely read allegory was The Travels of True Godliness. In this work, Keach addressed the errors of several popular teachers in his day. He wished to uncover the implications of these false teachings and their effects upon the ordinary Christian.[6] While the work was not as popular and engaging as Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, it did achieve some publicity by connecting with the broad audience for whom it was intended. As for his poems and hymns, many of them lacked artistic flair and pleasant meter. His variation of genre, however, afforded Keach a unique opportunity to communicate Scripture to those outside his immediate purview.[7] Having reviewed some of Keach’s authorial forms, it is fitting now to examine a few of the pastoral motives that informed his authorship.
Pastoral Motives
Keach’s writings had a consistent pastoral tincture. His motivations are observable by studying the forewords of his various works. His opening epistolary notes often indicated his authorial intent. Some of his most obvious motivations were shepherding, evangelism, education, polemics, and worship. These motives will be expounded in this section. The study of his shepherding motive runs downstream to his other purposes of evangelism, education, polemics, and worship.
Shepherding
As Keach labored with his pen, he did so with a shepherd’s heart. The man was bent on preaching and teaching the Word of God for the good of Christ’s church, and he persisted in keeping a watchful eye on “all the flock” (Acts 20:28). In his dedication of The Glory of a True Church, he stated that the work was written specifically to Baptist congregations and “especially to that under my care.”[8] Herein lies a hint of Keach’s pastoral aim in his writing. He went on to say concerning the nature of this pastoral work, “[The pastor] must be faithful and skillful to declare the mind of God, and diligent therein also to preach ‘in season and out of season,’ God having committed unto him the ministry of reconciliation, a most choice and sacred trust.”[9] While writing goes unmentioned here, it is simple enough to deduce—given Keach’s own practice—that he saw writing as a legitimate pastoral means of declaring the mind of God.
Further proof of this shepherding motive is found in The Marrow of True Justification. In its introduction, Keach said that he was “prevailed with” by some of his congregants to publish these two sermons.[10] He readily admitted that the printing of these sermons was for his people.[11] He sensed the burden of pasturing Christ’s sheep for whom he would give an account. So, Keach felt obliged to meet his peoples’ request.
His two sermons on justification were not the only sermons for which he was “prevailed with” by his listeners. Beginning A Golden Mine Opened—a compilation of almost forty sermons—Keach invoked the same verbiage:
It was the least of my thoughts, when I had preached the greatest part of the ensuing sermons, once to suppose they should ever be published to the world. But through some of your important requests and desires, I was prevailed with [emphasis added], many of you so readily and unexpectedly subscribing to take off so great a number of them.[12]
Keach did not publish his sermons for acclaim and attention. Evidently, those who heard his sermons at the Horselydown church were helped enough by them that they wished to see them propagated through print.
Evangelism
In connection with the shepherding basis of his writing, Keach sought to be evangelical even with his pen. In his Exposition of the Parables he stated that one of the main benefits of preaching the parables of Jesus was their unveiling of the gospel of the kingdom. One of his principal reasons for compiling this massive work on the parables was to aid in teaching “the weak” the meaning of them.[13] He aspired to open the floodgates of truth for those living in ignorance. Thinking on the nature of Christ’s parabolic teaching, Keach remarked,
Were the duties of morality, or the rules of a godly life, kept secret from the foundation of the world, until our Saviour came? No, certainly, for the law of the Lord is perfect in that great case; but they were the mysteries of the gospel, or the mysteries of our salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, which He mainly designed to instruct us in, by speaking his parables.[14]
Keach set his heart upon communicating those “mysteries of the gospel” when he published these sermons. He frequently extended the free offer of the gospel and wished to employ the tool of books to cast that seed even further than his own congregation. In this, Keach found he was obeying the Pauline charge to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tm. 4:5).
Education
Keach desired to teach his people the robust theology of the whole Bible. His goal in writing confessions and (especially) catechisms was not to generate robotic zealots who possessed no individuality. Nor was it to turn every congregant into a heartless tinman.[15] Rather he wished to equip individuals and families with the truth of the Bible in a way accessible for them. His eye to the future drove him to provide these works for fathers and mothers seeking to raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).
