Comments on: A Critical Examination and Exegesis of 1 John 5:7 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/ Biblical Christianity, Reformed Theology, Reformed Apologetics Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:06:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jim http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-25672 Jim Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:40:43 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-25672 Hi Andrew, In the Majority Text, 1 John 5:7-9 reads, "7 And the Spirit (N) is the thing bearing witness (N), because the Spirit (N) is the truth. 8 Because three (M) are the ones bearing witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the Blood (N), and the three ones (M) for the one thing (N) they are. 9 If the witness of the men (M) we accept, the witness of the God greater it is, because this is the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him." The participial phrase "the thing bearing witness" in 5:7 is neuter either (1) because it refers to a thing (the Spirit), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE grammatically neuter referent noun "Spirit" in the same verse, or (3) both. The participial phrase "the ones bearing witness" in 5:8 is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (the two or three men who comprise the witness of the men, to whom John is comparatively equating the Spirit and the water and the Blood), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE referent noun "men" in the phrase "the witness of the men" in 5:9, or (3) both. The neuter participial phrase "the thing bearing witness" in 5:7 is singular in reference to "the Spirit" in the same verse, which is likewise singular. This participial phrase does NOT refer to the water and the Blood and the Spirit in 5:6-7. It would be plural if it did. Rather, it refers only to the Spirit (singular) in 5:7. John is simply stating in 5:7 that "the Spirit (singular neuter) IS the thing bearing witness (singular neuter)." That is all he is saying in 5:7 (Majority Text). In contrast, John is comparatively (this is like that) equating "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" (all three things) to "the ones bearing witness / the three ones" (M), that is, to the two or three men prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter, in 5:8 (Majority Text), hence the plural masculine form "the ones bearing witness / the three ones." So what John is expressing in 5:7 with the singular neuter form and what he is expressing in 5:8 with the plural masculine form are two completely different things. In 5:7, he is simply stating that the Spirit IS the thing bearing witness, whereas in 5:8, he is stating that the Spirit and the water and the Blood are comparable to the ones bearing witness / the three ones (the two or three witnesses [men] prescribed by Moses). The fact that "the ones bearing witness / the three ones" in 5:8 is a reference to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter is corroborated by the phrase "the witness of the men" in 5:9. In 5:8-9, John is comparatively equating (this is like that) "the Spirit and the water and the Blood," which comprise "the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him," to "the ones bearing witness / the three ones," who comprise "the witness of the men," hence the masculine gender. The two or three witness (men) model prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 is cited in Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (Majority Text). In three of these citations (2 Corinthians 13:1 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9), the author comparatively equates two or three things to the two or three men prescribed by Moses. In ALL of these 8 instances, the number of witnesses NEVER exceeds the two or three witnesses prescribed by Moses. Therefore, the fact that John is comparatively equating the witness of the God which he has born witness regarding the Son of Him (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to the witness of the men (the ones bearing witness / the three ones) in 1 John 5;8-9 in the Majority Text in conformity to the Mosaic witness model (two or three witnesses), whereas adding the Johannine Comma to the text (as in the Textus Receptus) increases the number of witnesses from three witnesses (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to five witnesses (the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit ... and the water and the Blood) in contradiction to the Mosaic witness model (two or three witnesses), proves that John did not write the Johannine Comma, but that it was subsequently added by Trinitarians to some copies of John's epistle. Jim Hi Andrew,

In the Majority Text, 1 John 5:7-9 reads, “7 And the Spirit (N) is the thing bearing witness (N), because the Spirit (N) is the truth. 8 Because three (M) are the ones bearing witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the Blood (N), and the three ones (M) for the one thing (N) they are. 9 If the witness of the men (M) we accept, the witness of the God greater it is, because this is the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him.”

The participial phrase “the thing bearing witness” in 5:7 is neuter either (1) because it refers to a thing (the Spirit), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE grammatically neuter referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, or (3) both.

The participial phrase “the ones bearing witness” in 5:8 is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (the two or three men who comprise the witness of the men, to whom John is comparatively equating the Spirit and the water and the Blood), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE referent noun “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in 5:9, or (3) both.

