SUBJECT:  1 John 5:7

 

QUESTION:  I have heard that this verse was added by someone attempting to lend credence to the trinity idea, is that true?

 

ANSWER:

 

Yes, this is true.

 

Here is the verse in question.  This verse is well known as not being part of the original transcripts of the Bible.

 

1 John 5:7

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

KJV

 

Notice the Bible Commentaries:

 

1 John 5:7-8

 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

The text of this verse should read, Because there are three that bear record. The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era. 8. The three witnesses are the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. "The trinity of witnesses furnish one testimony" (Plummer, The Epistles, p. 116) namely that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for sin that men might live.

(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary)

 

*****

1 John 5:7

 

[For there are three that bear record in heaven ...] There are three that "witness," or that "bear witness"-the same Greek word which, in 1 John 5:8, is rendered "bear witness"-marturountes (NT:3140). There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.

 

It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the "results" which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page.

(NOTE: Mill. New Test., pp. 379-386; Wetstein, II. 721-727; Simon, Critical History of the New Testament; Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, 4:412 ff; Semler, Histor. und Krit. Sammlungen uber die sogenannten Beweistellen der Dogmatik. Erstes Stuck uber, 1 John 5:7; Griesbach, Diatribe in locum, 1 John 5:7-8, second edit., New Test., vol. II., appendix 1; and Lucke's Commentary "in loc.")

 

The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:

 

I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in NO Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age-one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in ALL the early Greek manuscripts.

 

II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions-one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

 

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity-a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5 th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine-nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor-it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

 

(a) The connection does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear "witness" to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things which were well known to those to whom he was writing-the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are "three that bear witness"-three not before referred to, and having no connection with the matter under consideration?

 

(b) The "language" is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term "Logos," or "Word"-ho (NT:3588) Logos (NT:3056), (John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1), but it is never in this form, "The Father, and the Word;" that is, the terms "Father" and "Word" are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word "Son"-ho (NT:3588) Huios (NT:5207)-is the term which is correlative to the "Father" in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1 John 1:3; 2:22-24; 4:14; 2 John 3,9; and the Gospel of John, "passim." Besides, the correlative of the term "Logos," or "Word," with John, is not "Father," but "God." See John 1:1. Compare Rev 19:13.

 

(c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1 John 5:6; and in immediate connection with this, in the argument, (1 John 5:8), it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are OTHER witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three-the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. V. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was missing in all the earlier manuscripts.

 

VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.

(from Barnes' Notes)

 

*****

 

1 John 5:6-9

The name the Word is known to be almost (if not quite) peculiar to this apostle. Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolƒ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.-Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. Now it is nowhere written that these are one, but in v. 7.

(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

 

*****

Commentary by: Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D Associate Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

 

Here is the text found there:

 

5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these

            three are in agreement.” --NET Bible

 

       Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ

       pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ

       marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

       5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been

       known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both

       external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external

       evidence.1

 

       This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal

       note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and

       918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the

       reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no

       sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was

       apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in

       no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version)

       until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in

       Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it

       so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century

       Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its

       way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

       The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of

       Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition

       appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to

       defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts

       that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3

       Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime

       between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest

       the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the

       charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the

       production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because

       of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum

       Instrumentum to go unsold.

 

       Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma

       Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes

       elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts

       lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation:

       since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that

       the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and

       self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as

       inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or

       lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to

       back-translate from Latin to Greek).

 

       In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back

       to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance

       does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be

       authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do

       with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

 

       Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and

       lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th

       edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and

       later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus,

       the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

 

       Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage

       that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem

       argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical

       evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition

       at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a

       Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James

       translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their

       work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

 

       1 For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.

 

       2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be

       delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the

       Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that

       it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex

       nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the

       Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as

       well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.

 

       3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been

       examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.

 

       4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an

       overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put

       this in his without Greek manuscript support.

 

       5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it

       comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the

       basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that

       stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became

       a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than

       non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.

 

*****

Restoration Light Bible Study Services

web site located at: http://www.reslight.addr.com/1john5-7.html

 

This is an excerpt from that site:

 

Does 1 John 5:7,8 prove that there is a trinity, or that Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah)?:

 

"For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:

and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the

water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (Words in brackets are spurious! They are

not retained by any manuscripts of earlier date than the seventh century and are not in the

Revised Version. One hundred and twelve of the oldest manuscripts do not retain them.

Trinity thus loses its supposed main Scriptural support.)

