The Grammatically Incorrect Pro-Comma Grammatical Argument

Hi Sounddoctrine,


Sounddoctrine04 (07/05/05, 01:16am):

The second consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words "Spirit," "water" and "blood" are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns "Father" and "word" in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the "Spirit" is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I.H. Marshall is a current voice for this weak argument: "It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in I John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood." The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words "that one" (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction "unparalleled," p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is "these three are one" (to hen).

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2411/8.html?


Sounddoctrine04 (07/06/05, 06:02pm):

Grammatical evidence, manuscript evidence, and historical evidence all point to the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it is given in the AV.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2411/10.html?


Both messages are from the following closed thread: Baptist Debate Forums, Bible Versions/Translations, Evidence for the AV Preserved Words of God


Jim:

Common sense dictates that GRAMMATICAL GENDER (the intrinsic spelling form of a noun, either neuter or masculine or feminine in the way that the noun is spelled) agreement (the gender of a pronoun or SAP [a substantival (functioning as a noun) articular (having an article) participle] conforming to the grammatical gender of a noun in the text) can only occur when the referent (the idea to which a word refers) of a pronoun or SAP is represented in the text by a SINGLE noun, the gender of a pronoun or SAP otherwise always being fixed by sense—that is, by the NATURAL GENDER (the nature) of the referent of the pronoun or SAP, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons—either if the referent of an SAP is NOT represented in the text by ANY noun, which is usually the case, or if the referent of a plural pronoun or SAP is represented in the text by MULTIPLE nouns. What is consistently observed throughout the New Testament Greek text corroborates this common-sense understanding of how gender is determined in the Greek.

Therefore, given that the GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the noun “Spirit” is NEUTER and that the NATURAL GENDER of the Spirit is MASCULINE (for a person), it is no surprise that the gender of the SAP “that which bears witness” in 1 John 5:7 (WH Greek text) conforms to the neuter GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the SINGLE referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, whereas the gender of the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 is fixed by sense to be masculine in reference to persons, the NATURAL GENDER of that which is represented in the text by the MULTIPLE referent nouns “Spirit” (a person) and “water” (a thing) and “blood” (a thing) in the same verse being masculine in deference to the person (the Spirit) in the group. That is what is occurring in the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 (WH Greek text) (1) IF the Spirit is regarded as a person and (2) IF the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 refers DIRECTLY (this is that) to that which is represented in the text by “the Spirit and the water and the blood.”

Alternatively, regardless of whether or not the Spirit is regarded as a person, IF the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 refers to persons who are NOT represented in the text by ANY noun, this implicit referent in turn being COMPARATIVELY (this is like that) equated to that which is represented in the text by “the Spirit and the water and the blood”—just as Jesus comparatively equates persons to things in Luke 8:14, where He says, “And that which fell (neuter collective singular SAP in reference to things) into the thorns, these (masculine plural pronoun in reference to persons) are the ones who heard (masculine plural SAP in reference to persons)”—then the implicit persons to whom John is referring through his use of the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 are most likely the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter.

In fact, this is the most likely meaning in 1 John 5:8 in light of verse 5:9, where John goes on to say, “If we accept the witness of men (an obvious reference to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15), the witness of God (an obvious reference to the Spirit and the water and the blood stated by John in verse 5:8) is greater. Thus, the comparison implied in 1 John 5:8 through the use of the masculine gender is explicitly stated in verse 5:9, John comparatively (this is like that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the blood” in verse 5:8, to which he refers as “the witness of God” in verse 5:9, to “the ones who bear witness” in verse 5:8, to whom he refers as “the witness of men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8.

Question (implicit): Who are the three witnesses, prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter, who bear witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Answer (explicit): “The ones who bear witness (masculine gender in reference to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses) [are (comparatively)] the Spirit and the water and the blood.” This is by far the most likely meaning in 1 John 5:8.

Thus, there are at least two plausible explanations for the masculine gender in 1John 5:8 that have nothing to do with the Johannine Comma. The pro-Comma grammatical argument was invented by those who were more interested in promoting the Johannine Comma than they were in the actual grammatical facts that are consistently observed throughout the New Testament Greek text. If they had shown any interest at all in what actually occurs in the Greek throughout the New Testament, they would have realized that the assertions of the pro-Comma grammatical argument were false and they would have abandoned their argument.

There are nine clear New Testament examples of a plural multiple-referent-noun construction (a plural pronoun or SAP whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns): Matthew 15:19-20, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13 (the second plural pronoun), Galatians 5:19-21, Galatians 5:22-23, Colossians 3:12-14, 1 John 5:7 (TR Greek text) and 1 John 5:8. In six of these examples, the gender of the plural pronoun or SAP is not the same as the grammatical gender of any of the multiple referent nouns: Matthew 15:19-20, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13 (the second plural pronoun), Galatians 5:19-21, Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 John 5:8. In the remaining three examples, the fact that the gender of the plural pronoun or SAP happens to be the same as the grammatical gender of one or two of the multiple referent nouns is more logically explained by coincidence than by grammatical gender agreement: John 6:9, Colossians 3:12-14 and 1 John 5:7 (TR Greek text).

There are four New Testament examples of a plural multiple-referent-noun construction in which all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13 (the second plural pronoun), Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 John 5:8. If ever there were an opportunity for grammatical gender agreement to occur in a plural multiple-referent-noun construction, it is in these four examples; yet it does not occur in any of them. The reason is clear: the gender of a plural pronoun or SAP whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns never conforms to the grammatical gender of the multiple referent nouns, even when all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender; it is always fixed by sense, either neuter for things or masculine for persons or feminine for female persons.

Thus, the pro-Comma grammatical argument is, quite simply, a hoax. Either its authors deliberately attempted to deceive their readers or their understanding of Greek was far inferior to what they suggested it was.

As for the assertion that Gregory or Nazianzus found fault with the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in his fourth-century “Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit,” this is likewise false. The small, out-of-context excerpt that is so frequently cited in support of the pro-Comma grammatical argument is taken from the middle of the nineteenth (XIX) paragraph of this Oration. Anyone who takes the time to actually read what Gregory says throughout the eighteenth (XVIII) and nineteenth (XIX) paragraphs can easily see that Gregory cites Proverbs 30:29-31 (a lion and a goat and a rooster and a king as four things that go well) and Matthew 6:24 (God and mammon as two masters) and 1 John 5:8 (the Spirit and the water and the blood as three witnesses) as correctly written proof texts that prove that the position held by the person to whom he is writing (“you”) and by his grammarians (“your grammarians”) is incorrect. Gregory specifically says in paragraph nineteen (XIX), “So you see how completely YOUR ARGUMENT from con-numeration has broken down, and IS REFUTED BY ALL THESE INSTANCES.”

Gregory’s Oration is found at the following web page:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII7-4.TXT


Jim

 

Hello,


On 08/17/05, at 11:54pm, I posted my message entitled “The Grammatically Incorrect Pro-Comma Grammatical Argument” at the following forum: Christian Debate Forums (All Christians), Other Christian Denominations.

On 08/18/05, at 1:13am, I received an E-mail from baptistboard@gmail.com stating that my message had been moved to the following forum: Bible Versions/Translations.

On 08/18/05, at 2:20am, TCassidy informed me on the Bible Versions/Translations forum, to which my message had been moved by someone at baptistboard@gmail.com, “Jim, your profile lists you as 'non-denominational.' Are you aware you are posting in the 'Baptist Only' section of the Baptist Board?”

On 08/18/05, at 2:24am, C4K/Roger informed me on the Bible Versions/Translations forum, to which my message had been moved by someone at baptistboard@gmail.com, “Since you have disabled your PM function I must post this publicly. Baptist Board rules state that only Baptists may post in the ‘Baptist Only’ forums. That being the case this thread has been moved to ‘All Other Denominations.’”

On 08/18/05, at 2:29am, I received an E-mail from baptistboard@gmail.com stating that my message had been move to the following forum: Other Christian Denominations.

On 08/18/05, at about 6:20am, I discovered all this activity that had taken place between the time that I had originally posted my message on the “Other Christian Denominations” forum (08/17/05, 11:54pm) and the time that I received the E-mail message that my message, after having been moved from the “Other Christian Denominations” forum to the “Bible Versions/Translations” forum by someone at baptistboard@gmail.com, had been moved back to the “Other Christian Denominations” forum, where I had originally posted it, by someone at baptistboard@gmail.com.

It would be nice if whoever it was at baptistboard@gmail.com that moved my message from the “other Christian Denominations” forum, where I had originally posted it, to the “Bible Versions/Translations” forum would speak up, not only here at the "Other Christian Denominations" forum but also at the "Bible Versions/Translations" forum to which he/she had moved my message, so that the people here at Baptist Board would not get the impression that I did something that I should not have done, namely, invading the Baptist-only section of Baptist Board. I NEVER DID THAT. Someone else moved my message to that section.