The neuter participial phrase “the thing bearing witness” in 5:7 is singular in reference to “the Spirit” in the same verse, which is likewise singular. This participial phrase does NOT refer to the water and the Blood and the Spirit in 5:6-7. It would be plural if it did. Rather, it refers only to the Spirit (singular) in 5:7. John is simply stating in 5:7 that “the Spirit (singular neuter) IS the thing bearing witness (singular neuter).” That is all he is saying in 5:7 (Majority Text).

In contrast, John is comparatively (this is like that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” (all three things) to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” (M), that is, to the two or three men prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter, in 5:8 (Majority Text), hence the plural masculine form “the ones bearing witness / the three ones.”

So what John is expressing in 5:7 with the singular neuter form and what he is expressing in 5:8 with the plural masculine form are two completely different things. In 5:7, he is simply stating that the Spirit IS the thing bearing witness, whereas in 5:8, he is stating that the Spirit and the water and the Blood are comparable to the ones bearing witness / the three ones (the two or three witnesses [men] prescribed by Moses).

The fact that “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” in 5:8 is a reference to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter is corroborated by the phrase “the witness of the men” in 5:9.

In 5:8-9, John is comparatively equating (this is like that) “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” which comprise “the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him,” to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones,” who comprise “the witness of the men,” hence the masculine gender.

The two or three witness (men) model prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 is cited in Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (Majority Text). In three of these citations (2 Corinthians 13:1 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9), the author comparatively equates two or three things to the two or three men prescribed by Moses.

In ALL of these 8 instances, the number of witnesses NEVER exceeds the two or three witnesses prescribed by Moses. Therefore, the fact that John is comparatively equating the witness of the God which he has born witness regarding the Son of Him (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to the witness of the men (the ones bearing witness / the three ones) in 1 John 5;8-9 in the Majority Text in conformity to the Mosaic witness model (two or three witnesses), whereas adding the Johannine Comma to the text (as in the Textus Receptus) increases the number of witnesses from three witnesses (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to five witnesses (the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit … and the water and the Blood) in contradiction to the Mosaic witness model (two or three witnesses), proves that John did not write the Johannine Comma, but that it was subsequently added by Trinitarians to some copies of John’s epistle.

