*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 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