Jim

[ August 18, 2005, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: 1jim ]

 

Hello,


Edward Hills:

In the second place, the omission of the Johannine comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos. In Genesis 40 the butler saw three branches and the baker saw three baskets. And in Matt. 12:40 Jesus says, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5:7-8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.

In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.

http://www.godglorified.com/edward_hill.htm


Jim:

I’ve already responded to the pro-Comma grammatical argument in my first message in this thread. The assertion that grammatical gender agreement would be expected in 1 John 5:8 is false, as explained in my first message.

The assertion that poetic repetition (three and three) would be expected in 1 John 5:6-9 is likewise false.


What the Bible says about three witnesses:

(ASV) Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

(ASV) Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

(ASV) Matthew 18:16 But if he hear [thee] not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.

(ASV) 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word established.

(ASV) 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at [the mouth of] two or three witnesses.

(ASV) Hebrews 10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on [the word of] two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

(ASV) 1 John 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son.


Jim:

Edward Hills contends that the reference to three witnesses in 1 John 5:8 calls for a poetic repetition (three and three), as in Genesis 40, Proverbs 30 and Matthew 12:40. I myself see poetic repetition only in Proverbs 30. However, neither Genesis 40 nor Proverbs 30 nor Matthew 12:40 says anything about three witnesses.

All of the New Testament references to three witnesses (quoted above) simply refer to three witnesses. There is no poetic repetition (three and three) in any of them. All of the New Testament references to three witnesses cite the Mosaic rule in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 for establishing the truth of a matter. There’s nothing poetic about it; it’s simply the rule.

Thus, Edward Hills’ contention that the reference to three witnesses in 1 John 5:8 calls for a poetic repetition (three and three) is unscriptural and unfounded.


Jim

 

Hello,


Not only is the Comma not required in the text in order for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 to be justified, its presence in the text doesn’t fit what John says in 1 John 5 about the witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, either in regard to the stated definition of the witness or in regard to the stated purpose of the witness.

(ASV) 1 John 5:1 WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST IS BEGOTTEN OF GOD: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 FOR WHATSOEVER IS BEGOTTEN OF GOD OVERCOMETH THE WORLD: AND THIS IS THE VICTORY THAT HATH OVERCOME THE WORLD, [EVEN] OUR FAITH. 5 AND WHO IS HE THAT OVERCOMETH THE WORLD, BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7 AND IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT BEARETH WITNESS, BECAUSE THE SPIRIT IS THE TRUTH. 8 FOR THERE ARE THREE WHO BEAR WITNESS, THE SPIRIT, AND THE WATER, AND THE BLOOD: and the three agree in one. 9 IF WE RECEIVE THE WITNESS OF MEN, THE WITNESS OF GOD IS GREATER: FOR THE WITNESS OF GOD IS THIS, THAT HE HATH BORNE WITNESS CONCERNING HIS SON. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in THE WITNESS THAT GOD HATH BORNE CONCERNING HIS SON. 11 And THE WITNESS IS THIS, THAT GOD GAVE UNTO US ETERNAL LIFE, AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON. 12 He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life. 13 THESE THINGS HAVE I WRITTEN UNTO YOU, THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, [EVEN] UNTO YOU THAT BELIEVE ON THE NAME OF THE SON OF GOD.

The stated definition of the witness that is discussed in 1 John 5 is that it is God’s witness regarding His Son, and the stated purpose of the witness is so that people on earth will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that they consequently will have eternal life and will overcome the world. The Johannine Comma, in which the witness occurs in heaven and in which the Son (the Word) bears witness regarding Himself, does not fit either the stated definition of the witness or the stated purpose of the witness.

Further, in the absence of the Comma, 1 John 5:8 and 5:9 contextually fit together to describe John’s comparison of “the ones who bear witness (5:8) / the witness of men (5:9)” on earth and “the Spirit and the water and the blood (5:8) / the witness of God” (5:9) on earth. In contrast, when the Comma is present in the text, John ends up comparing “the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit” (the witness of God and of the Son) in heaven and “the Spirit and the water and the blood” (the witness of God) on earth in 1 John 5:7-8 (TR), which doesn’t fit his comparison of “the witness of men” on earth and “the witness of God” on earth in verse 5:9.

Thus, not only is there no grammatical reason or poetic reason for the presence of the Johannine Comma in the text, neither is there a contextual reason for its presence in the text. The Comma really does look like something that someone just added to the text.

Further, pro-Comma enthusiasts are motivated by their belief that the Johannine Comma confirms the Trinity. However, it does not actually confirm the Trinity. It says, “outoi oi treiV en eisin (these three [persons, masculine gender] are one [thing, neuter gender]).” If the masculine form “eiV” (one person) were used instead of the neuter form “en” (one thing), then the Comma would say that the three persons are one person in support of the Trinity, which it does not say. The neuter form “en” (one thing) is used not only in the Comma but also in John 17:20-23, where Jesus says this:

(ASV) John 17:20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 21 that they may all be one (en, one thing); even as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one (en, one thing), even as we [are] one (en, one thing); 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one (en, one thing); that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.

Here, Jesus says that the Father and the Son and all who believe in the Son are in each other and that they are all one thing (en), just the writer of the Comma says that the Father and the Son (the Word) and the Spirit are all one thing (en). Should we conclude from John 17:20-23 and the Comma that all believers are part of the Trinity? The truth of the matter is that the Comma does not say that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one person (eiV). Rather, it says that they are one thing (en), just as Jesus says in John 17:20-23 that all believers are one thing (en), which does not confirm the Trinity.


Jim

 

Hello,


The Bible (regarding believers being baptized in/into the name of ...):

(ASV) Matthew 28:16 But THE ELEVEN DISCIPLES (INCLUDING PETER) WENT INTO GALILEE, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped [him]; but some doubted. 18 And JESUS CAME TO THEM AND SPAKE UNTO THEM, SAYING, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, BAPTIZING THEM INTO THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:

(ASV) Acts 2:38 And PETER [said] unto them, Repent ye, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(ASV) Acts 8: 14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: 16 for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only THEY HAD BEEN BAPTIZED INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

(ASV) Acts 10:48 And [PETER] COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(ASV) Acts 19:5 And when they heard this, THEY WERE BAPTIZED (PRESUMABLY BY PAUL) INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.

(ASV) 1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? WAS PAUL CRUCIFIED FOR YOU? or WERE YE BAPTIZED INTO THE NAME OF PAUL (implicit: that they had been baptized into the name of Christ)?


Jim:

Aside from the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7 in the TR Greek text), which, as I’ve already explained in my previous messages in this thread, I don’t believe was in the original epistle—I think that it was subsequently added—Matthew 28:19 is the only other place in the New Testament where the Trinity formula (Father and Son/Word and Spirit) appears. I think that this formula may have been added to Matthew 28:19 as well. My reason for thinking this is that no one in the New Testament does what Matthew 28:19 says to do. Whereas Jesus is quoted to have instructed the eleven (including Peter) to baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, the New Testament evidence indicates that they baptized believers in the name of the Son only. So either the apostles, particularly Peter, were disobeying the instruction of the Lord, or the Lord never said what He is quoted in Matthew 28:19 to have said. My conclusion is that Jesus never said it, and that the Trinity formula was subsequently added to the text in Matthew 28, just as the Trinity formula was subsequently added to the text in 1 John 5.


Jim

 

Hello,


In the thread “Baptist Debate Forums, General Baptist Discussions, Those who are Christians but who don’t believe in the Trinity” here at Baptist Board, they’re debating whether one must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved.

In the message dated 08/19/05, 6:01pm, SavedbyHISGrace says this:

Note, Matthew 28:19, where Jesus says:

"...baptizing them into the Name, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Here we have the singular Name, YHWH, God, and yet the Persons so mentioned are yet distinct. You see, in the Greek, each Person mentioned here, is with the definite article, which is used when a distinction is intended. However, the unity of these Three Persons, is that they have the One Name, YHWH.


Jim:

Here, in an effort to prove the Trinity, SavedbyHISGrace reads into the text what it does not say. He (I’m assuming that SavedbyHISGrace is male) reads the text as if it says this:

“... baptizing them into the name OF GOD [followed by the appositive phrase], the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

That is not what the text says. It says this:

“... baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (baptizonteV autouV eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatoV – TR).”

SavedbyHISGrace is altering the text to make it mean what he wants it to mean.

He further suggests that the fact that this text expresses the word “name” in the singular form is evidence that the “Father, Son and Spirit” are one person. However, according to that logic, in the following phrase in Matthew 23:25-26 ...

“... the outside (singular) of the cup and of the platter (to exwqen tou pothriou kai thV paroyidoV – TR) ... the inside (singular) of the cup and of the platter (to entoV tou pothriou kai thV paroyidoV – TR) ...”

