CBTS Logo

A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8 Part 3: Tracing the Comma throughout Church History | Timothy Decker

by | Sep 8, 2025 | Apologetics, New Testament

 

*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 3: Tracing the Comma throughout Church History

In part 2, we noted a Latinizing trend and papal influences throughout the ten Greek manuscripts that included the Johannine Comma. Many conformed to a Latin rendering of 1 John 5:7–8, and some were hand-written by Roman Catholic copyists with a motivation to match the Greek to the Latin. In this segment, we will notice that trend continue as we trace alleged references to the Comma throughout Church History, examining those claims of early Church citations.[1]

 

Greek Fathers

There is a vacuum of evidence here. It is not that the Greek fathers do not interact with the passage in question. Rather, it is that they do not seem to be aware of the inclusion of the longer Comma at all. Textual critic Bruce Metzger reported, “The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.”[2]

In part 5, we will see Gregory of Nazianzus take up the grammatical difficulties of 1 John 5:7–8 exegeting a text much like our own modern editions of the Greek New Testament which excludes the Comma. The fact is, the Comma was not part of the early Greek speaking church, and therefore it does not fit the criteria of universal acceptance among the church catholic.

Even more alarming is that in all of the Arian debates before and after the Council of Nicaea, it is nowhere quoted or even cited. Theologians such as Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers argued against the Arians for the consubstantiality (homoousious) of the Father and Son. Yet there was no reference to the three heavenly witnesses of 1 John 5:7. It was never even mentioned. I attribute this to the fact that the Greek speaking church was unfamiliar with the text of the Comma, or even the mystical interpretation that the Spirit, water, and blood of v. 8 is a reference to the Trinity (on this, see below), a fairly popular interpretation among the North African bishops. This is further evidence that the Comma was not likely part of the original Greek of 1 John.

This may seem insignificant for some, since Athanasius does not quote 2 Cor 12:13 regarding the Trinity either. True enough. But then 2 Cor 12:13 does not say anything explicit about the one essence of the three persons. Athanasius did, however, cite Matt 28:19 to make the Trinitarian connection (see his Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese, 3). There, the one essence (“baptize them in the name”) is mentioned along with the three persons (“the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”). If the Comma was original and 1 John 5:7 truly teaches the three subsistences are of one substance, then why not raise it during the Arian debates?

The absence of the Comma during the Arian debates was certainly important enough for Erasmus. When he was accused of Arianism by Spanish inquisitors just because his first two editions of his printed Greek New Testament did not include the Comma, he appealed to the same absence of the Greek fathers. McDonald said of the Dutch humanist, “Erasmus responds next to the charge that he had argued against the Trinity. His denial of the authenticity of the comma could not be construed as an argument against the Trinity, for one simple reason. The fact that the comma was never cited by the Greek Fathers, even in their struggles against the Arians, is overwhelming evidence that the comma was not to be found in the text of the Epistle with which they were familiar.”[3] To put it simply, the early Greek fathers in their debate with the Arians did not cite the Comma, yet it would be absurd to accuse them of anti-Trinitarianism or Arianism. Were those like Athanasius and Cappadocian fathers denying the Trinity in the face of the Arians by neglecting to use 1 John 5:7–8? Therefore, neither could Erasmus be accused of Arianism just for excluding the Comma in his Greek New Testament.

I suppose one might claim that the reason Athanasius or the Cappadocian fathers did not cite the Comma was because it may not teach the homousious of the heavenly witnesses, but I’ve not come across that claim thus far. Most parties who advocate for the Comma’s inclusion will argue that it teaches Trinitarian orthodoxy. But does it? Not all agree (see part 6).

 

Ancient Versions

Like its absence in the Greek language in the first millennium, there is little to no versional support for the Comma, aside from Latin. Metzger explained, “The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin.”  And even the Latin versions are not unified. Again, Metzger wrote, “It is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).”[4] The Comma then is restricted to the Latin influence alone.

 

Latin Fathers

It is here that the majority of our time will be spent.