Besides his sermons, Keach added this pastoral remark in the Articles of Faith: “All that I shall say more, is to entreat you to labour after holiness … that as you have a good doctrine, you may also have a holy and good [manner of life].”[16] What does this tell of Keach’s objective in educating his people? He clearly did not wish to produce loveless theologians. On the contrary, he desired that their sound doctrine be married with an affectionate life.
His work in The Glory of a True Church exemplifies this educational motive as well. Walker points out that Keach published this book to teach his congregation the summation of the pastoral work.[17] The people needed a deeper knowledge of the biblical ecclesiology presented in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.[18] He was fervent about leading his people to not only confess true facts, but also to open to them the hermeneutical foundation and principles for finding those truths in the Scriptures.
In The Marrow of True Justification, he gave seven reasons for initially preaching on the key Protestant doctrine. His second reason stands out in point of his educational tendencies as a pastor:
I fear many good Christians may not be so clearly and fully instructed into this doctrine as they ought, or it might be wished they were, though they be rightly built upon the true foundation, or upon that precious Cornerstone God hath laid in Zion, yet are but babes in Christ, and therefore need further instruction, for their establishment in this, and other essentials of the true Christian religion.[19]
Keach ached for his people to grow up “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). He pursued Christ’s sheep so that he might help bring them safely to their heavenly home. This was highly influential in his didactic approach to preaching and, therefore, writing.
Polemics
His polemical motivations are related to his educational thrust in preaching and writing. Keach’s third reason for preaching and publishing The Marrow of True Justification was locally conditioned. He said, “The present times are perilous, and many grand errors in and about this great fundamental point too much abound and prevail, (as many have with grief observed of late,) and that too in and about this city.”[20] He was cognizant of the error espoused in his particular city. He wrote against the Baxterians, the Antinomians, and the Papists in England. This reveals that Keach was informed of his own cultural-theological context. His polemical approach to these issues ensured that his people—and the broader church—understood the dangerous pitfalls into which some influential preachers in London fell. In this Keach sought to spare the flock of God from the same errors.
Worship
Every pastor worth his salt longs to exalt Christ in all he does in service to the church. He also longs for the pure worship of the church under his care. Keach was no exception. In Tropologia—the closest publication to a form of his systematic theology—he wrote,
And now reader, thou mayest perceive that what I have received, I am willing to communicate. Talents must not be hid in napkins. And that this compilation may bring glory to God, advantage to thee, and to the church of Christ in general, even for ages to come, is, and shall be the constant prayer of him, who is willing to serve thee in the work of the Gospel for Christ’s sake.[21]
Keach—not seeking to embellish his talents—knew he was gifted to some degree in writing. He recognized that talents such as his “must not be hid in napkins.” Thus, he prayed for the Lord’s blessing upon his writing that his own congregation and the church in general might be given an interpretive advantage in their study of the Scriptures. But his ultimate target was doxology. In other words, he labored with his pen to the glory of God alone. How might today’s pastors learn from these Keachean motivations for writing? It is time to now consider some applications.
Applications
The apostle John repeated the phrase “I am writing” seven times in the opening chapters of his first epistle. He repeated this phrase frequently to communicate to his readers the purpose for his writing. He took up this statement again at the end of his epistle. John said, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:13; emphasis added). John’s intentions were deeply pastoral. His aim was gospel assurance. This implicitly supports the idea that pastoral writing was not unique to Benjamin Keach. He was not the first pastor to write in order to advance his pastoral work amongst the brethren. But what are some things that pastors today must do to undertake the work of pastoral writing effectively?