... there would be only one “inside/outside” as evidence that “the cup and the platter” are one thing, which they are not. There is the inside/outside of the cup and the inside/outside of the platter, which are two insides/outsides of two different things, the cup and the platter.

In Luke 9:26, Jesus refers to “the glory of Himself and of the Father and of the holy angels (th doxh autou kai tou patroV kai twn agiwn aggelwn – TR).” Does this mean that there is only one glory and that the Son and the Father and the holy angels are therefore one person? Of course not.

SavedbyHISGrace further suggests that multiple articular (having an article) nouns in the Greek necessarily distinguish different persons or things. If that were true, then in Revelation 22:16, were Jesus says, “I am the root and the offspring of David (egw eimi h riza kai to genoV tou dauid – TR),” the fact that both nouns have an article (“the root / h riza” and “the offspring / to genoV”) would mean that they do not refer to the same exact person (Jesus), which they clearly do. In John 13:14, Jesus says, “Then if I wash your feet, the lord and the teacher (ei oun egw eniya umwn touV podaV o kurioV kai o didaskaloV) ....” Here, “the Lord / o kurioV” and “the teacher / didaskaloV” both have the article, yet both nouns refer to the same exact person (Jesus).

I’m not suggesting that the Father and the Son are the same exact person. I don’t see any evidence in the Bible that they are. They are always described as distinct persons. All I’m saying is that people tend to read too much into the Greek grammar in an effort to make a passage mean what they want it to mean.

As for whether or not one must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved, which is the topic of the thread to which I am referring, I’ve already explained in my previous messages in this thread why I think that the two New Testament references to the Trinity formula (Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 in the TR Greek text) are false, that is, that Jesus never said what He is quoted to have said in Matthew 28:19, and that 1 John 5:7 (TR) was not in the original epistle but was subsequently added.

Beyond that, if one had to believe in the Trinity—that is, that the Spirit is not an aspect of the Father and of the Son but a distinct, third person—then Paul must not have been saved, because he never describes the Spirit as a separate person that is distinct from the Father and the Son; he always describe the Spirit as an aspect of the Father and Son.

(ASV) Romans 8:9 But YE ARE not in the flesh but IN THE SPIRIT, if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his. 10 And if CHRIST IS IN YOU, the body is dead because of sin; but THE SPIRIT is life because of righteousness. 11 But if THE SPIRIT OF HIM THAT RAISED UP JESUS from the dead dwelleth IN YOU, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through HIS SPIRIT THAT DWELLETH IN YOU. 12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: 13 for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by THE SPIRIT ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by THE SPIRIT OF GOD, these are sons of God. 15 For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received THE SPIRIT of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 THE SPIRIT himself (neuter) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: 17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified with [him].

Here, in Romans 8:9-17, Paul refers to “the Spirit” and “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ” and “Christ” interchangeably. He clearly does not differentiate the Holy Spirit as a separate person who is distinct from the Father and the Son but describes the Spirit as an aspect of the Father and the Son.

(ASV) 1 Corinthians 2:10 But unto us God revealed [them] through THE SPIRIT: for THE SPIRIT searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save THE SPIRIT OF THE MAN, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but THE SPIRIT WHICH IS FROM (ek, literally, out of) GOD; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.

Here, in 1 Corinthians 2:10-12, Paul compares the Spirit through which the believer interacts with God to the spirit of a man, stating that just as the spirit of a man knows the things of the man, likewise the Spirit of God knows the things of God. Just as the spirit of a man is not a separate person from the man but an aspect of the man, likewise the Spirit of God is not a separate person from the Father but an aspect of the Father. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul says that we all, as believers, have “our access by one Spirit to the Father.” Thus, it is the Father’s Spirit—an aspect of the Father, not a separate person who is distinct from the Father—that gives us access to the Father.

The phrase “from God (ek tou qeou)” in 1 Corinthians 2:12 does not preclude possession (being of God or belonging to God). The primary meaning of the preposition “ek” is “out of,” indicating source. The doctrine that Christ teaches in John 7:17 is still God’s doctrine (possession) even while it is “from (out of) God (ek tou qeou)” as its source. In John 8:47, those who accept what Jesus says do so because they are “from (out of) God” (ek tou qeou),” and those who don’t accept what He says do so because they are not “from (out of) God (ek tou qeou).” I think that it’s crystal clear in this verse (John 8:47) that Christ is referring to possession here, belonging to God, not to the concept of being sent from God. Believers are not sent from God; they belong to God. The phrase “ek tou qeou (from God)” can mean that something is sent from God, but its primary meaning is that something has God AS ITS SOURCE. This concept of source would not be inconsistent with the Spirit that is “from (out of) God” (as the source) being not a separate Person who travels from God to us but an aspect of God, which would make “of God (tou qeou)”—as compared to “of the man (tou anqrwpou)”—in 1 Corinthians 2:11 and “from (out of) God (ek to qeou)” in verse 2:12 consistent. If something is an aspect of God, then God is its source, in which case it is “from (out of) God (ek tou qeou).” In Romans 2:29, is not the praise that is “from (out of) God (ek tou qeou)” God’s praise?

(ASV) John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, 17 [even] THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for HE ABIDETH (PRESENT TENSE) WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE (FUTURE TENSE) IN YOU. 18 I will not leave you desolate: I COME UNTO YOU. ... 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for IF I GO NOT AWAY, THE COMFORTER WILL NOT COME UNTO YOU; but if I go, I will send him unto you.

Here, in John 14:16-18, just as Paul refers to the Spirit of God dwelling in the believer as Christ Himself dwelling in the believer in Romans 8:9-17 (quoted above), Jesus likewise refers to the Spirit of truth that is already WITH (par’) the disciples (because Jesus is with the disciples), which He says will later be IN (en) the disciples once He (Jesus) has gone to heaven, as Himself (Jesus), saying, “I come to you,” in reference to the Spirit coming to them.

In John 16:7, Jesus says that He has to leave the earth in order for the Spirit to come to the disciples on earth. The logical reason for this is that Jesus and the Spirit are not two separate, distinct persons but the same person. Otherwise, there would be no reason why both Jesus (in bodily form) and the Spirit (a separate, distinct person) could not interact with the disciples on earth at the same time. The logical conclusion is that Christ’s Spirit (an aspect of Christ) cannot interact with people on earth as long as He (Christ) is bodily present on earth, and that He must leave the earth in order for His Spirit (an aspect of Him) to be able to interact with people on earth.

All of this Biblical information indicates to me that the Spirit is not a third, separate person but an aspect of God that is shared by the Father and by the Son and by all those who belong to the Son, just as the spirit of a man is not a separate person but an aspect of the man.

Consequently, in my opinion, if a person does not believe that the Spirit is a separate, distinct, third person, but that the Spirit is an aspect of God that is shared by the Father and the Son and all believers, this is not evidence that the person is not saved, but merely evidence the person is paying attention to what the Bible actually says.


Jim

 

Hi BobRyan,


BobRyan:

quote:


16 THE SPIRIT HIMSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified with [him].

That verse alone grants personhood to the Holy Spirit as we never say "The Sun himself rises in the morning" nor do we say "the moon expressly says that in the latter days .." nor do we find commands against "Grieving away the moon himself".

These personal attributes given to the Holy Spirit are sufficient.


Paul:

(both the TR and WH Greek texts) Romans 8:16 AUTO to PNEUMA summarture tw pneumati hmwn oti esmen tekna qeou

8:16 The SPIRIT (grammatically neuter, PNEUMA) ITSELF (neuter, AUTO) bears witness to/with our spirit that we are children of God.

If Paul had used the masculine form “autoV” instead of the neuter form “auto,” your point would be made. However, as the text stands, there is no confirmation that the Spirit is a separate, distinct person as opposed to an aspect of God.

Paul’s use of “auto” does not prove that the Spirit is a thing instead of a person, because the neuter pronoun “autos” could simply be agreeing with the neuter GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the noun “pneuma,” in which case nothing would be said about whether the Spirit was a person or a thing.

There is not a single instance in the New Testament in which a pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) articular (having an article) participle (SAP) that refers specifically to the single referent noun “pneuma” (Spirit) in the text is written in the masculine form. It is always written in the neuter from, either in strict GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement or, if the gender is fixed by sense (by the NATURAL GENDER, or NATURE, of the referent), in confirmation that the Spirit is a thing (neuter for a thing) instead of a person.


BobRyan:

Christ said that the Holy Spirit was with the disciples WHILE Christ was also with them. Your argument fails.


