1 John 5:7, and The Holy Trinity - Part 2

VERSE 8:

“and these three agree as one”

In this clause, the Greek text is very important. “kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin”.

We are here concerned with the Greek definite article, “to” [usually translated, the], which in many cases is left untranslated as its use is functional. In this case, it is used for “renewed mention”, when a word (here “hen”, one) has been use a previous time, the subsequent use takes the article, to refer it back to the former use. Grammatically, there is no reason why John would have used the Greek article in verse eight, other than for “renewed mention”. For this, we must also have the previous use of “hen”, which can only be found in the disputed words in verse 7, “and these three are one (hen)”.

Bishop Thomas Middleton, the brilliant Greek scholar, who did not accept the disputed words in verse 7, nevertheless admitted, that without the Greek article in verse 7, he could not account for its use in verse 8. He wrote a huge work that investigates the use of the Greek article in all its forms, in the New Testament, entitled, “The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament”. Bp. Middleton does a thorough examination of the Greek article being used in verse 8, and admits: “But the difficulty to which the present undertaking has directed my attention, is of another kind : it respects the Article in eis to hen in the final clause of the eighth verse : if the seventh verse had not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that TO hen of verse 8, referred to hen of verse 7 : as the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article” (page 441).

Here we have a leading Greek scholar, who actually rejected the words of verse 7 as being “spurious”, yet was honest enough to admit the difficulty of John using the Greek article in verse 8, which is clearly for the purpose of “renewed mention”, and yet there is no other use of the numeral “hen”, if the words of verse 7 are removed. There clearly is an inconsistency with the Greek grammar of the passage, should the disputed words be rejected. However, once the words are accepted as being part of the passage, no such problem exists. Because of the problem caused by the Greek article in verse 8, Bp. Middleton says, “The difficulty, then, attending the final clause of ver. 8. remains thus far not only unobviated, but in some degree confirmed, and I do not perceive how the present reading is to be reconciled with the extermination of ver. 7. The only alternative left us, is the possibility, that the Article in eis to hen may be spurious, or even that the whole final clause of ver. 8. may be an interpolation” (p.450). This is nothing but conjecture, as a “means” to account for the use of the Greek article in verse 8. As far as I am aware, all the Greek manuscripts that contain this Epistle of John, have “kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin” in them. Like many who reject the words in verse 7, Bp. Middleton cannot account for the difficulty caused in the Greek, when the words are rejected. It must be remembered, that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Apostle John when he penned his works, as He did for the writers of the entire Holy Bible. This being the case, there can be no room for any errors, or inconsistencies in the original autographs in the Hebrew and Greek.

I have seen two “solutions” given for the use of the Greek article here in verse 8. The first is found in the commentary The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools, where Dr Plummer says, “To hen here has been made into an argument for the genuineness of 1Jn 5:7. It is said that ‘the one’ plainly implies that ‘one’ has preceded. But this lands us in absurdity by making ‘one’ in 1Jn 5:8 mean the same as ‘one’ in 1Jn 5:7. ‘One’ in 1Jn 5:7. means ‘one Substance’, the ‘Unity in Trinity’. But what sense can ‘The spirit, the water, and the blood agree in the Unity in Trinity’ yield?” Dr Plummer has failed to understand the use of the Greek article in “renewed mention”, and his comments, because of this, does not really answer why John wrote, “to hen”. He wrongly argues, that, if the two uses of “hen” were connected, then their “meaning” must be exactly the same in both cases. In both cases the meaning is of “unity”. In verse 7, it is the “unity of essence”, as Jesus Christ says in John 10:30, “I and the Father, one (hen) We are” (lit. Greek). Which is speaking of more than a “unity” of will and purpose, as can be seen from the preceding verses, where Jesus promises those to whom He gives eternal life, that “they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand” (v.28), and then goes on to say, “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of My Father’s hand” (v.29). Which clearly shows the “unity” of “power, protection and authority”, of BOTH Jesus Christ and the Father. It is after Jesus says this, that He goes on to say, “I and the Father, one We are”

Dr Samuel Green, in his Handbook to The Grammar of The Greek Testament, has this to say on “renewed mention” of the Greek article. “Sometimes the reference is implicit, the second expression, bearing the article, being equivalent to the former, though not identical” (page. 181). The “meanings” do NOT always have to be the “same”. A good example can be found in Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous”. In the Greek, both uses of the word “many”, has the definite article (hoi polloi, literally, “the many”, “all”). If we were to take the MEANING of both uses to be the SAME, then we here have a Biblical case for “universal salvation”, that everyone will be saved and go to heaven in the end, regardless of whether they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord. The first “many”, can only refer to the whole fallen human race, who, through Adam’s sin, are justly condemned to eternal punishment. The second “many” does not mean that because of Jesus’ “obedience” in going to the cross for mankind, that “ALL” (the meaning of “hoi polloi”) will be saved without repenting for their sins, and accepting the Salvation provided by Him on the cross. The answer is found in verses 15 and 17, “ But the free gift is not like the offence. For if by the one man’s offence many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many… For if by the one man’s offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ”. Here we read of God’s “Gift” of Salvation in Jesus Christ, as being OFFERED (abounded) to “many” (ALL). But, ONLY those who RECEIVE the “abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ”, can be saved. It is very clear from this passage, that Dr Plummers argument is without any foundation, as it is plainly incorrect. The Greek article in the second use of “hoi polloi”, is for the purpose of “renewed mention”, as it is used before in this same verse. However, as we have seen, their MEANINGS are NOT IDENTICAL.

Secondly, Thomas Horne, in his, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, says of the Greek article in verse 8. “A doubt may be reasonably entertained, whether, in the language of St. John, TO 'EN is not used as an equivalent to TO AUTO, as it is in Phil. ii. 2, in which case no reference to any preceding expression would be applied” ( vol. iv, 466). Dr Thorne is quite mistaken to suppose, that there is any comparison between the use of the Greek article, “to”, in Philippians 2:2, and 1 John 5:8. To give the full sentence in the Greek of Philippians 2:2, “hina to auto phronete”, which literally is translated, “that you may be of the same [to auto] mind”, where “to auto”, is used as part of the phrase, and not for any other purpose. It certainly is not redundant in its use here. In this same verse Paul goes on to say, “to hen phronountes”, where again the Greek article has a function in a phrase, “the one thing minding”, which does not require any previous mention of “hen”, as it is here as part of a phrase. I cannot see any example here that may be used to address the problem of the use of “to”, in 1 John 5:8, which remains if the preceding use of “hen” is omitted in verse 7.