First, a pastor must consider his abilities. Keach’s success as a writer should not be diminished, but it is evident that he occasionally stretched beyond his own abilities. He perhaps wrote more hymns and poems than necessary. A pastor must know the limitations of his gifts. Being a skilled sermon writer does not mean a man will write hymns and poetry well. It might be that writing is not a tool he is skilled in at all. He must, therefore, seek to be useful in other ways that are equally valid. Pastors must recognize that the goal is not to be the Bunyan or Piper of their people. They are called to operate in the gifts which the Lord has graciously given them. The express duties of a pastor are to preach and shepherd. Writing and publishing must not be viewed as a requirement to fulfill the ministry call. Nor should it be deemed a gift that is higher than men gifted and suited differently.
Second, before a pastor takes up his pen (or keyboard), he must consider his own heart. Benjamin Keach is a good example of success and failure in this area. For the majority of his writings, his pure motives shine through. But there were occasions in which he failed to kill his pride before spilling ink (e.g. Keach’s rebuttals of Marlow in the hymn singing controversy). Writing pastors must guard against a vindictive kind of penmanship. Writing is a tool to feed the flock, not one’s ego. It is an instrument to defend the sheep from wolves, not to defend oneself the moment any degree of criticism arises. This is a serious danger especially for young ministers. What is the pastor’s purpose in writing? Is it for Christ and His Bride? He must ask the Lord to kill any form of pride in his heart and be willing to confess, repent, and look to Christ when evil seeks to destroy him.
Third, a pastor must consider his own congregation. Benjamin Keach was devoted to writing in such a way that the church at Horselydown would be benefited and helped. A writing pastor should choose his subjects for writing carefully. In fact, if he seeks to discern the needs of his people in his preaching, then he would do well to begin his authorial endeavors by putting those sermons in print. He must have his pastoral finger on the spiritual pulse of his congregation. Of course, this should not prevent him from preaching the whole counsel of God, but this will protect a pastor from writing over the heads of his people.
Fourth, a pastor seeking to publish biblical truths for his people must seek the Holy Spirit’s help through much prayer. Keach is another good example of this practice. In his preface to An Exposition of the Parables he wrote,
And (considering that the parables contain the substance of our Saviour’s ministry, and the profound mysteries couched therein,) the sense of my great weakness, or inabilities to manage so great a work, hath caused me not to undertake it without tremblings of heart, and many prayers and cries to God, that my heart, tongue, and pen, might be influenced and guided by the divine Spirit.”[22] (emphasis added)
Preaching indeed requires the ministry and assistance of the Holy Spirit. Keach saw the pastoral work of writing as no different. Pastors today must entrust every aspect of their ministries to the Lord through prayer. He must ask the Spirit of Christ to fill his soul with the word of Christ so that his voice—and perhaps his pen—might put the spotless Lamb of God on glorious display.
Lastly, as noted above, if a pastor is going to write something, he must always do it with his eyes set on the glory of God and the good of His church. Take note of Keach’s closing words to the preface of The Display of Glorious Grace: “If thou dost receive any light, spiritual profit, or advantage by thy perusing of these sermons, let thy care be to return the praise to the God of truth, and with charity to cover my weaknesses, and forget me not in thy prayers.”[23] Despite his gifts with the pen, Keach was humble and presented himself to his congregation as their servant in the gospel for the sake of the Lord Jesus. No credit is to be taken by a man who has the gift of teaching or writing. It is called a gift because it is given to him by God to accomplish His work.
Conclusion
The pastoral pen of Benjamin Keach sought to bring together the truths of gospel preaching with the medium of print. The visual words brought these truths to life for many in his congregation and readers outside his ministry. Keach’s prolific authorship and its broad effectiveness goes to show the legitimacy of the instrument of writing that is available to pastors today. Let pastors equipped for this particular kind of ministry labor in it with joy. Like Keach, let him write to this end:
Let Thy bright Glory so break forth,
And Darkness fly from ev’ry Land,
That all the Saints throughout the Earth
May in Thy Truth rejoicing stand.
O let Thy Face upon them shine,
Who by Election, Lord, are Thine![24]
About the Author
Jared Saleeby is an MDiv student at CBTS. He is the happy husband of Ruth Saleeby. The Lord has blessed them with three awesome kids. He serves as one of the pastors at New Covenant Church in Myrtle Beach, SC.