Jim:

God’s/Christ’s Spirit was in Christ while Christ was on earth bodily. Therefore, as long as Christ was on earth bodily and was physically WITH the disciples, His Spirit was likewise WITH the disciples. However, His Spirit could not interact directly with the disciples as long as Jesus was on earth bodily in the way that it could interact with them once Jesus had left the earth to go to heaven. That is, it could not be IN the disciples. The Son had to be in heaven before the Spirit could interact with them in that way. This indicates to me that the Son and the Spirit are the same person, the Spirit being the Father’s and Son’s Spirit, an aspect of them, not a third, distinct person.


BobRyan:

Notice again the personal pronouns for HIM -
quote:

John 14
16 ""I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

We see this again in John 16 where the argument is NOT "it can only transmit my words to you" but rather "HE WILL SPEAK" and "HE WILL TEACH" and "HE will LEAD"
quote:

John 16

12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.



Jesus:

John 14:16 kagw erwthsw ton patera kai allon paraklhton dwsei umin ina h meq umwn eiV ton aiwna 17 to pneuma thV alhqeiaV o o kosmoV ou dunatai labein oti ou qewrei auto oude ginwskei umeiV ginwskete auto oti par umin menei kai en umin estin 18 ouk afhsw umaV orfanouV ercomai proV umaV

14:16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another comforter (M), so that he would be with you forever—17 the Spirit (N) of truth, which (N) the world is not able to receive, because it neither sees nor knows him/it (N). You know him/it (N), because he/it remains near you and will be in you (parenthetical statements).—18 I shall not abandon you as orphans; I come to you.

John 14:26 o de paraklhtoV, to pneuma to agion o pemyei o pathr en tw onomati mou, ekeinoV umaV didaxei panta kai upomnhsei umaV panta a eipon umin [egw]

14:26 But the comforter (M)—the Holy Spirit (N), which (N, relative pronoun) the Father will send in my name (parenthetical clause)—He (M, demonstrative pronoun) will teach you all things and will cause you to remember all things (N) which (N, relative pronoun) I said to you.

John 15:26 otan elqh o paraklhtoV on egw pemyw umin para tou patroV to pneuma thV alhqeiaV o para tou patroV ekporeuetai ekeinoV marturhsei peri emou

15:26 When the comforter (M) comes, whom (M, relative pronoun) I shall send to you from the Father—the Spirit (N) of truth, which (N, relative pronoun) proceeds from the Father (parenthetical clause)—He (M, demonstrative pronoun) will bear witness regarding me.

John 16:7 all egw thn alhqeian legw umin sumferei umin ina egw apelqw ean gar mh apelqw o paraklhtoV ou mh elqh proV umaV ean de poreuqw pemyw auton proV umaV 8 kai elqwn ekeinoV elegxei ton kosmon peri amartiaV kai peri dikaiosunhV kai peri krisewV 9 peri amartiaV men oti ou pisteuousin eiV eme 10 peri dikaiosunhV de oti proV ton patera upagw kai ouketi qewreite me 11 peri de krisewV oti o arcwn tou kosmou toutou kekritai 12 eti polla ecw umin legein all ou dunasqe bastazein arti 13 otan de elqh ekeinoV to pneuma thV alhqeiaV odhghsei umaV eiV thn alhqeian pasan ou gar lalhsei af eautou all osa akouei lalhsei kai ta ercomena anaggelei umin 14 ekeinoV eme doxasei oti ek tou emou lhmyetai kai anaggelei umin 15 panta osa ecei o pathr ema estin dia touto eipon oti ek tou emou lambanei kai anaggelei umin

16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is necessary for you that I leave; for if I do not leave, the comforter (M) will never come to you. But if I depart, I shall send him (M, personal pronoun) to you. 8 And coming, he (M, demonstrative pronoun) will convict the world regarding sin and regarding righteousness and regarding judgment, 9 certainly regarding sin because they do not believe in me, 10 but regarding righteousness because I depart to the Father and you no longer see me, 11 and regarding judgment because the ruler of this world has been judged. 12 I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear (them) at this time. 13 But when he (M, demonstrative pronoun, still referring to “comforter”) comes—the Spirit (N) of truth (parenthetical phrase)—he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak from himself (M, reflexive pronoun, still referring to “comforter”), but whatever things he will hear he will speak, and he will make known to you the things that come. 14 He (M, demonstrative) will glorify me, because he will take from my things and will make (them) known to you. 15 All things whatever the Father has are my things; because of this I said that he will take from my things and will make (them) known to you.


Jim:

ALL of the pronouns in these passages quoted above strictly adhere to GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, either masculine in agreement with the masculine GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the referent noun “paraklhtoV” (comforter) or neuter in agreement with the neuter GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the referent noun “pneuma” (Spirit). In none of these passages is there a pronoun whose gender cannot be traced to the GRAMMATICAL GENDER of its referent noun. Thus, there is no instance in these passages in which a masculine pronoun confirms the personhood of the Spirit. In fact, there is no such instance anywhere in the New Testament Greek text. Many of the masculine pronouns in the English translation that you quoted are an interpretive decision by the translator and are not indicated by the Greek.


BobRyan:

How then is the Holy Spirit "ANOTHER HELPER" when some want to claim that HE is in IT and IT is not "ANOTHER" like Christ for Christ is not simply an IT to be duplicated.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 14
16 ""I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jim:

I never said that the Spirit doesn’t function like a person. I said that the Spirit is not a separate person who is distinct from the Father and the Son but is instead an aspect of the Father and the Son.

My spirit functions like a person as well, but my spirit is not a separate person who is distinct from me; it is an aspect of me. Of course my spirit functions like a person. Since I’m a person, my spirit functions like a person. However, my spirit is not a separate and distinct person from me but an aspect of me. Likewise, the Spirit of God/Christ functions like a person, but it is not a separate person who is distinct from the Father and Son but an aspect of the Father and Son.


Jim

 

Hello,


SavedbyHISGrace responded to the first message in this thread, which had also been posted (not by me but by someone else) at the following thread ...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2482.html

... saying this:

SavedbyHISGrace (08/20/05, 06:20am):

I would like to respond to the very long post by 1Jim, which has now been closed.

This post suggests, that the arguments for the retention of 1 John 5:7, on the evidence of the Greek grammar of the context, is untenable. This, I believe, is to be incorrect And it appears from what I have read in this post, that Jim has not understood the basic concepts of Greek grammar, and therefore is in error in his conclusions.

In the first place, it is not correct to say, that when a word is used in Greek (or Hebrew), which is in the masculine or feminine gender, that a man or woman is meant. Or, even that a person is meant. Take, for example, the Hebrew word, "ruach", which is used for "wind", "breath", "air", "spirit", "courage",etc. The word itself is in the feminine gender, but in neither of the above cases (with the exception of "spirit"), is it used for a personality. Furhter, there is no "natural" gender for "pneuma", which is neuter. The Greek "pais",(child) which is masculine, is really a common gender noun, which is used for both a "boy" or a "girl". The use of the masculine or feminine article, usually used to denote the gender of the child. Likewise with the nouns, "anthropos" (man), which is also common gender, as is "theos" (god). In each case the definite article used in the Greek, establishes whether a male or female is meant.

The use of the masculine in verse seven, "hoti treis eisin hoi martupountes",(because three are there who bear witness), in versions of the Epistle which do not have the full reading, is a problem, and raises questions with the use of the Greek grammar as it stands. Jim fails to understand the grammatically implications of the whole context, and the problems that exist without the disputed words.

The main questions which no one has answered, is this. Why does John use the masculine in verse seven (I am using this sentence as it is accepted by all, even those who reject the rest of the verse)? It cannot be said, that it is because the Holy Spirit is here mentioned, Who is a Person. This is incorrect. In verse six we have the same three neuter nouns, "water, blood, and spirit", and yet John here says: "to pneuma estin to marturoun" (the Spirit it is that bears witness). Where the gender of this sentence in the Greek, is neuter, since it is dealing with three nouns, which are also neuter. Since there is no doubt, that in this verse, John also mentions the Holy Spirit, as a Person, and yet, in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar, he writes in the neuter, which does not detract from the fact that the Personality of the Holy Spirit, is in view. Why, then, in the very next verse, when he is using the same three neuter nouns, would he change from the correct neuter grammar, to the masculine, which clearly is incorrect?

It is a plain fact to those who know anything about Greek grammar, and the context in discussion. That the ONLY solution to this, is that the original Epistle has the two masculine words, "Father" and "Word" in this verse. And, the presence of the masculine here, would over-ride the gender of the third, "Spirit", and therefore refer to all Three. No other explanation of the use of the masculine here, without the complete verse seven, is valid.


SavedbyHISGrace (08/20/05, 02:26pm, response to “Ziggy”):

You say that there is no grammatical reason, why John could not have changed the gender in verse seven. But, to what purpose? There are reasons why things are done. If, as I have already said, that the three exact nouns are all in the neuter in verse six, and the language relating to these nouns is also in the neuter. Then why on earth would John have switched to the masculine in the following verse, when he is still dealing with the same neuter nouns that he just spoke off?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2484.html


Jim:

It’s as if SavedbyHISGrace never even read anything that I said in my first message. I’ll respond to each part of his response.