 

This is the only passage in the whole Bible that gives any color to the trinity or "oneness"

doctrines. However, the bracketed portion (see above) of this passage is almost universally

recognized as an interpolation. It first crept into the Greek text in the fourteenth century. It is

true that some late Latin, Vulgate MSS., copied not more than five centuries before, do

contain it. This interpolation was first inserted into some Vulgate manuscript and was

therefrom in the fourteenth century translated into the first Greek text having it. Had this text

been in the Bible when the trinitarian controversies were going on, in the fourth to the eighth

centuries, certainly the trinitarians who were hard pressed by their opponents to produce such

a text, would have used it as a proof text. But none of them ever so used it, for the good

reason that it was then not in the Bible. It doubtless crept into the Latin text by a copyist

taking it from the margin, where it was written by somebody as his comment on the text, and

inserting it into the Latin text itself, from which, as just said, it was first translated into a

Greek manuscript in the fourteenth century. The next Greek manuscript that contains it is

from the fifteenth century.

 

Additionally, Ivan Pain, who was a trinitarian, gave added testimony that the portion in

question does not belong through his Biblical numerics. More than likely Panin, being a

trinitarian, would like to have proved the portion as genuine with Biblical numerics, but could

not do so; thus he came to the conclusion that it must be spurious. Regarding Biblical

Numerics, see: Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 12 (1949, by Paul S. L. Johnson),

pages 603-632, available from Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, P.O. Box 679, Chester

Springs, PA 19425. http://members.aol.com/lhmmbible/catalog/publications.html

 

Regarding 1 John 5:7,8, Paul S. L. Johnson states: "Assuming that this text were genuine, it

would not prove that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God; for the Greek word for

'one' here is 'hen,' and is neuter; and the masculine word Theos (Greek God) cannot be

supplied after it; for the Greek word for one in that case would have to be heis (masculine for

one). Nor can the Greek word for being (ousia) be supplied after it, because ousia is feminine,

which would require the feminine of one, mia. If the passage were genuine we would have to

supply a neuter noun, e.g., like pneuma (disposition), after hen in this text even as we have to

do so in John 10:30: 'My Father and I are one' (hen) disposition. It could not be theos (God)

or ousia (Being), which would respectively require the masculine heis and the feminine mia."

-- Ephiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. I - God, page 477. For more information on John

10:30, see http://members.tripod.com/~reslight/john10-30.html

 

The Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in disposition, one in heart, mind, and will; but not

one God. The Bible nowhere states that there are three persons in one God. Nor does it ever

say that there is a being called God who is more than one person. In the Bible, one person IS

one personal being, and one personal being IS one person always, and never more than one.

 

It was Satan who, in producing a counterfeit for everything in the Bible, counterfeited the true

God as one Being composed of three persons. This unbiblical, unreasonable and unfactual

distinction between the words *person* and *being* when referring to a personal being should

be avoided. It is surely an error invented by Satan to deceive -- a work of darkness, a

self-contradiction, which no one can understand or explain, while Bible doctrines are all

explainable and understandable.

 

Additionally, we might say, if the logic were valid that the Father's, Son's and holy spirit's

oneness in John 5:7,8 must be that of being, we would have to say that Paul and Appolos were

one being (1 Corinthians 3:6-8)! Of course they were two separate beings. Hen being used of

them in 1 Corinthians 3:8 (not mia, which would be necessary to agree with the feminine

ousia, being) proves that their oneness was not one of being but of spirit, disposition (Acts

4:32; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6,13; Philippians 1:27; 2:2; 4:2) Hence 1 John 5:7,8

does not by the Greek word hen prove that the Father, Son and holy spirit are one being any

more than 1 Corinthians 3:8 proves by the word hen that Paul and Apollos were one being;

but the same word and form of that word, proving Paul and Apollos to one in heart, mind

and will, gives presumptive evidence that the same word and form that word in John 10:30

proves the same of the Father and Son.

 

But we have more than presumptive proof of this. When Jesus prayed (John 17:11,21,22) that

all of the saints may be one (hen, not heis, nor mia) he did not pray that they be all one being,

which would be nonsense, but that their unity may be one in mind, heart and will. Since the

oneness for which He prayed for them was not a oneness of being, the oneness between Him

and the Father cannot be that of being, because Jesus in John 17:11,22 prays that the oneness

for which He prayed on their behalf be patterned after the oneness that exists between the

Father and himself: "That they may be one as we are." Hence the oneness between the Father

and Jesus is not one of being, but one of mind, heart and will. Moreoever Jesus defines this

oneness in verse 21 as follows: "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me [Yahweh

was in Jesus by his holy spirit, disposition, (John 14:17,20) and I in thee [Jesus was in the

Father (John 14:10,11,20) by accepting and keeping the Father as his head, i.e,, by his being

and remaining in the consecrated attitude. (1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3 are passages that also

strongly prove Jesus' inferiority to the Father, and the Father's being the Supreme Being)],

that [thus the Father and the Son, by their spirit, disposition, being in them and they by their

spirit of consecration, being in them (1 John 5:20; Colossians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 12:12,13] they

also may be one in us . . . that they may be one, even as we are one." Thus these verses prove

that the same kind of oneness as exists between the saints, also exists between the Father and

Son and vice versa. Therefore, since the oneness that exists between the saints is not one of

being, but one of heart, mind, and will, the oneness that exists between the Father and Sons is

not one of being, but one of will, heart, and mind.