[1] Austin Walker, The Excellent Benjamin Keach, 2nd ed. (Ontario: Joshua Press, 2015), 249.
[2] Ibid., 251.
[3] Benjamin Keach, The Everlasting Covenant, (1693; repr., Kansas City: Baptist Heritage Press, 2022), i.
[4] Jonathan W. Arnold, The Reformed Theology of Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), Centre for Baptist Studies in Oxford Publications (Oxford: Regent’s Park College, 2013), 45.
[5] Benjamin Keach, “The Articles of the Faith of the Church of Christ Meeting at Horsley-Down,” in The Glory of a True Church (1697; repr., Kansas City: Baptist Heritage Press, 2022), 58.
[6] Walker, Benjamin Keach, 352.
[7] Ibid., 302.
[8] Benjamin Keach, The Glory of a True Church (1697; repr., Kansas City: Baptist Heritage Press, 2022), ix.
[9] Ibid., 4.
[10] Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification (1692; repr., Birmingham: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2007), 7.
[11] Ibid., 17.
[12] Benjamin Keach, A Golden Mine Opened: Or, the Glory of God’s Rich Grace Displayed in the Mediator to Believers: And His Direful Wrath against Impenitent Sinners: Containing the Substance of near Forty Sermons upon Several Subjects (London: Printed for the author. 1694), Logos, para. 1, sent. 1–2.
[13] Benjamin Keach, An Exposition of the Parables and Express Similitudes of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (London: Aylott and Co., 1858), 4.
[14] Ibid., vi.
[15] Arnold, Benjamin Keach, 57–58.
[16] Keach, “The Articles of the Faith,” 59.
[17] Walker, Benjamin Keach, 232.
[18] Ibid., 240.
[19] Keach, Justification, 18.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1856), viii.
[22] Keach, Parables, v.
[23] Benjamin Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace Or, the Covenant of Peace, Opened: In Fourteen Sermons (London: S. Bridge. 1698), vii.
[24] Benjamin Keach, War with the Devil; or the Young Man’s Conflict with the Powers of Darkness; Displayed in a Poetical Dialogue between Youth and Conscience (Coventry: T. Luckman. n.d. First published 1673), 118–19.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Timothy Decker | Sep 15, 2025 | Apologetics, New Testament
*Editor’s Note: The following post is part of Dr. Timothy Decker’s series “A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8.” Click the following numbers to read the other parts of this series.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8
Part 4: Examining the Internal Evidence
In the case of the Comma of 1 John 5:7–8, many interpreters throughout history have marshaled a strong argument in favor of its inclusion primarily from the internal evidence. And so here, we may spend more time than at other parts.
There are two kinds of internal evidence to consider when negotiating textual variants. The first is scribal probability: what is a scribe more likely to do. In the case of the Comma, is he more or less likely to omit the Comma, or is he more or less likely to add the Comma? The second kind of internal evidence is intrinsic probability of the author; in this case, the author of 1 John, whom I take to be John the apostle. What is his style, vocabulary, propensities, etc.? The problem with these two matters of internal evidence is that they can be set against one another quite often. If a scribe was likely to “clean up” a reading or make it less offensive, but in doing so it goes against the author’s normal style or vocabulary, which is correct? This is one reason why I place a greater weight upon the external evidence, as it offers a far more objective set of criteria when negotiating textual variants.
For conversation partners, I will use the exegetes cited by the Trinitarian Bible Society (the primary publisher of the Scrivener Textus Receptus) in their article, “Why 1 John 5:7–8 is in the Bible.” They will go century by century, starting with Matthew Henry representing the 18th c., Robert L. Dabney the 19th c., and Edward Hills in the 20th c. For my part, I’ll add a 21st c. work by C. H. Pappas entitled In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7.