SavedbyHISGrace:

In the first place, it is not correct to say, that when a word is used in Greek (or Hebrew), which is in the masculine or feminine gender, that a man or woman is meant. Or, even that a person is meant. Take, for example, the Hebrew word, "ruach", which is used for "wind", "breath", "air", "spirit", "courage",etc. The word itself is in the feminine gender, but in neither of the above cases (with the exception of "spirit"), is it used for a personality. Furhter, there is no "natural" gender for "pneuma", which is neuter. The Greek "pais",(child) which is masculine, is really a common gender noun, which is used for both a "boy" or a "girl". The use of the masculine or feminine article, usually used to denote the gender of the child. Likewise with the nouns, "anthropos" (man), which is also common gender, as is "theos" (god). In each case the definite article used in the Greek, establishes whether a male or female is meant.


Jim:

No. It is not the article in an articular (having an article) noun that determines the grammatical gender (the intrinsic spelling form of a noun, either neuter or masculine or feminine in the way that the noun is spelled) of a noun. A noun usually doesn’t have an article (it is anarthrous), yet its grammatical gender is nevertheless identified by the way that it is spelled. If the noun has an article (it is articular), then the article conforms to the noun in case, number and gender. SavedbyHISGrace probably read somewhere that if one doesn’t know the gender of a noun, being unfamiliar with the spelling form of the noun, and if the noun happens to have an article, then one can know the gender of the noun by the gender of the article, since the article conforms to the noun in case, number and gender, and since it’s relatively easy to memorize the various forms of the article for case, number and gender, as opposed to memorizing all of the various forms of all of the various nouns. It isn’t that the article determines the gender of the noun, but that the article, if it happens to be present, makes it easier for someone who is unfamiliar with Greek to know what the gender of the noun is. Here are the various forms of the article:

Singular (masculine / feminine / neuter) nominative: o / h / to
Singular (masculine / feminine / neuter) accusative: ton / thn / to
Singular (masculine / feminine / neuter) genitive: tou / thV / tou
Singular (masculine / feminine / neuter) dative: tw / th / tw

Plural (masculine / feminine / neuter) nominative: oi / ai / ta
Plural (masculine / feminine / neuter) accusative: touV / taV / ta
Plural (masculine / feminine / neuter) genitive: twn / twn / twn
Plural (masculine / feminine / neuter) dative: toiV / taiV / toiV

That’s not so hard to memorize. If one can memorize these forms of the article, and if a noun happens to have an article, then one can know the case, number and gender of the noun by the case, number and gender of the article, even if one doesn’t know the case, number and gender of the noun itself by sight. If the noun does not have an article, it will still be spelled the same way for that particular case, number and gender. The article does not give the noun its case, number and gender; the spelling of the noun itself identifies these three attributes whether the noun is articular or anarthrous.

Further, I never suggested that the grammatical gender (the intrinsic spelling form of a noun, either neuter or masculine or feminine in the way that the noun is spelled) of a noun and the natural gender (the nature of the idea to which the noun refers, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons) of the noun are the same thing. To the contrary, I made it clear in my first message that these are two different things. I specifically said that if the Spirit (neuter grammatical gender) is regarded as a person (masculine natural gender), and if the phrase “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 refers directly to that which is represented in the text by the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the blood,” then the gender of the phrase “that which bears witness” in 1 John 5:7 (WH) would logically be neuter in conformity to the GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the SINGLE referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement being possible in a SINGLE-referent-noun construction, whereas the gender of the phrase “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 would logically be masculine in reference to persons, the gender of a plural pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) articular (having an article) participle (SAP) (e.g., the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8) whose referent (the idea to which the pronoun or SAP refers) is represented in the text by MULTIPLE nouns always being fixed by sense, that is, by the NATURAL GENDER (the NATURE) of the referent of the pronoun or SAP, the NATURAL GENDER (the NATURE) of “the Spirit (a person) and the water (a thing) and the blood (a thing)” logically being masculine (in reference to persons) in deference to the person (the Spirit) in the group.


SavedbyHISGrace:

The use of the masculine in verse seven, "hoti treis eisin hoi martupountes",(because three are there who bear witness), in versions of the Epistle which do not have the full reading, is a problem, and raises questions with the use of the Greek grammar as it stands. Jim fails to understand the grammatically implications of the whole context, and the problems that exist without the disputed words.


Jim:

I explained in detail in my first message why the lack of GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement in the plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction in 1 John 5:8 is not “problem” but is in fact normal. It’s as if SavedbyHISGrace never even read my first message.


SavedbyHISGrace:

The main questions which no one has answered, is this. Why does John use the masculine in verse seven (I am using this sentence as it is accepted by all, even those who reject the rest of the verse)? It cannot be said, that it is because the Holy Spirit is here mentioned, Who is a Person. This is incorrect. In verse six we have the same three neuter nouns, "water, blood, and spirit", and yet John here says: "to pneuma estin to marturoun" (the Spirit it is that bears witness). Where the gender of this sentence in the Greek, is neuter, since it is dealing with three nouns, which are also neuter. Since there is no doubt, that in this verse, John also mentions the Holy Spirit, as a Person, and yet, in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar, he writes in the neuter, which does not detract from the fact that the Personality of the Holy Spirit, is in view. Why, then, in the very next verse, when he is using the same three neuter nouns, would he change from the correct neuter grammar, to the masculine, which clearly is incorrect?


Jim:

I already explained this in my first message. SavedbyHISGrace certainly must not have read my first message. GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement is only possible in a SINGLE-referent-noun construction (a pronoun or SAP whose referent is represented in the text by a SINGLE noun), as in 1 John 5:7 (WH), where John says, “the Spirit (N) is that which bears witness (N).” In contrast, the gender of a plural pronoun or SAP whose referent is represented in the text by MULTIPLE nouns is ALWAYS fixed by sense according to the NATURAL GENDER of the referent, as in 1 John 5:8, where John says, “the ones who bear witness (M), the Spirit (masculine NATURAL GENDER) and the water (neuter NATURAL GENDER) and the blood (neuter NATURAL GENDER),” the NATURAL GENDER of “the Spirit (a person) and the water (a thing) and the blood (a thing)” being masculine in deference to the person (the Spirit) in the group. Thus, the gender is neuter in 1 John 5:7 (WH) as a result of GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement in a SINGLE-referent-noun construction, whereas the gender is masculine in 1 John 5:8 as a result of the gender being FIXED BY SENSE (according to NATURAL GENDER) in a plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction.

That’s one explanation. The other explanation, which is more likely, is that the referent of “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 is not represented in the text by any noun, which is usually the case for an SAP, John implicitly referring to the three witnesses (three persons, hence the masculine gender) prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish to the truth of a matter, to whom John compares “the Spirit and the water and the blood.”


SavebyHISGrace (to Ziggy):

You say that there is no grammatical reason, why John could not have changed the gender in verse seven. But, to what purpose? There are reasons why things are done. If, as I have already said, that the three exact nouns are all in the neuter in verse six, and the language relating to these nouns is also in the neuter. Then why on earth would John have switched to the masculine in the following verse, when he is still dealing with the same neuter nouns that he just spoke off?


Jim:

SavedbyHISGrace appears to be referring to 1 John 5:6 in the TR Greek text, where John says, “by the water (N) and by the blood (N); and the Spirit (N) is that which bears witness (N).” However, it is not in the following verse 5:7 (TR) but in verse 5:8 where John deals with the same three grammatically neuter nouns, where he uses the masculine SAP “the ones who bear witness.”

The difference is that John uses the neuter singular SAP “that which bears witness” in 1 John 5:6 (TR) in reference to that which is represented in the text by the SINGLE referent noun “Spirit,” in which GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement is possible, whereas he uses the masculine plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 in reference to that which is represented in the text by the MULTIPLE referent nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “blood,” in which GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement is NOT possible, the gender of the plural SAP in a plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction ALWAYS being fixed by sense according to the NATURAL GENDER of the referent of the plural SAP. The difference is that GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement is possible in a SINGLE-referent-noun construction but is NOT possible in a plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction. That’s the difference. These are two completely different kinds of construction.

SavedbyHISGrace can’t offer any New Testament examples in support of his position, because there are no such examples, because his position is false.

In contrast, I presented numerous New Testament examples confirming what I said in my first message; yet SavedbyHISGrace appears not to have paid any attention to those examples that prove that what I’ve said is correct.

Below, I present these examples in a more explicit form, so that anyone can see, without having to actually do the analysis himself or herself, that the premise of the pro-Johannine-Comma grammatical argument, namely, that the gender of a plural pronoun or SAP whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns normally conforms to the grammatical gender of the multiple referent nouns, is pure nonsense.