 

1) Tertullian (d. 220)

Tertullian is often the first Latin father mentioned in support of the Comma. However, he clearly is not citing 1 John 5 but rather John 10:30:

After dealing with Philip and the whole compass of this enquiry which continues till the end of the Gospel, in the same tenor of conversation, in which Father and Son are each distinguished in His special quality, He promises that “He will ask a Paraclete also from the Father,” … But we have already explained how it is He is “another.” … Thus the link with the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes three cleaving together, each to his neighbour. “These three are one thing,” not one person, as it is put: “I and the Father are one thing,” in respect to unity of nature, not as regards the singular number.[5]

Observe several things. First of all, he was unquestionably referring to the “end of the Gospel” according to John, specifically quoting John 10, 14, and 16. Secondly, his argument is simply this: if the Father and the Son “are one” in essence, and the Son is asking for “another Paraclete” sent from the Father, then the three are united or “cleaving together, each to his neighbour.” This is the foundation to what later would become the doctrine of homoousious, not an appeal to 1 John. Thirdly, he seems to quote 1 John 5:8 (not the Comma) and applying the “three are one” language to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The alternative is that he is including the third person of the Trinity in his reference to John 10:30, therefore expanding it, as he referenced that passage multiple times in the context (among other places).

One must also consider that there is a difference between the Comma’s “three are one” in v. 7 (οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι) and v. 8’s “three are one” (οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). On the other hand, the Latin does not make a distinction when translating the two different phrases. Both v. 7 and v. 8 read tres unum sunt. When citing 1 John, Tertullian wrote qui tress unum sunt. How are we to know if Tertullian was citing the Comma of v. 7, or simply using the similar Johannine language of 1 John 5:8 to make a theological point, or simply interpreting the three witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) of v. 8 allegorically? However, if his point was to argue for what would become Trinitarian orthodoxy, and had he access to the Comma, then why not cite it outright? Rather, he seems to borrow the language from 1 John 5:8, potentially allegorizing the three witnesses of the Spirit, the water, and the blood as a reference to the Trinity. This is not a conclusive proof of an early citation of the Comma.

 

2) Cyprian (d. 258)

If supporters of the Comma are hesitant to include Tertullian, as they should be, then often they will cite Cyprian as the first to mention it, some going as far as saying he quoted it.[6] The first of two possible references is from his On the Unity of the Church, 6. His argument was that if the persons of the Trinity are united in essence, then how can the church be divided? He argued,

He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church … ?[7]

The strongest element here is that Cyprian says “it is written” and then seemingly quotes 1 John 5:7. However, he only quotes the small portion “and these three are one.” As with Tertullian, how do we know that he is not taking v. 8 and applying “spirit, water, and blood” in reference to the Trinity as Tertullian may have been doing?

Cyprian’s citation may be overstated for two reasons. The most obvious difference between Cyprian and the Comma is that Cyprian rendered the second person as “son” rather than “word” (Filio vs Verbum). If there was a manuscript Cyprian was using, it is strange to think that the earliest reference recorded would misquote it, or misremember it in the very least. Grammatically Cyprian’s mention of the three divine persons is different than the traditional Vulgate rendering: “of the father, etc” de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, in the ablative case; compared to the Comma’s rendering of Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, in the nominative case. These differences likely indicate that Cyprian is only quoting the phrase “and these three are one,” which as we have seen, is the same expression also used of “the Spirit, the water, and the blood” of 1 John 5:8. Cyprians reads more like he is citing a tradition or traditional interpretation of 1 John 5:8 rather than quoting the Comma of 1 John 5:7.

Indeed, Facundus, another North African bishop, this time from the 6th century, understood Cyprian’s mention of 1 John in a mystical sense. He claimed the three elements that are one (“spirit, water, and blood”) were a reference to the Father, Son, and Spirit. Scrivener said of this in the 1883 edition of his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (p. 652),

It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 [the Comma] in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus, that holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin copies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical interpretation in Eucherius and Augustine, who only knew ver. 8. [italics added]

This theological use of 1 John 5:8 was observed earlier by yet another North African bishop, Augustine (d. 430), who would likewise give a mystical sense to the three earthly witnesses of “spirit, and water, and blood” in 1 John 5:8. He took it to signify the Trinity, writing in Contra Maximinum (ii. c. 22.3):

I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, “There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one.” Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, “the three are one:” for this cause I have admonished thee, that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical expressions, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but what they denote as signs … Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, “There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One.”