The internal argument is one that rests primarily on intrinsic probabilities and grammatical difficulties. It asks the question: If the Comma was excluded, would John the author write with such discordant grammar at 1 John 5:7–8? Or to assert it positively: the inclusion of the Comma does not cause any grammatical disruption of 1 John 5:7–8 and therefore must be the correct reading. This is the strongest argument for its authenticity. Therefore, we will save it for the end while we take up some other internal arguments.
Weak Arguments
1) Three things, yea for four?
The weakest arguments for the Comma comes from those seeking to bring out some OT equivalent. For example, Hills said, “The omission… seems to leave the passage incomplete. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgression and for four, of the prophet Amos.”[1] However, there are only 2 groups of witnesses, not three or four. And excluding the Comma, the group contains three witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood). Either it meets this criterion just as easily without the Comma (3 witnesses) or it does not with the Comma (only 2 groups of witnesses, not three or four). Therefore, it cannot “seem to leave the passage incomplete” as Hills began. But is this even an axiomatic truth that all of Scripture practices? If not, then why must we force it here?
2) Parallelism and Hebrew Poetry
A somewhat similar argument to Hills’ appeal to OT style was made by Charles Forster’s 1869 work, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. He wrote, “To all readers acquainted with the rules of Hebrew parallelism it must at once be apparent, that a sentence so constructed authenticates itself; and speaks, at the same time, syntaxically for the authenticity of the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses.”[2] He based much of his ideas, not unexpectedly, upon the work of Roberth Lowth,[3] whose views on Hebrew poetry are now rejected in most circles.[4]
It is no boast when I say that I am well acquainted with biblical Hebrew poetry and its use of parallelism. Very recently, I published an article titled, “The Majesty of the Style of Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” on this very subject.[5] My doctoral dissertation research was to examine this poetic style in the NT, the very thing Forster was claiming for the Comma.[6] To demonstrate what this looks like in the Greek New Testament and from an apostolic poetic master (Paul), I have an upcoming article to be published called, “The Poetic Form and Theological Function of Romans 3:10–18.”[7]
I hope this is a sufficient demonstration that I am a reader “acquainted with the rules of Hebrew parallelism.” And I can tell you that from my study and research, it is not “apparent” to me at all that with or without the Comma, there are signs of biblical Hebrew poetry. If anything, Priscillian’s rendition of the earthly witnesses first and “what is more” the heavenly witnesses might be a case of the intensification in Hebrew poetry.[8] But there is not the contrastive grammar mixed with syntactic symmetry required for such poetry, whether written in either Hebrew or Greek. And to claim that the poetic structure is destroyed by excluding the Comma begs the question: why does there have to be a poetic structure in 1 John 5:7–8 at all?
But it gets worse. In my dissertation, I argued (along with many others) that the Lord’s Prayer is fashioned after biblical Hebrew poetry. The “doxology” of the Lord’s prayer is another notable TR inclusion that many dispute. Concerning the doxology, I made a passing text critical note saying, “Making use of internal evidence, slight as it might be, the pattern of BHP is all but absent in the disputed [doxology] phrase: οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξη εις τους αιωνας αμην. While it maintains the triadic formula observed in the LP, it does so at the expense of being neither parallelistic nor terse. This observation is hardly conclusive for its omission. However, it does add more weight to the internal evidence that the doxology is out of touch with the style of its immediate context.”[9] If we demand the Comma’s inclusion at 1 John 5:7 based on its style of Hebrew poetry, then we have to demand the exclusion of the doxology concluding the Lord’s Prayer for the same reason.
It gets worse from there. If we demanded the inclusion of the Comma because it follow the rules of Hebrew poetic parallelism, then we would have to reject the TR reading at 1 John 2:12–14! This passage is almost certainly set in biblical Hebrew poetry, having noticeable characteristics of it in the NA28 text (and a good number of Byzantine manuscripts) but not in the TR. If we force parallelism as a proof for the Comma in one place, then we have to do so consistently with another, especially in the same epistle, and therefore reject the TR reading of 1 John 2:12–14!
