*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 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.

Timothy Decker

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