 

Futhermore, if the Father and the Son were but one being, they could not be the two beings

bearing required witness, as John 8:17,18 says they were, since the law required at least two

different beings to be witnesses sufficient to establish a matter. But since they gave sufficient

witness, they must be two beings. Therefore their oneness is not that of being -- for they are

two beings. It must be that of mind, heart and will. Accordingly, John 10:30 does not prove

the Son's equality with the Father. Rather, it proves the Son's subordination to the Father.

John 17:21, which shows the kind of unity that exists between them to be connected with the

Son's being in the Father, implies that the Father is the Son's head that the Son is His in the

sense that believers are Christ's, in subordination to him. Thus Jesus must be subordinate to

the Father (1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3), even as the headship of Christ makes the Church

subordinate to Christ (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:22,23; 4:15; 5:23,24, compared with

Colossians 3:19).

 

The above was adapted from the book entitled GOD (1938, by Paul S. L. Johnson), pages

476-478, 516-518, available from Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, P.O. Box 679,

Chester Springs, PA 19425.

 

For more information about the trinity and oneness doctrines, see:

http://reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.html

 

Related Books:

PLEASE NOTE: The following books are given as sources of more information on the above

topic. The opinions and conclusions given in the books are those of the author(s) and does

not necessarily reflect our conclusions.

 

Two Babylons or the Papal Worship by Alexander Hislop

 

Concepts of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by Matthew Alfs

Amazon's Description: Subtitled "A Classification and Description of the Trinitarian and

Non-Trinitarian Theologies Existent Within Christendom," this is a theological and historical

handbook of how the variety of Christian denominations have defined and viewed God the

Father, Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. Detailed and penetrating, it demonstrates

how Christendom's many denominations and sects have differed and even powerfully clashed

in explicating this so-called "central doctrine of the Christian faith," often with heated verbal

sparring and sometimes by inflicting physical violence on opposers. Objective in tone, which

is rare for a work of this sort, this careful study encourages the reader to draw his or her own

conclusions. Unlike apologetic works, which often quote what critics say about variant

denominational theologies, this work allows the plethora of denominations to speak for

themselves. The author further solicited comments from many denominational headquarters

to clarify and expand upon material from their available published works. It can truly be said

that no stone has been left unturned in order to provide the reader with full and complete

coverage of the subject. Includes 355 references and a detailed index. Sturdy libary binding,

brown cloth with gold-embossed cover illustration. 104pp.

 

*****

Suny Buffalo Online Library—a resource for the Muslim faith.  This from a Page, “What Did Jesus Really Say?”

 

Web site located at: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.5.html

 

1 John 5:7

 

The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1

John 5:7

 

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are

one."

 

This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this

verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as

the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English

Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is

this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott."

Mr. Wilson says:

 

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier

than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even

when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is

therefore evidently spurious."

 

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the

Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now

universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore,

centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature

of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the

departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with

no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).

 

If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's

mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a

chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true"

nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

 

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the

pages of the Bible with the following words:

 

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the

orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the

two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries,

the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of

the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in

twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The

three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of

the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and

the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

 

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

 

Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also

proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into

the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

 

Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbonlater said

 

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary

neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be

rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be

polluted by this spurious text."

 

To which Mr. Bentley responds:

 

"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."

 

Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned

scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented

the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of

Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a

footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

 

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says

 

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly

testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No

respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally

the NT of Erasmus."

 

It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:

 

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and

long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth

and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their

books… Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not

to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but

in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious

part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they

understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe

that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

 

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156

 

According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.

 

For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty twobiblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian

denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical

manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the

unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the

RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.

 

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an

"ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are

the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:

 

"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall

find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye

this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way,

and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of

them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had

commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat

upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed

[them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that

cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the

Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

 

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is

completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who

rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found

myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of

this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is

a question for which there is no logical answer.

 

*****

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As one can see, there is more than enough proof to show that 1 John 5:7 is not a true part of the Bible that God inspired to be written.

back to the top