Recall that Augustine and Facundus are recipients of the North African tradition left behind by both earlier North African bishops, Tertullian and Cyprian. It seems safe to conclude that Cyprian was not quoting the Comma in the 3rd century, and likely not even alluding to it.

The other Cyprian reference is much weaker as an argument for the Comma. It appears when dealing with the baptism of heretics. He wrote in his Epistle to Jubaianus, 12:

For if anyone could be baptized among heretics, certainly he could also obtain remission of sins. If he attained remission of sins, he was also sanctified. If he was sanctified, he also was made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

The reference is minimally to 1 John 5. However, is it an allusion to the “heavenly witnesses” of v. 7 or “the Spirit, the water, and the blood” of v. 8? Or is it simply taking the language of John 10:30 and adding a third person? At best we have to admit, neither Tertullian or Cyprian quote the Comma. Since they were precise in the handling of other Johannine quotes, it seems strange that such a significant Trinitarian passage was not quoted carefully, or at all.

A Comma defender, E. F. Hills, admitted, “The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops,”[8] one of those being Priscillian. Therefore, to Priscillian we now turn.

 

Priscillian (d. ~385)

Those who would cite Priscillian in order to bolster the Comma’s historical significance should think twice. He was a Sabellian (modalist) heretic who denied the Trinity as expressed at Nicaea in A.D. 325. In his Liber Apologeticus, 4, he wrote as though he were quoting from 1 John, “As John says, ‘And there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

His quote is almost identical with the Latin Vulgate and thus different than Cyprian. However, the order of the witnesses is reversed, listing the “earthly” witnesses first, then the “heavenly.” And the earthly witnesses do not include “Spirit” (spiritus) but substitute it for “flesh” (caro). It may be that Priscillian did not reverse the order of the witnesses but merely quoted 1 John 5:7–8 as we have it without the Comma (except misquoting “flesh” in place of “spirit”), only to give a mystical interpretation of those physical elements, following the tradition of the North African fathers. Nevertheless, Priscillian the heretic comes in with the earliest quote of the Comma (AD 380 c.).

Perhaps more damning than anything else, is that the “quote” is neither exact to the TR nor does it render an orthodox Trinitarian meaning. Notice that Priscillian, a Sabellian, added to the conclusion “and these three are one in Christ Jesus” with reference to the heavenly witnesses. Could a Sabellian add these three words “in Christ Jesus” to the Comma yet not intend a modalistic interpretation, as though the three heavenly witnesses are united in the person of the Son? It appears that the earliest quotation of the Comma was not used in order to prove orthodoxy but rather refute it!

 

Jerome (d. 420)

It is controversial to even mention Jerome, as he did not include the Comma in his original Vulgate. However, Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 547), an early copy of the NT Vulgate,[9] included many prologues. At the prologue of the Catholic Epistles, it is purported that Jerome wrote the following:

The order of the seven Epistles, which are named Canonical, as is found in Latin books is not thus among the Greeks who believe rightly and follow the correct faith. For as Peter is first in the order of the Apostles, first also are his Epistles in the order of the others. But as we have just now corrected the Evangelists to the line of truth, so we have restored, with God helping, these to their proper order. For the first of them is one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. Which, if they were arranged by them and thus were faithfully turned into Latin speech by interpreters, they would have neither made ambiguity for readers nor would they have attacked the variety of words themselves, especially in that place where we read what is put down about the oneness of the Trinity in the First Epistle of John. In which we find many things to be mistaken of the truth of the faith by the unfaithful translators, who put down in their own edition only three words, that is, Water, Blood, and Spirit, and who omit the witness of the Father and Word and Spirit, by which both the Catholic faith is greatly strengthened and also the one substance of the Divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is proved. …

Now here is the problem with this reference. Almost all agree, this was not actually Jerome but a forgery, known as “pseudo-Jerome.” Even Erasmus said as much in his Annotations. Horne marshals many good reasons why this is not by Saint Jerome but rather a forger:

