Does 1 John 5:7 Describe the Trinity?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Two parts — and the King James reading: one God, known three ways

• The question posed (in the host's frame): 1 John 5:7 states: for there are three that bear record in heaven — the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost — and these three are one. Now, some people have pointed to this verse, as proof that John is describing a plurality of persons, in the godhead. And, to make matters even more confusing: if you read this verse in some modern translations, it leaves out the words 'Father', 'word', or any reference to Father, word, and Holy Spirit. What's going on, with this particular verse? Is it referring to a trinitarian God? And what about all these variations, between translations — especially modern translations, versus the King James version? The answer: let me answer the question, in two parts. First of all, I'll address the King James version. And then I'll address the other versions. By the way, for further study: my book, The Oneness of God, discusses this passage, in detail. Also, when it comes to looking at the other translations: that gets into textual criticism — which simply means a study of the underlying Greek text: what was the original text? And for that study, my book, God's Infallible Word, talks about the study of the text, and particularly the history of this particular passage. So let's take the passage, on its own terms, in the King James version of the Bible. Notice it says: there are three that bear record in heaven — the Father, the word, and the holy ghost (or Holy Spirit). Well, these — to paraphrase — will be three different ways that we can know God. But it says: these three are one. So that doesn't indicate three persons, or three Gods. It indicates one God, who is known in three ways — or, three-fold manifestation.

Scriptures: 1 John 5:7

Verse 8 says 'agree in one' — the contrast, and the one-person analogy

• By contrast, verse 8 says — 1 John 5:8 (the text carries the fused token '1 John 58'), the very next verse: 'and there are three that bear witness on Earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three agree in one.' And, without going into great detail: the spirit, water, and blood work together, for our salvation. So you can think of: how are we saved? The blood of Jesus Christ. We're baptized in water. We're baptized in the spirit. You can say, there's the witness: Jesus was baptized in water, to inaugurate his ministry; the Holy Spirit descended upon him; then, at the cross, water and blood came out of his side. So you can say: these are three elements, that bear witness to our salvation, and are involved in our salvation. But I point this out because it says: these three agree in one. So it doesn't say: these three are one. So, the distinct impression is: these are three different elements, that work together. But so, if John, the inspired writer, wanted to say the Father, the word, and the spirit are three persons, that are united, that agree together, that work together: he could have used the very same language that he used, verse 8. But he didn't. He said: these three are one. So, significantly: this is the only verse, of the entire Bible — only, in the King James, and related translations — that uses the word 'three', for God. And it ends up saying: these three are one. Not just united. Not just agree. Are identical. Are one. And, of course, as we know: there's no place, in the whole Bible, in any translation, that uses the word 'Trinity', for God — or, 'three persons'. So I think the idea that you would jump to say, these are three different persons of the Trinity, is really not supported by scripture, at all.
• But let's go back to it. If these are three different ways, of knowing the one God: Father is a term, of relationship. So: I've got three kids. Before my first child was born, I was not a father. Suddenly, when my son was born, I became a father. I didn't become a different person. I didn't split into two persons. I entered a new relationship. So we say 'our father': we're talking about God, in relationship to human beings. When we say the word: that's God, in self-revelation — God revealing himself, God uttering himself. And we say the spirit, the holy ghost, or the Holy Spirit: that's God, in spiritual presence and action. These are three different ways, of knowing one God. Let me give you an analogy. I'm one person. You can know me, in a relationship: so, my children know me, as father. You can know me, by my word: even if you've never met me, you can read my books. You can listen to this podcast. And you can know a lot about me. You can get some idea of what I believe, and who I am, and what my personality is like, through my word. And then you can know me, by my spirit: so, if we sit down and have lunch together, or if we pray together, you can feel my spirit. You get a better understanding of who I really am, by that personal interaction. But I'm not three persons. You can know me in relationship, like Father. You can know me, by my word. You can know me, by my spirit. But at the end of the day, you only know one person. And if you want to encompass all of my personality, all who I am, in all dimensions: if you say, David Bernard, that one name encompasses it all. Now, this is how the Bible speaks, about God.

