*Editor’s Note: The following is the first in a blog series authored by Dr. Timothy Decker. As more installments release, they will eventually be linked together.
A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8
Part 1: Introduction
Of all the textual variants debated throughout church history, perhaps no passage is as ferociously fought over as the Johannine Comma (Comma Johanneum) and the “heavenly witnesses” of 1 John 5:7. Notice the difference:
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.”
LSB: “7 For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This well-known textual variant consists primarily over whether the “heavenly witnesses” clause should be included or excluded in our Bibles. It is absent in almost all Greek manuscripts and editions of the Greek New Testament, ancient versions, as well as most modern translations, such as the LSB above. Even the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, as well as the Byzantine Textform of Robinson and Pierpont, exclude the Comma. Yet it has been enshrined in the KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus (TR). Additionally, the papists’ Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate includes it, canonizing it for the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Greek-speaking Eastern Orthodox Church has generally rejected its inclusion. Protestants and evangelicals are divided.
The name Comma Johanneum or the “Johannine Comma” sounds strange for such a long variant. However, “comma” refers not to the punctuation mark “,” but rather to the Greek word κόμμα (komma) meaning a “short clause in a sentence” (see LSJ s.v. II.3.). In this case, the “heavenly witnesses” clause of v. 7 as well as the “earthly witnesses” expression in v. 8 make up the Comma. I, however, think all of 1 John 5:7–8 should be the focus.
Not all textual variants are created equal, nor are they all treated with the same level of ardor as the Comma. Much of the zeal for its inclusion is due to the Trinitarian prooftext it supposedly offers (though not all agree). It is believed that anyone seeking to remove such a core doctrinal passage must be attacking the doctrine itself.[1] This was the accusation leveled against Erasmus by Spanish Inquisitors when he did not include it in his first two editions of his printed Greek New Testament![2] Others would simply point out that they do not like their Bible “being tampered with. Leave well enough alone!”
For those of the Reformed tradition whose confessions cite 1 John 5:7 as a trinitarian prooftext, such as the Westminster and 2nd London Confessions, this may seem even more alarming. 2LBC 2.3 begins by saying, “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit,” and citing 1 John 5:7; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14. Therefore, to reject the Comma would appear to conflict either with one’s confessional commitment or, in the least, constitute a departure from the Protestant and Reformed tradition that has accepted it. So the argument goes anyways.
This leads to the obvious question: why have so many come to doubt the originality of the Comma? At one time, the 17th-century reformed theologian Francis Turretin said of the three heavenly witnesses of 1 John 5:7, “All the Greek copies have it.”[3] Whether Turretin was aware or not, or if he was just speaking in hyperbole, this was a careless and overgeneralized statement that was patently false, even in his own time period.[4] Whether he was referring to printed editions of the GNT and not ancient, hand-written manuscripts, it would still be grossly inaccurate. The reality is, of the 500+ ancient Greek manuscripts containing 1 John still extant, only 10 include the Comma. Of those 10, half of them are marginal notes added. What is more, the earliest of the 10 is from the 14th century. The rest date either around or after the first instance of its inclusion in a printed Greek New Testament (Erasmus’s third edition of 1522).
Suffice it to say, if we hold to the providential preservation of God’s Word (WCF/2LCF 1.8), then there is good reason to doubt the reliability of 1 John 5:7. It is clear that the manuscript evidence for its inclusion is dubious.
Upcoming Articles
In order to engage with all the angles that the Comma presents, we’ll first begin this study by considering the Greek Manuscripts that include the Comma in some form or another. It is here that the evidence is strongest against its inclusion. However, there is a historical argument made for its inclusion, so we’ll examine that. Afterwards, we’ll consider and respond to the internal arguments made for its inclusion. This is by far the strongest evidence for the Comma. We will also consider various interpretations and disputes over the comma. Bringing those categories together, we’ll take a minor rabbit trail in the Textus Receptus tradition on the Comma, which will bring to light some instability in that tradition.
Concluding word
When discussing a cherished passage of Scripture, especially over whether the passage is original or not, passions can get the better of us. Often times, more heat is inserted into the conversation rather than light. I want to conclude by stating that my brothers who believe the Comma to be original to 1 John are exactly that—brothers. A disagreement, even over a text like 1 John 5:7–8, is no cause to disfellowship or castigate, no more than differences of eschatology. What Sam Waldron recently wrote of this matter among Christians disagreeing over matters of eschatology while still affirming the core doctrines of orthodoxy also applies to this subject. He graciously stated,
We must be careful to avoid words and attitudes with those within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy that practically deny the special Christian love we owe to all believers. On the contrary, all that we say must be characterized by the moderation, kindness, respect, and love which we owe to other believers. This does not mean that we cannot say boldly what we think the Bible teaches. It does, however, mean that such boldness must be marked by the gentleness and respect that we owe to all men (1 Peter 3:15) and especially to believers (John 13:34–35).[5]
May God be pleased to grant us the light of illumination on this subject rather than give way to the heat of our sinful passions.
[1] John Owen hypothesized that 1 John 5:7 was “ notoriously corrupted by the old heretics.” Owens, Works, Banner of Truth edition. 16:367.
[2] Grantley McDonald, “Raising the ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe,” PhD dissertation, Leiden University, 2011: 125.
[3] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Philippsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997), 1:114.
[4] Having access to Theodore Beza’s annotations alone would have demonstrated the falsity of this claim. Additionally, the Stephanus GNT of 1550, the first to include a textual apparatus of sorts, listed in the margin at 1 John 5:7 seven manuscripts or printed editions the excluded the comma. Stephanus listed them as δ, ε, ζ, θ, ι, ια, ιγ. According to J. K. Elliott, these are manuscripts GA 5, 6, 8, 38, 2298, 398; manuscript ια being lost and no longer extant. See J. K. Elliott, “Manuscripts Cited by Stephanus,” New Testament Studies 55, no. 3 (July 2009): 391. Also, Stephanus cited a difference with the Complutensian Polyglot. Turretin would write over 100 years after Stephanus’s 1550 edition. For more on Francis Turretin and textual criticism, see Micharl Marlowe, “Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin,” Bible Research; accessed here: https://www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html.
[5] Sam Waldron, The Doctrine of Last Things (Greenbrier, AR: Free Grace Press, 2025), 31.
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