(WH Greek text) 1 John 5:5 tiV estin [de] o nikwn (M) ton kosmon ei mh o pisteuwn (M) oti ihsouV estin o uioV tou qeou 6 outoV estin o elqwn di udatoV kai aimatoV ihsouV cristoV ouk en tw udati monon all en tw udati kai en tw aimati 7 kai to pneuma (N) estin to marturoun (N) oti to pneuma estin h alhqeia 8 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV (M) to pneuma (N) kai to udwr (N) kai to aima (N) kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin 9 ei thn marturian twn anqrwpwn lambanomen h marturia tou qeou meizwn estin oti auth estin h marturia tou qeou oti memarturhken peri tou uiou autou

5:5 And who is the one who overcomes (M) the world if not the one who believes (M) that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This one is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by the water only but by the water and by the blood. 7 And the Spirit (N) is that which bears witness (N), because the Spirit is the truth. 8 Because three are the ones who bear witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the blood (N), and the three ones are for the one thing. 9 If we accept the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, because this is the witness of God that He has born witness regarding His Son.

Question: Why is the gender of the phrase “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 (quoted above) masculine instead of neuter in agreement with the neuter grammatical gender of the nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “blood” in the same verse?

Answer: Common sense dictates that the gender of a pronoun or SAP (substantival [functioning as a noun] articular [having an article] participle), such as the phrase “the ones who bear witness” (a masculine plural SAP) in 1 John 5:8, can conform to the grammatical gender (the intrinsic spelling form of a noun, either neuter or masculine of feminine in the way that the noun is spelled) of a noun in the text only if the referent of the pronoun or SAP (the idea to which the pronoun or SAP refers) is represented in the text by a single noun ...

Examples: “this (F) is the great and first commandment (F)” (Matthew 22:38), “this (F) is the witness (F)” (John 1:19), “the scriptures (F) ... those (F) are they that bear witness (F)” (John 5:39), “which (F) is the first commandment (F)” (Ephesians 6:2), “the Spirit (N) is that which bears witness (N)” (1 John 5:7 [WH])

... the gender of the pronoun or SAP otherwise always being fixed by sense, that is, by the natural gender (the nature) of the referent of the pronoun or SAP, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons, either if the referent of the pronoun or SAP is not represented in the text by any noun (very common for an SAP but unusual for a pronoun) ...

Examples: “the ones who mourn (M)” (Matthew 5:4), “the ones who hunger (M) and thirst (M)” (Matthew 5:6), “the ones who have been persecuted (M)” (Matthew 5:10), “that which (N) he has” (Matthew 13:12), “that which (N) we have seen” (1 John 1:3), “the one who overcomes (M)” and “the one who believes (M)” (1 John 5:5)

... or if the referent of the plural pronoun or SAP is represented in the text by multiple nouns.

Examples (these nine examples are all of the clear New Testament examples of this kind of grammatical construction): “evil thoughts (M), murders (M) adulteries (F), fornication (F), thefts (F), false witness (F), slanders (F). These things (N) are the things that defile (N)” (Matthew 15:19-20), “five barley loaves (M) and two fish (N). But what are these things (N)” (John 6:9), “neither fornicators (M) neither idolaters (M) neither adulterers (M) neither effeminates (M) neither homosexuals (M) 10 neither thieves (M) neither coveters (M) nor drunkards (M) nor slanderers (M) nor extorters (M) will inherit the kingdom of God. And these things (N) were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), “now remains faith (F), hope (F), love (F), these (N, plural pronoun functioning as an adjective) three things (N, substantival adjective). But the greater (F) of these things (N, plural pronoun), the love (F)” (1 Corinthians 13:13 [the second plural pronoun]), “fornication (F), impurity (F), lustfulness (F), idolatry (F), sorcery (F), hostility (F), strife (F), jealousy (M), angers (M), factions (F), divisions (F), parties (F), envies (M), intoxications (F), revelries (M) and the semblances to these things (N), which I predict, as I predicted, that the ones who practice these kinds of things (n) will not inherit” (Galatians 5:19-21), “the fruit (M, singular noun) of the Spirit is love (F), joy (F), peace (F), patience (F), kindness (F), goodness (F), faithfulness (F), meekness (F), self-control (F). Against these things (N) there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23), “bowels (N) of compassion, kindness (F), humility (F), meekness (F), patience (F), sustaining each other and forgiving yourselves. If anyone has blame toward someone, even as the lord forgave you, so also you. And above all these things (N), love (F)” (Colossians 3:12-14), “three are the ones who bear witness (M) in heaven, the Father (M), the Word (M) and the Holy Spirit (N)” (1 John 5:7 [TR]), “three are the ones who bear witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the blood (N)” (1 John 5:8).

Unclear Examples (it is unclear whether the plural pronoun refers to the multiple nouns or whether it refers to the single plural substantival adjective or noun): “[you] neglect the weightier things (N, plural substantival adjective) of the law, judgment (F) and mercy (N) and faith (F). But these things (N) it was necessary to do” (Matthew 23:23), “Put to death then the members (N, plural noun) that are on the earth, fornication (F), impurity (F), lust (N), evil desire (F) and covetousness (F), which (F) is idolatry (F), because of which things (N) the wrath of God is coming, in which (N) also you once walked when you were living in these things (N).” (Colossians 3:5-7).

What is consistently observed throughout the New Testament Greek text corroborates this common-sense understanding of how gender is determined in the Greek.

Of the nine clear New Testament examples of a plural pronoun or SAP whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns (a plural multiple-referent-noun construction), the gender of the plural pronoun or SAP is not the same as the grammatical gender of any of the multiple referent nouns in six of the examples: Matthew 15:19-20, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13 (the second plural pronoun), Galatians 5:19-21, Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 John 5:8:

“evil thoughts (M), murders (M) adulteries (F), fornication (F), thefts (F), false witness (F), slanders (F). These things (N) are the things that defile (N)” (Matthew 15:19-20), “neither fornicators (M) neither idolaters (M) neither adulterers (M) neither effeminates (M) neither homosexuals (M) 10 neither thieves (M) neither coveters (M) nor drunkards (M) nor slanderers (M) nor extorters (M) will inherit the kingdom of God. And these things (N) were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), “now remains faith (F), hope (F), love (F), these (N, plural pronoun functioning as an adjective) three things (N, substantival adjective). But the greater (F) of these things (N, plural pronoun), the love (F)” (1 Corinthians 13:13 [the second plural pronoun]), “fornication (F), impurity (F), lustfulness (F), idolatry (F), sorcery (F), hostility (F), strife (F), jealousy (M), angers (M), factions (F), divisions (F), parties (F), envies (M), intoxications (F), revelries (M) and the semblances to these things (N), which I predict, as I predicted, that the ones who practice these kinds of things (n) will not inherit” (Galatians 5:19-21), “the fruit (M, singular noun) of the Spirit is love (F), joy (F), peace (F), patience (F), kindness (F), goodness (F), faithfulness (F), meekness (F), self-control (F). Against these things (N) there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23), “three are the ones who bear witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the blood (N)” (1 John 5:8).

Of these six examples, all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender in four of the examples: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 John 5:8. If ever there were an opportunity for grammatical gender agreement (the gender of a pronoun or SAP conforming to the grammatical gender of a noun in the text) to occur in a plural multiple-referent-noun construction, it is in these four examples; yet it does not occur in any of them:

“neither fornicators (M) neither idolaters (M) neither adulterers (M) neither effeminates (M) neither homosexuals (M) 10 neither thieves (M) neither coveters (M) nor drunkards (M) nor slanderers (M) nor extorters (M) will inherit the kingdom of God. And these things (N) were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), “now remains faith (F), hope (F), love (F), these (N, plural pronoun functioning as an adjective) three things (N, substantival adjective). But the greater (F) of these things (N, plural pronoun), the love (F)” (1 Corinthians 13:13 [the second plural pronoun]), “the fruit (M, singular noun) of the Spirit is love (F), joy (F), peace (F), patience (F), kindness (F), goodness (F), faithfulness (F), meekness (F), self-control (F). Against these things (N) there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23), “three are the ones who bear witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the blood (N)” (1 John 5:8).

Given the fact that of the nine clear New Testament examples of a plural multiple-referent-noun construction, the gender of the plural pronoun or SAP is not the same as the grammatical gender of any of the multiple referent nouns in six of the examples, even when all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender, which confirms that grammatical gender agreement does not occur in this kind of grammatical construction, the fact that the gender of the plural pronoun or SAP happens to be the same as the grammatical gender of one or two of the multiple referent nouns in three of these nine examples (John 6:9, Colossians 3:12-14 and 1 John 5:7 [TR]) is correctly explained NOT by grammatical gender agreement but by coincidence.