Better Arguments
17th/18th-century Puritan Matthew Henry and 19th-century Presbyterian theologian, R. L. Dabney, offered many arguments for the Comma’s inclusion.[10] Dabney would eventually make the strongest argument from grammar, while Henry did not indicate any such discordance. However, they included other evidences that must be scrutinized.
Johannine Style
Speaking of the intrinsic probability or what John would have most likely written, Henry and Dabney point out that the Johannine usage of logos for the Son in 1 John 5:7 is consistent with John 1:1, 14. Likewise, they argued that similarity of language of “these three are one” (οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι) in the Comma with John 10:30 “I and my father, we are one” (ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν), using the neuter “one” in both. However 1 John 5:8, the language is slightly different from John 10:30, adding a preposition and article to the adjective “one” (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν).
Neither of these are convincing for the mere fact that anyone could duplicate John’s verbiage and style. Such an argument only bears weight when the variant is over different wording, not whether a word (or phrase) is absent or present. That is to say, this would be a strong argument if there was a variant of the Comma that used “Christ” rather than “Word” (logos) or the masculine “one” rather than the neuter. But intrinsic probability does not much assist with omissions or additions but only different word or stylistic choices. At best, we can say that the vocabulary of the Comma is Johannine enough to be believable that he wrote it.
Cause of an Omission
Secondly, Henry and Dabney appealed to the most important element of internal evidence: the reading that best accounts for the creation of the others is likely to be the original. Dabney argued that the exclusion of the Comma was intentional on the part of the anti-Trinitarians. But this is where such an argument breaks down, for Matthew Henry argued the opposite. He said in his Commentary, “It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it.”
I believe Henry has the better of Dabney here. In my experience of transcribing and collating manuscripts of 1 John, it is far more common to accidentally omit large sections due to homeoteleuton (“like endings”). When a word or phrase ends once and then again a second time, scribes will often return to the wrong word of phrase, thus skipping the section in between. For an example, see 1 John 2:23 (written about here). And so I agree with Hills, “The comma could easily have been omitted accidentally through a common type of error which is called homoioteleuton (similar ending).”[11] The second identical phrase “there are three bearing witness” could have been confused as the first phrase, and therefore all that was in between would have been omitted.
As possible as this is, it is less likely because the identical phrases “there are three bearing witness” with the Comma are not the same as without. The Comma includes the two qualifiers “in heaven” and “on earth” after each “there are three bearing witness.” Yet without the comma, there is only one set of witnesses with no descriptor of “on earth.” If a copyist’s eyes were to skip from the first “there are three bearing witness” to the verbatim second, then how does one account for the omission of “on earth” as his eyes would have returned to that very point if it were original?
NKJV: “7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”
His eyes would have skipped the entire heavenly-witnesses clause and resume at the very point where it we would expect “on earth.” Yet this does not happen. There is no “on earth” phrase when the Comma is excluded. So while an accidental omission is possible, it does not account for all the omission.
However, there is also a reasonable explanation for how the Comma could have been added to the text rather than accidentally omitted. As we noted in the previous articles, concepts of the Comma only appeared in the North African Latin tradition early on, and mainly as mystical interpretation of the earthly witnesses of the “spirit, water, and blood.” Eventually, a portion of the Latin tradition would accept the Comma (see part 3). And when the Latin tradition was codified by the Roman Catholic Church in the council of Trent, there was a new incentive to have Greek manuscripts and printed editions to include it (see part 2).
In passing, I would like to point out why I do not place as much weight on internal evidence. (1) For those arguing for the same variant, they can often give conflicting theories, as Henry and Dabney did. But (2) there are usually decent theories both for and against an omission/addition. Only those variants that have no explainable alternative can make use of this internal evidence as a weighty argument.
Meaningless Repetition
Thirdly, both Henry and Dabney made a contextual-theological argument for the Comma’s inclusion. They both understood the exclusion of the Comma to lead to a tautology: “6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement” (LSB). Far from being a tautology or meaningless repetition, v. 6 explains that there are three witnesses, and vv. 7–8 makes it clear that the witnesses are in agreement. Further, 1 John has a great deal of repetition, making it seem tautological at times. What are we to do with those other passages, such as 1 John 1:6–10 or 1 John 2:12–14? Are those repititions redundant and meaningless? Perish the thought.