Scriptures: 1 John 5:8

Father, Word, and Spirit — the Bible's own pattern

• So: God is our father, because he created us, and gave us life — Malachi 2:10. God has revealed himself, through his word. The word actually is God himself, in revelation — John 1:1. The word became flesh. God revealed himself, uttered himself, disclosed himself, in flesh — John 1:14. And then, we know God's spirit. In 1 Corinthians, chapter 2, even talks about this, that: you know, the spirit of a man — how do we really know a man? The spirit that's in the man, in the person, actually reveals himself. So the spirit of a man is not a different person, from the man. And so 1 Corinthians 2 talks about the spirit of a man, and the man. And it talks about the spirit of God, and God. So again, the implication is not two persons — but the inner being of God, revealed — or knowing the mind of God — just like you would know the mind of a person. Likewise, the Old Testament — book of Psalms, or Isaiah 5 (as the locator is spoken) — talks about God's word going forth from him, and it doesn't return void. God's word goes forth, and heals people. Not a second person — but God's revelation. So, from that perspective, we see: the Father, the word, and the spirit are three manifestations — are three ways of knowing — to one God. And significantly: the doctrine of the Trinity says the three divine persons, their official names are father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Well, this passage does not even use the term son. Why would that be? Because the son is God's manifestation, on Earth (the word stands as 'sun', in the text, at this sentence). But in heaven, God's eternal manifestation was not in a physical form, as the Son. But God's eternal manifestation was his word. So notice how precisely this passage fits, the doctrine of the Oneness of God. Now, that's explaining it, as it's stated.

Scriptures: Malachi 2:10; John 1:1; John 1:14; 1 Corinthians 2; Isaiah 5

The other versions — Erasmus, four late manuscripts, and the first mention

• But what's really interesting, as you point out: the modern translations do not even have the phrase, the Father, the word, and the holy spirit. It's not even there. That's why, in the modern trinitarian debates, when you talk to trinitarian scholars, they will never use this verse, to support the Trinity. Because, actually, they don't think it's original. And that is not recent. That even goes back — if you study the controversies over the doctrine of Trinity, when it's first preached in the 3 century, and fourth century — the people on either side didn't quote this verse, because apparently they didn't have it. So we don't know for sure. But the most ancient Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. It's only in four very late manuscripts — of all the thousands of Greek manuscripts. So here's what happened. Arasmus was a scholar, in Europe. And he compiled — in 1516, he compiled — the Greek New Testament. So we didn't have just a complete Greek New Testament, that was used in the west. We had the Latin Vulgate, which was the Roman Catholic translation, used for a thousand years. So when Arasmus decided to go back, and try to reconstruct the original Greek text — because the New Testament was originally written in Greek — and he wanted to compile that: well, none of the Greek manuscripts, of all the ones he consulted, none of them had this phrase, in there. So he just excluded it. Well, the Roman Catholic Church got very angry with him, because it was in their translation, the Latin Vulgate, which they regarded as the official Bible. And so, since Rasimus was part of the Catholic Church, the leaders of the Catholic Church got very angry with him, and said: we're going to discipline you, if you don't include it. So he finally said: if you can find one Greek manuscript, that has this phrase in it, I'll add it back. Well, they came, a few years later, and they brought one manuscript. So, when he published his third edition of the Greek New Testament, he added it back, because he had promised. But he put a note, saying, basically: I suspect they created this manuscript, for my benefit. Nevertheless, you know, I made the promise; they have required me; so I'm going to add it. And sure enough, that manuscript was from the 16th century. And it even looks like it was added. And then, over time, we found three other manuscripts, that are about the same time. One of them even actually has it added, in a different hand. So, now, that means: that's why scholars universally say, this particular phrase is not original.
• But how did it get into King James? Well, when the King James translators, in the 1600s, decided to translate the Bible, they used Arasmus' Greek text. But they used his third edition. So this phrase had been forced to be in there, by the Catholic Authority. And so that was the text, the King James translators used. Now, when you go back, as I said: it's not in any ancient Greek manuscript, really. It's only in four late manuscripts, from about the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries. You do find, in the Latin Vulgate, as early as about 800. And then, the very earliest mention of this phrase is from a Spanish theologian, in about — probably the fourth century, or maybe fifth century — named Pryan. He's deemed, by the Catholic Church, as a heretic. So I actually went back, and found it. And he quoted, from John. But this shocked me. He said, basically: and there are three that bear witness on Earth; there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one, in Christ Jesus. So the very first mention of this phrase actually has a very strong Oneness implication. And basically tracks Colossians 2:9: 'for in him dwells all the fullness of the godhead, bodily.' So my point would be, simply, this: if we regard this phrase as originally part of the Bible, then I've explained it in a way that's perfectly consistent with the rest of scripture — which is what we'd expect, because God has his hand of preservation, on the word. That doesn't mean any particular translation, or text, is perfect. But I do believe that any widespread text, that's used by God's people: God's hand of preservation will be on it. So there'd be no false doctrine. But, if you're willing to study textual criticism, and try to discern the ancient manuscripts, and see what was the original text: you could either say, it wasn't in there. Or, if it was, it was seen as a very definite Oneness text, from the earliest times. So actually, a careful study of 1 John 5:7 not only doesn't lead to the Trinity — it actually reinforces the doctrine of the Oneness of God.

Scriptures: Colossians 2:9

Scripture index: 1 John 5:7; 1 John 5:8; Malachi 2:10; John 1:1; John 1:14; 1 Corinthians 2; Isaiah 5; Colossians 2:9.