In John 6:9, a neuter (for things) plural pronoun refers to that which is represented in the text by a grammatically masculine noun and a grammatically neuter noun, both of which refer to things as opposed to persons: “five barley loaves (M) and two fish (N). But what are these things (N)” (John 6:9).

In Colossians 3:12-14, a neuter (for things) plural pronoun refers to that which is represented in the text by a grammatically neuter noun and four grammatically feminine nouns, all of which refer to things as opposed to persons: “bowels (N) of compassion, kindness (F), humility (F), meekness (F), patience (F), sustaining each other and forgiving yourselves. If anyone has blame toward someone, even as the lord forgave you, so also you. And above all these things (N), love (F)” (Colossians 3:12-14).

In 1 John 5:7 (TR), a masculine (for persons) plural SAP refers to that which is represented in the text by two grammatically masculine nouns and a grammatically neuter noun, at least two of which refer to persons as opposed to things: “three are the ones who bear witness (M) in heaven, the Father (M), the Word (M) and the Holy Spirit (N)” (1 John 5:7 [TR]).

The grammatical gender of the multiple referent nouns in 1 John 5:7 (TR) has nothing to do with the gender of the plural SAP in 1 John 5:7 (TR), which is fixed by sense to be masculine in reference to persons (instead of feminine in reference to female persons or neuter in referent to things). Grammatical gender agreement does not occur in a plural multiple-referent-noun construction, because it can’t occur in this kind of construction, because grammatical gender agreement is only possible when the referent of a pronoun or SAP is represented in the text by a single noun. This understanding is dictated by common sense and corroborated by what is consistently observed throughout the New Testament Greek text.

So the question to be answered in 1 John 5:8 is not why the gender of the plural SAP does not conform to the grammatical gender of the multiple referent nouns in this verse. The gender of the plural pronoun or SAP in a plural multiple-referent-noun construction never conforms to the grammatical gender of the multiple referent nouns, even when all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender, but is always fixed by sense to be either neuter in reference to things or masculine in reference to persons or feminine in reference to female persons. Rather, the question to be answered in 1 John 5:8 is why John fixed the gender of the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in this verse to be masculine in reference to persons. To whom was he referring? There are at least two plausible explanations.

One explanation is this. If the Spirit (neuter grammatical gender) was regarded as a person (masculine natural gender), and if the plural SAP in 1 John 5:8 referred directly (this is that) to that which was represented in the text by the three nouns in the same verse, then the gender of the plural SAP would logically be fixed by sense to be masculine in conformity to the natural gender (the nature) of the referent of the plural SAP, the natural gender of “the Spirit (a person) and the water (a thing) and the blood (a thing)” logically being masculine in deference to the person (the Spirit) in the group. In contrast, the gender of the SAP in 1 John 5:7 (WH) would logically be neuter in conformity to the grammatical gender of the single referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse. Thus, the gender would be neuter in 1 John 5:7 (WH) as a result of grammatical gender agreement in a single-referent-noun construction, whereas the gender would be masculine in 1 John 5:8 as a result of gender being fixed by sense in a plural multiple-referent-noun construction. That’s one explanation.

The more likely explanation, however, is that regardless of whether or not the Spirit was regarded as a person, the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 does not refer directly (this is that) to that which is represented in the text by the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the blood” but is instead fixed by sense to be masculine in reference to three persons who are not represented in the text by any noun, and that this implicit referent is comparatively (this is like that) equated to “the Spirit and the water and the blood.” This kind of comparative equation would be no different than the kind of comparative equation that appears in Luke 8:14, where Jesus comparatively (this is like that) equates “that which fell (a neuter collective singular SAP in reference to things) into the thorns” to “the ones who heard (a masculine plural SAP in reference to persons).” The three implicit persons to whom the masculine plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 refers are most likely the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter, to whom John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the blood.” This understanding of what John means in 1 John 5:8 is certainly consistent with what John goes on to say in verse 5:9, where he says, “If we accept the witness of men (an obvious reference to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15), the witness of God (an obvious reference to ‘the Spirit and the water and the blood’ stated by John in verse 5:8) is greater.” Thus, the comparison that is implied by the use of the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 is explicitly stated in verse 5:9, John comparatively (this is like that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the blood” in verse 5:8, to which he refers as “the witness of God” in verse 5:9, to “the ones who bear witness” in verse 5:8, to whom he refers as “the witness of men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8. Question (implicit): Who are the three witnesses, who are prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, who bear witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Answer (explicit): “The ones who bear witness” (masculine gender in reference to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses) are (comparatively) “the Spirit and the water and the blood.” This is by far the most likely meaning in 1 John 5:8.


Jim

 

Hi SavedbyHISGrace,


SavedbyHISGrace:

You cannot show, in my opinion, why John would change the gender of the grammar from neuter in verse six, which is in perfect AGREEMENT WITH the neuter NOUNS (PLURAL) in question, to the masculine in verse seven/eight.


Jim:

The neuter gender of the SINGULAR neuter SAP “that which bears witness” MAY conform to the neuter GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the SINGLE SINGULAR grammatically neuter referent noun “Spirit” in the clause “the Spirit (N) is that which bears witness (N)” in 1 John 5:6 (TR) / 1 John 5:7 (WH), or it MAY be fixed by sense to be neuter in reference to a thing. There is no absolute proof which is the case. It depends on whether or not the Spirit is regarded as person. If the Spirit is regarded as a person (masculine NATURAL GENDER), then the gender of this SINGULAR SAP definitely conforms to the GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the SINGLE SINGULAR grammatically neuter referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse. However, if the Spirit is not regarded as a person, then the gender of the SINGULAR SAP MAY conform to the GRAMMATICAL GENDER of the SINGLE SINGULAR grammatically neuter referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse or it MAY be fixed by sense to be neuter in reference to a thing. The one thing that this SINGULAR neuter SAP in 1 John 5:6 (TR) / 1 John 5:7 (WH) certainly does NOT do is refer to or agree with the GRAMMATICAL GENDER of any noun other than the SINGLE SINGULAR grammatically neuter referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse. This SINGULAR SAP “that which bears witness” refers ONLY to “the Spirit” in 1 John 5:6 (TR) / 1 John 5:7 (WH); it does NOT refer either to “the water” or to “the blood.” You’re trying to say that the SINGLE-referent-noun construction in 1 John 5:6 (TR) / 1 John 5:7 (WH) is a MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction. You are incorrect. It is a SINGLE-referent-noun construction. Further, it is a predicate nominative construction (a nominative noun or noun equivalent – a form of the verb “to be” – a nominative noun or noun equivalent), in which one nominative-case noun or noun equivalent (such as a pronoun or SAP) is joined to and equated to another nominative-case noun or noun equivalent (such as a pronoun or SAP) by a form of the equating verb “to be.” The two nominative-case elements of the predicate nominative construction exclusively refer to and are exclusively equated to one another. Neither element refers to or is equated to anything else in the text. Thus, the predicate nominative construction “the Spirit (N) is that which bears witness (N)” is a SINGLE-referent-noun construction, NOT a MULTIPLE-referent noun construction. As a SINGLE-referent-noun construction, it can accommodate GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, unlike a MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction, which CANNOT accommodate GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement.

In 1 John 5:8, John uses a completely different grammatical construction. Here, John does NOT use a SINGLE-referent-noun construction, which can accommodate GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, as in 1 John 5:6 (TR) / 1 John 5:7 (WH), but a plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction, which CANNOT accommodate GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, the gender of the plural pronoun or SAP in this kind of construction (a plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction) ALWAYS being fixed by sense, that is, by the NATURAL GENDER (the NATURE) of the referent of the plural pronoun or SAP, either neuter for things or masculine for persons or feminine for female persons. Here, John follows the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” with the MULTIPLE appositive (a subsequent noun or noun equivalent in the text that renames a preceding [in the text] noun or noun equivalent of the same grammatical case) nouns “the Spirit” and “the water” and “the blood.”

If the plural SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 refers DIRECTLY (this IS that) to that which is represented in the text by the MULTIPLE appositive nouns, then this is a plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction, which CANNOT accommodate GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, the gender of the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” being fixed by sense according to the NATURAL GENDER (the NATURE) of the referent of the plural SAP. If “the Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the blood” is regarded as a person (masculine NATURAL GENDER), then the NATURAL GENDER of this group that is comprised of one person (the Spirit) and two things (the water and the blood) is logically MASCULINE (in reference to persons) in deference to the person (the Spirit) in the group. Thus, if the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 refers DIRECTLY (this IS that) to that which is represented in the text by the MULTIPLE nouns, the NATURAL GENDER of this group being MASCULINE, then the gender of the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” is logically fixed by sense to be MASCULINE according to the NATURAL GENDER of that which is represented in the text by the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the blood.”

