*Editor’s Note: As more installments of this series are released, they will eventually be linked together.
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
