1 John 5:7

Does 1 John 5:7 teach the Trinity, after all it lists the three persons of the Trinity and says they are one?

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

Apart from the King James translation, all other main translations do not have the words ” the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”. Translators agree that this was added in later from a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Known as the Johannine Comma, it is widely accepted today that the passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript Textus Receptus. Modern Bible translations such as the NIV translate the verse as:

1 John 5:7
For there are three that testify:

How did the disputed words find there way into some late New testaments? Well there are many theories, but we know that the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have used it in the Trinitarian controversies.  Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the Latin in 1215.

One theory states as to how these words were included in some Bibles is as follows:

The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus’ requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus’ 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.

The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale’s translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus’ 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale’s assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge’s 1552 edition of Tyndale’s NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza’s 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus’ 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John’s letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus’ 4th edition]

Now 1 John 5:7 is about the closest verse in the Bible that hints at a Trinity and yet that verse is not actually scripture, rather a footnote that was inserted into some texts fraudently. In scripture we find that Jesus himself never taught the Trinity, on the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17:
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

If we continue to push a false doctrine contrary to the scriptures then God hands us over to that way of thinking and we will reap the fruit of that doctrine. I have no problem understanding how some Christians got involved in worshipping Mary and the Saints. If we see men pushing to have the doctrine of the Trinity accepted then that pushing will complete its path and manifest to its extreme, so that not only is Jesus exalted to be equal with the Father but then we probably should exalt Mary as well, after all she is Jesus Mother and if Jesus is God then Mary must be the Mother of God and being the Mother of God means that she must also be sinless. And why not worship the saints after all if we can exalt Mary, then we should exalt the saints as they are legends and are worthy of special recognition?

I think history demonstrates to us that the wisdom of this doctrine is a false wisdom because the fruit of that doctrine is bad. God allows such things to mature so he can judge it and also to allow such thinking to be exposed in the light in order for creation to witness the result of such deception. In fact God does the same thing with the Devil and his children. Remember that Jesus wants the tares (children of the devil) and wheat (children of God) to mature so all can be understood so that all things can be judged. This is the harvest and the harvest is the end of the world.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.