On the other hand, regardless of whether or not the Spirit is regarded as a person, if the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” in 1 John 5:8 does NOT refer DIRECTLY (this IS that) to that which is represented in the text by the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the blood,” but instead refers to an IMPLICIT referent that is NOT represented in the text by ANY noun, this IMPLICIT referent in turn being COMPARATIVELY (this IS LIKE that) equated to that which is represented in the text by the appositive phrase “the Spirit and the water and the blood,” then the gender of the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” is still fixed by sense according to the NATURAL GENDER (the NATURE) of the IMPLICIT referent, either neuter for things or masculine for persons. In this case, the most likely candidate for the IMPLICIT referent of the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” is the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter, to whom John COMPARATIVELY (this IS LIKE that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the blood.” Since the three witnesses prescribed by Moses are three persons (masculine NATURAL GENDER), the gender of the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” is still fixed by sense to be MASCULINE (for persons).

Consequently, regardless of whether or not the Spirit is regarded as a person, the gender of the SINGULAR SAP “that which bears witness” in the SINGLE-referent-noun construction “the Spirit is that which bears witness” in 1 John 5:6 (TR) / 1 John 5:7 (WH), which allows GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, ends up being NEUTER, whereas the gender of the PLURAL SAP “the ones who bear witness” in the plural MULTIPLE-referent-noun construction “the ones who bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood” in 1 John 5:8, which does NOT allow GRAMMATICAL GENDER agreement, ends up being MASCULINE.


SavedbyHISGrace:

To simply say that there is no problem here with the Greek, is not true. We have to deal with the problems at hand, and not invent solutions so that we can justify our own pre-conceived notions about something.


Jim:

I did NOT invent anything. Rather, the authors of pro-Comma grammatical argument INVENTED a problem that does NOT exist. The fact that it does NOT exist is corroborated by ALL of the New Testament examples that I provided. The truth about the grammar is in the New Testament Greek text. Whatever is consistently observed to occur in the grammar throughout the New Testament Greek text is the truth in regard to how gender is determined in the Greek. This observed truth is an objectively observable fact. Any assertion that contradicts this objectively observable fact opposes what actually occurs in the New Testament Greek text and is therefore incorrect.


SavedbyHISGrace:

Even those who otherwise reject the disputed words, like Bishop Thomas Middleton, who was a far more able Greek scholar than any of us, admits that the Greek grammar in NOT correct the way things stand, that is, without verse seven.


Jim:

It’s no accident that I’m able to provide all of these New Testament examples in support of what I’m saying while the authors and supporters of the pro-Comma grammatical argument make no effort to provide any New Testament examples in support of what they’re saying. The reason is clear: What I’m saying is how gender is actually determined throughout the New Testament Greek text, hence my ability to provide many New Testament examples in support of what I’m saying, whereas what they’re saying is NOT how gender is actually determined throughout the New Testament Greek text, hence their inability to provide any New Testament examples in support of what they’re saying. This is not rocket science. Obviously, the authors of the pro-Comma grammatical argument were frauds, either because they deliberately tried to deceive people into believing what they knew was false, or because they deliberately tried to deceive people into thinking that they knew more about Greek than they actually did. All one has to do is take note of the gulf between the assertion by the authors of the pro-Comma grammatical argument regarding how gender is determined in the Greek and what is consistently observed to actually occur throughout the New Testament Greek text to know either that these authors were flat out lying or that their understanding of Greek was far inferior to what they suggested it was. I don’t care what a person’s name is or how many letters he has after his name. If what he says is contrary to what is consistently observed to actually occur throughout the New Testament Greek text, then he, whoever he may be, is wrong. These authors of the pro-Comma grammatical argument had access to the same New Testament examples that I did. All they had to do was study a little bit to see that the premise of their pro-Comma grammatical argument was false. Either they did the study and they discovered that their argument was false, yet they promoted their argument anyway, or they didn’t bother to do the study, because they weren’t interest in the facts, because they were only interested in the Johannine Comma and couldn’t care less about whether or not what they were saying was valid. Either way, they were not being honest.


Jim

 

Hi SavedbyHISGrace,


SavedbyHISGrace (10:50am, 08/21/05, Baptist Debate Forums, Bible Versions/Translations, The Greek Grammar of 1 John 5:7):

Bishop Thomas Middleton, in his excellent, scholarly, work on the Greek Article, which has no equal, says that the use of the Greek article in verse eight, in the clause shows, that the numeral would have had to have been used in a pervious case. This is even though Middleton himself, on textual grounds rejects the disputed words. Nevertheless, he is honest enough to admit, that without the words as found in the KJV, there is a difficulty with the grammar of verse eight. (The Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp.633-653).


SavedbyHISGrace (05:23am, 08/28/05, this thread):

Even those who otherwise reject the disputed words, like Bishop Thomas Middleton, who was a far more able Greek scholar than any of us, admits that the Greek grammar in NOT correct the way things stand, that is, without verse seven.


Jim:

First of all, not having read what Middleton wrote, I don’t know that he thought that the article “to” (the) in the phrase “to en” (the one thing) in 1 John 5:8 required the presence of the Johannine Comma in the text. The same people who claim that Gregory of Nazianzus found fault with the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in his fourth-century “Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit” also claim that Middleton thought that the phrase “to en” (the one thing) in 1 John 5:8 required the presence of the Johannine Comma in the text. When I was finally able to track down what Gregory wrote, I discovered that what he actually wrote was the exact OPPOSITE of what he was being cited by pro-Comma enthusiasts to have written. Therefore, for all I know, pro-Comma enthusiasts are misrepresenting Middleton just as they misrepresent Gregory. Until I’m able to read what Middleton actually wrote, I’m not willing to blindly accept the claim that pro-Comma enthusiasts are making regarding Middleton.

Secondly, the article has many uses, only one of which is as an ANAPHORIC reference, that is, as a reference BACKWARD to a previous reference in the text, which pro-Comma enthusiasts claim is its manner of use in 1 John 5:8. One of the many other uses of the article is as a KATAPHORIC reference, that is, as a reference FORWARD to a subsequent reference in the text. For example, in 1 John 3:11, John says, “Because this is THE MESSAGE which you heard from the beginning: THAT WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER (oti auth estin H AGGELIA hn hkousate ap archV, INA AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUV).” Here, the articular noun “the message (h aggelia)” refers FORWARD (KATAPHORIC reference) to the clause “that we should love one another (ina agapwmen allhlouV).”

I’ve already stated that what John is most likely doing in 1 John 5:8 is implying a comparison that he explicitly states in verse 5:9, John comparatively (this IS LIKE that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the blood” in verse 5:8, to which he refers as “the witness of God” in verse 5:9, to “the ones who bear witness” in verse 5:8, to whom he refers as “the witness of men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8. Thus, what is said in verse 5:8 refers FORWARD to what is said in verse 5:9, what is said in verse 5:9 referring backward to what is said in verse 5:8. If this is the case, and I think that it is, then the phrase “to en” (the one thing) in verse 5:8 refers FORWARD (KATAPHORIC reference) to what is said in verse 5:9, specifically, to “the witness of God.”

John says in 1 John 5:8, “Because three are the ones who bear witness (masculine gender in reference to persons, specifically, to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter), the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three ones (the three witnesses prescribed by Moses, to whom John comparatively [this IS LIKE that] equates the Spirit and the water and the blood) are for the one thing (a kataphoric reference forward to “the witness of God” in the next verse). If we accept the witness of men (an obvious reference to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15), the witness of God (an obvious reference to the Spirit and the water and the blood stated by John in verse 5:8) is greater.” Thus, in stating that “the three ones are for the one thing ... the witness of God,” John appears to be saying that the Spirit and the water and the blood, which he comparatively (this IS LIKE that) equates to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter, comprise the witness of God, “the one thing” in verse 5:8 referring to “the witness of God” in verse 5:9.

Thus, not only does the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 not require the presence of the Johannine Comma in the text, neither does the articular phrase “to en (the one thing)” in verse 5:8. Both the masculine gender and the articular phrase in verse 5:8 appear to refer to what is explicitly expressed in verse 5:9, “the ones who bear witness” (masculine gender in reference to the three witnesses prescribed by Moses) in verse 5:8 referring to “the witness of men” in verse 5:9, and “the one thing” in verse 5:8 referring to “the witness of God” in verse 5:9.

(WH Greek text) 1 John 5:5 And who is the one who overcomes the world if not the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This one is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by the water only but by the water and by the blood. 7 And the Spirit is that which bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 Because three are THE ONES WHO BEAR WITNESS (M), the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three ones are for THE ONE THING (N). 9 If we accept THE WITNESS OF MEN, THE WITNESS OF GOD is greater, because this is the witness of God that He has born witness regarding His Son.


Jim