Jim

]]> By: Andrew http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-22015 Andrew Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:06:02 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-22015 I read the above article by Mike Sarkissian with some caution. In the first instance, for someone to present an article of this nature on an important passage of Scripture, one must have a good working knowledge of both Greek and Latin. The references made to the Church fathers require us to check for ourselves what was actually quoted by them, from the original languages, where possible. In our present case, both the works of Tertullian and Cyprian are available in Latin. Greek is required for an accurate understanding of these Latin writers underlying text. It is a known fact, that both Tertullain and Cyprian wrote in both Greek and Latin, even though they were form the Latin speaking Church. I have read with amusement the article done by Dr Daniel Wallace on Cyprian's evidence, as it clearly shows he is way out of his depth on textual matters. He has simply gone out of his way to rubbish Cyprian on 1 John 5:7, because he is against the King James Version, and tries to undermine this version as a whole because of some promise that Erasmus made with regards to this verse. I have personally researched this verse, and can say with complete confidence in my findings, that there is no doubt at all, to those who are honest, that Cyprian very clearly read verse seven in his New Testament. A fact that even the great textual critic, Dr Frederick Scrivener, who did not accept the words as John's, but nevertheless had this to say of Cyprian's words. "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies" (Intro. to Textual Criticism of the NT, vol.II, p.405). It does call for honesty and not a bais against something just for the sake of it. Cyprians words are very akin to those used by Tertullian in his epistle Against Praxeas. Where he says, "Thus the connection with the Father and the Son, and of the Son in the Parclete, make Three coherent Persons, One in the Other; qui tres unum sunt (which Three are one), in substance, not one Person. quomodo dictum est (in the same way it is written) "I and the Father are One" His argument is very clear here. He first speaks of the essential unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where he appeals to the words qui tres unum sunt which are only found in 1 John 5:7, for the Three Persons. And then uses another Scriprure's language to show the unity of the Persons in their "essence". To say that both these fathers were using this passage from 1 John in a "symboilc" sense, just because some of the fathers did so, is nothing more than a cop out, as there is not other way to get rid of these testimonies. I have read some who also suggest that, what is Cyprian quotes the words in question. Shall we accept the testimony of a father who was of the Latin church, and knew no Greek. Please! what utter nonsense. There is abundant evidence that Cyprian had a Greek education! Tertullain, we are told by another textual scholar, Dr A Souter, was in the habit of translating directly from the Greek into Latin! Another fact. In the Old Latin Text, that which was used by both Tertullain and Cyprian, verse eight ended different to verse seven, as it does in the Greek. It reads, "tres in unum sunt", which would make the quotations of both these fathers from verse seven. One further point I must make. Who can explain without the disputed words of verse seven, the language of the Greek text, that suddenly changes from the neuter gender in verse six, when used of the Spririt, water and blood, to the masculine gender in the accepted part of verse eight, where the same three neuter nouns are spoken of? There is but one explanition for this, and that is, that verse seven has the masculine Father and Word, which would in greek determine the words and have them in the masculine! So, Erasmus, did what the Holy Spirit said, and included what had been robbed from the Church for 16 centuries! I read the above article by Mike Sarkissian with some caution. In the first instance, for someone to present an article of this nature on an important passage of Scripture, one must have a good working knowledge of both Greek and Latin. The references made to the Church fathers require us to check for ourselves what was actually quoted by them, from the original languages, where possible. In our present case, both the works of Tertullian and Cyprian are available in Latin. Greek is required for an accurate understanding of these Latin writers underlying text. It is a known fact, that both Tertullain and Cyprian wrote in both Greek and Latin, even though they were form the Latin speaking Church. I have read with amusement the article done by Dr Daniel Wallace on Cyprian’s evidence, as it clearly shows he is way out of his depth on textual matters. He has simply gone out of his way to rubbish Cyprian on 1 John 5:7, because he is against the King James Version, and tries to undermine this version as a whole because of some promise that Erasmus made with regards to this verse. I have personally researched this verse, and can say with complete confidence in my findings, that there is no doubt at all, to those who are honest, that Cyprian very clearly read verse seven in his New Testament. A fact that even the great textual critic, Dr Frederick Scrivener, who did not accept the words as John’s, but nevertheless had this to say of Cyprian’s words. “it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies” (Intro. to Textual Criticism of the NT, vol.II, p.405). It does call for honesty and not a bais against something just for the sake of it. Cyprians words are very akin to those used by Tertullian in his epistle Against Praxeas. Where he says, “Thus the connection with the Father and the Son, and of the Son in the Parclete, make Three coherent Persons, One in the Other; qui tres unum sunt (which Three are one), in substance, not one Person. quomodo dictum est (in the same way it is written) “I and the Father are One” His argument is very clear here. He first speaks of the essential unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where he appeals to the words qui tres unum sunt which are only found in 1 John 5:7, for the Three Persons. And then uses another Scriprure’s language to show the unity of the Persons in their “essence”. To say that both these fathers were using this passage from 1 John in a “symboilc” sense, just because some of the fathers did so, is nothing more than a cop out, as there is not other way to get rid of these testimonies. I have read some who also suggest that, what is Cyprian quotes the words in question. Shall we accept the testimony of a father who was of the Latin church, and knew no Greek. Please! what utter nonsense. There is abundant evidence that Cyprian had a Greek education! Tertullain, we are told by another textual scholar, Dr A Souter, was in the habit of translating directly from the Greek into Latin! Another fact. In the Old Latin Text, that which was used by both Tertullain and Cyprian, verse eight ended different to verse seven, as it does in the Greek. It reads, “tres in unum sunt”, which would make the quotations of both these fathers from verse seven.

One further point I must make. Who can explain without the disputed words of verse seven, the language of the Greek text, that suddenly changes from the neuter gender in verse six, when used of the Spririt, water and blood, to the masculine gender in the accepted part of verse eight, where the same three neuter nouns are spoken of? There is but one explanition for this, and that is, that verse seven has the masculine Father and Word, which would in greek determine the words and have them in the masculine! So, Erasmus, did what the Holy Spirit said, and included what had been robbed from the Church for 16 centuries!