This preface is of no authority whatever; for, 1. Its style is so barbarous as to prove that it could not have been written by Jerome; 2. It is wanting in his catalogue of prefaces, as well as in the best and most ancient manuscripts of Jerome’s version; 3. It is often found in Latin copies without his name; it makes use of the term Epistole Canonice, “Canonical Epistles,” whereas Jerome’s title for them was Epistole Catholice, “Catholic Epistles;” 4. Further, this preface is prefixed to some Latin copies of the Catholic Epistles, in which the disputed text is not inserted; whence it is evident that the ancient MSS. from which such copies were made had not the disputed text, though the transcribers had the folly to insert that preface; 5. And, finally, what proves that it is utterly destitute of authority, is the fact, that it insinuates one falsehood, and asserts two other direct and notorious falsehoods.[10]

Therefore, we can move on.

 

Conclusion

Passing into the 5th century, the Comma will become common in the Western church. But it is clear from the best evidence above that it was not quoted early on nor used as a Trinitarian prooftext. Rather, it was either a mystical rendering of 1 John 5:8’s three witnesses: “the Spirit, the water, and the blood,” or it may have simply been a way to expand John 10:30 to include the Spirit. Other scholars make similar claims, “The CJ came from a gloss on 5:8 which explained that the three elements (water, blood, and Spirit) symbolize the Trinity (the Father, the Word (Son), and the Spirit.”[11]

The Comma was used by Sabellian heretics, such as Priscillian, as a proof text of their heresy. This is significant because many will argue against the Comma’s orthodoxy, even if left included in the text (see part 6).

The sad reality is, the church catholic did not grab ahold of the Comma, as demonstrated by the lack of its use by any other Christians than the Western, Latin-speaking church of North Africa. And it does not have a transmissional history before the 5th century outside of a few veiled references in Latin, and those restricted to North Africa (e.g. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine). Once it entered the tradition, it flourished. By the time Erasmus came on the scene with his first edition of the Greek New Testament (1516), he was charged as an Arian by Spanish inquisitors because he excluded the Comma!

If one were to argue that the Textus Receptus was the text of the church throughout history, they could only make that claim from the Protestant era onward. Yet the Protestant Puritans themselves would say that the preservation of God’s Word was “kept pure in all ages” (2LCF/WCF 1.8; italics added). According the external evidence (see part 2), the Comma has not been kept pure, nor has it, according to the above data, been kept in all ages.

 

[1] As a guide to alleged citations, I will use the list provided by T. H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1872) 4:369ff; Michael Maynard, The History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7–8 (Tempe: Comma Publications, 1995).

[2] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society/United Bible Society, 1994), 648.

[3] 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), 126.

[4] Metzger, Textual Commentary, 648.

[5] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, tran. A. Souter (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), 25.

[6] Edward F. Hills, The King James Defended (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 210.

[7] ANF, vol. 5.

[8] Hills, King James Defended, 210. Metzger likewise does not cite either Tertullian or Cyprian but claimed, “The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.” Metzger, Textual Commentary, 648.

[9] Access here: https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/869/.

[10] T. H. Horne, Critical Study, 4:372

[11] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishing, 2008), 785. See also Rodrigo Galiza and John Reeve, “The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8): The Status of Its Textual History and Theological Usage in English, Greek, and Latin,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 56, no. 1 (2018): 82. They said, “On the one hand, since the phrase applied to Cyprian’s Trinity elucidation is the same phrase found in 1 John 5 and applied to the Spirit, the water, and the blood in verse 8a, it could be a simple reference to the text and a reapplication of it to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Along these lines, there are biblical commentators who see this as merely an allegorical expansion of the text of 1 John 5 (without the comma) or simply a loose usage of this phrase for a dogmatic purpose, similar to the way that Tertullian and Augustine used it.”. Likewise, in his textual commentary, Comfort said, “The CJ came from a gloss on 5:8 which explained that the three elements (water, blood, and Spirit) symbolize the Trinity (the Father, the Word (Son), and the Spirit.”

Follow Us In Social Media

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This