Anaphoric Article
Finally, Dabney makes a secondary grammatical argument that did not enter the mind of Henry. As noted numerous times now, the “three are one” in v. 7 with the Comma (οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι) is different than in v. 8 (οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). Dabney assumed that the article before “one” in v. 8 is an article of previous reference, otherwise known as anaphoric. This would lead him to ask (p. 222),
“And these three agree to that (aforesaid) One,” the argument appears. What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none: the τὸ ἐν so clearly designated by the definite article, as an object to which the reader has already been introduced, has no antecedent presence in the passage. Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute.
However, this argument assumes the article is anaphoric, which I reject wholesale. The construction of the articular neuter singular adjective “one” (το εν) occurs in other places throughout the NT that are not anaphoric but make the adjective “one” either attributive or substantival (“the one thing”). First Cor 12:11, the articular neuter “one” makes it attributing the neuter Spirit (“the one and the same Spirit”). Phil 2:2, Paul attaches the article to the neuter “one” as the object of a participle making “one” substantival (lit. “thinking the one thing”). Likely the articular use of “one” in Matt 25:18 is also substantival and the object to the substantival participle (“the one receiving the one [talent]”). Therefore, if understood substantively in 1 John 5:8, that gives το εν the sense of “the same thing” as in “they are in agreement,” as the LSB and NKJV render. What is more, the articular adjective “one” το εν is the object of the preposition εις meaning “unto the one thing.” This preposition + article even more implies agreement, and makes an anaphoric article increasingly unlikely. Lastly, Greek grammarian Dan Wallace argues that such construction in 1 John 5:8 may even be a Semitism.[12] If so, it could mean “the three are as one.”
Though I save it for part 6, Dabney’s understanding of the anaphoric article leads to strange interpretive conundrums, not least of which is an Arian interpretation of the Comma. In summary, if the second group of witnesses are the same kind of oneness as the previous oneness of the heavenly witnesses, then the Arians must be correct, for the oneness of spirit/air, water, and blood are only of like substance but not the same substance. Therefore, the previous group must also only be of like substance. This cuts against orthodox Trinitarianism!
Summary
Thus far, we have seen some of the worst arguments for the inclusion of the Comma as well as some that deserve an answer. There are other proofs raised by interpreters, but this covers what one will mostly encounter. That only leaves the strongest argument for the inclusion of the Comma: the grammatical argument. I will take up that subject in the next article.
[1] Edward F. Hills, The King James Defended (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 211.
[2] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Three Heavenly Witnesses (London: Bell and Daldy), 238.
[3] See Lecture 19 of Robert Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones (London, 1753) and Robert Lowth, Isaiah a New Translation: With a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, Critical, Philological, and Explanatory (London: Joseph T. Buckingham, 1815), x.
[4] See for example Fokkelman who claimed that “the triad synonymous/antithetical/complementary [of Lowth] cannot withstand critical scrutiny.” J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide, trans. Ineke Smit (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 26.
[5] Timothy L. Decker, “The Majesty of the Style of Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal 11, no. 1 (Spring 2025): 35–45.
[6] Timothy L. Decker, “The New Testament’s Majesty of the Old Testament’s Poetic Style: Interpreting New Testament Poems Stylized after Biblical Hebrew Poetry as Well as the State of Current New Testament Research” (Ph.D. dissertation, Capital Seminary & Graduate School, 2021).
[7] Timothy L. Decker, “The Poetic Form and Theological Function of Romans 3:10–18,” Calvin Theological Journal, forthcoming Fall 2025.
[8] See the article linked above: Decker, “The Majesty of the Style of Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 36–37.
[9] Decker, “The New Testament’s Majesty of the Old Testament’s Poetic Style,” 206.
[10] Robert L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review xxii, no. 2 (April 1871): 191–234.
[11] Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1997), 212.
[12] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 47.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