]]> By: Sir Aaron http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-17331 Sir Aaron Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:21:03 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-17331 I didn't realize there were NIV'ers and ESV'ers. I use many translations but I prefer the NIV only because I "grew up" on it. It's easier for me to read. Plus, I have an NIV Bible and going ESV would require me to buy another Bible...It's hard for me to justify when most of my word studies, etc. are done on the computer anyhow. But most reformed churches I know use the NASB, although I know of one that is replacing thier NASB with the ESV. The ESV is becoming more popular at my church as well (our pew Bibles are NASB). I didn’t realize there were NIV’ers and ESV’ers.

I use many translations but I prefer the NIV only because I “grew up” on it. It’s easier for me to read. Plus, I have an NIV Bible and going ESV would require me to buy another Bible…It’s hard for me to justify when most of my word studies, etc. are done on the computer anyhow. But most reformed churches I know use the NASB, although I know of one that is replacing thier NASB with the ESV. The ESV is becoming more popular at my church as well (our pew Bibles are NASB).

]]> By: john http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-17325 john Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:24:58 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-17325 You know Stephen if you were a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeel christian you would be quoting only from the NIV!! Just kidding.... When you said that, I couldnt help think if the Lord tarries how the conversation will go between the NIV'ers and the ESV'ers... I appreciate all the good articles that are posted here. Thanks so much John You know Stephen if you were a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeel christian you would be quoting only from the NIV!!
Just kidding….

When you said that, I couldnt help think if the Lord tarries how the conversation will go between the NIV’ers and the ESV’ers…

I appreciate all the good articles that are posted here.

Thanks so much

John

]]> By: Mike http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-17323 Mike Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:54:10 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-17323 John, Thanks brother. That is awesome to hear that your pastor and others are being edified by the article. As many on this website know, the typical evangelical congregation is not interested in issues such as this. Mike John,
Thanks brother. That is awesome to hear that your pastor and others are being edified by the article. As many on this website know, the typical evangelical congregation is not interested in issues such as this.

Mike

]]> By: john http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-17319 john Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:34:11 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-17319 I wanted to thank Mark for this really good article, my pastor is taking us through 1 John and I sent this article to him, he really enjoyed it and several of our congregation wanted the complete article for themselves. Much appreciate the homework. John I wanted to thank Mark for this really good article, my pastor is taking us through 1 John and I sent this article to him, he really enjoyed it and several of our congregation wanted the complete article for themselves.

Much appreciate the homework.

John

]]> By: Sir Aaron http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-14254 Sir Aaron Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:51:26 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-14254 much better! much better!

]]> By: Stephen Macasil http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-14244 Stephen Macasil Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:15:11 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-14244 Sir Aaron, Check the paragraph now, see if that helps. I "bolded" it in red and added a note in the next paragraph... Sir Aaron,

Check the paragraph now, see if that helps. I “bolded” it in red and added a note in the next paragraph…

]]> By: Sir Aaron http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-14230 Sir Aaron Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:08:00 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-14230 Stephen: You need to fix this post. You have bolded the entire 5:7-9, but in Mike's actual article from the link, Mike only bolded: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." This mistake made me have to read the article three times to make sure I understood the conclusion. Mike: You didn't specifically say this, but I am correct in coming to the conclusion that the NIV has it rendered correctly? Mario: I certainly wasn't aware of it, but then again, I don't use the KJV. Stephen:

You need to fix this post. You have bolded the entire 5:7-9, but in Mike’s actual article from the link, Mike only bolded: “in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” This mistake made me have to read the article three times to make sure I understood the conclusion.

Mike: You didn’t specifically say this, but I am correct in coming to the conclusion that the NIV has it rendered correctly?

Mario: I certainly wasn’t aware of it, but then again, I don’t use the KJV.

]]> By: Sir Aaron http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/#comment-14226 Sir Aaron Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:40:34 +0000 http://biblicalthought.com/blog/?p=551#comment-14226 Stephen: Maybe, they can use natural theology and human reason to come to the Bible verses. After all, man can come to the same point using man's reason,right? Stephen:

Maybe, they can use natural theology and human reason to come to the Bible verses. After all, man can come to the same point using man’s reason,right?

]]>