In the sermon titled 'A Word About The Comma Johanneum', David Green addresses the textual variations in 1 John 5:7-8, known as the Comma Johanneum, which appear differently in the King James Version (KJV) compared to modern translations like the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Green discusses the historical context of the textual differences, highlighting that the Comma Johanneum is missing from early Greek manuscripts and was not quoted by early Church Fathers, casting doubt on its authenticity. He emphasizes that accusations of modern translations attempting to remove the doctrine of the Trinity are unfounded, as this doctrine can be supported by other passages in the New Testament. Green encourages Christians not to engage in translation tribalism, asserting that different translations can all be trusted and are not intended to be used to create divisions among believers. He calls for a focus on the unity and integrity of Scripture, regardless of the translation, and reminds the congregation of the privilege of having access to multiple Bible versions when many around the world do not.

1 John chapter 5 and we're going to read for a text verses 6 through 8. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ. Not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who bears witness, Because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that bear witness.

Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are in agreement. Let's again go to the Lord in prayer. Our Father in heaven, Lord we thank you for your word and the truthfulness of it. Lord I thank you for this time that we have to come together and to study, to worship, to pray, to sing. Lord, I pray that everything that is said and done here today would bring honor and glory to Your name.

Lord, I pray that your people be strengthened and encouraged. I pray that if there's any among us today who know you not, that today would be the day that they come to know you. Lord, I pray that you'll bless our worship, truly be in spirit and in truth. I pray our Father that you'll forgive us of our sins. What's in Jesus name we pray, amen.

And we pray, amen. The title of my sermon today, my lesson, is a word about that comma, a word about that comma or a bit about those variants. Because as I read this and as I came to this I knew that this time was coming. I'm well aware that there is a variant reading, a major variant reading between the King James Bible and the Legacy Standard Bible when it comes to the text before us. Two months ago when I switched, when I switched my Sunday morning preaching from the KJV to the LSB, I anticipated that this text was coming because if you'll recall I was already in 1st John when we switched.

I thought about waiting until I thought about waiting until after it was complete with 1st John. However, either way this is a text that needs to be looked at and examined and if you'll recall also for a bit I did deal with this text in a sermon that I called Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, as we looked at this in a sermon back in September of 2024. And that is available online if anyone wants to go and listen to that. But my point is that while I do enjoy and I believe that the primary focus of the preacher is to take the text, read the text, preach the text, and apply the text, text, it's also necessary at times, it's also necessary at times for the pastor, the preacher, for the pastor, the preacher, the shepherd, to understand what is on the minds of the sheep. And in our modern day, what's on the social media feed of all of us when we look at and consider Bible translations.

And indeed, this is a big one. The Yohannian comma is what it's called. The variation. And it's not just a variation between the King James and the legacy standard. It's a variation between many.

The King James, the New King James, and most of the new Bible translations. Let me just read the King James Version for those who may not have one readily available. And you can hear it since I've already read the Legacy Standard. The King James Version reads the text this way, and I'll read verses 6 through 8 here. This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood.

And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. There are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. So that is the reading of the King James Version. So the story, the accusation, goes something like this.

That is that the translators of the new versions, whether it's the NIV, the ESV, the New American Standard, or the Legacy Standard, fill in the blank, whichever new version you might have or want to think about, that somehow they wish to remove the Trinity from the Bible. And so they removed the reference from this passage here in 1st John. And in fact, in fact that is the thing that I used to believe, and I used to repeat that. I remember going into the bookstore as a younger preacher and When I would look at Bibles I would automatically Open it up and I would look at first John to see how the reading was to determine whether or not it was a quote unquote good Bible or not. Before we get too far into this, obviously the word Trinity is not in the Bible.

So what do we mean by the word Trinity? I'll read from an old confession of faith, the 1st London Confession of Faith, 1646 edition, article 2, the Trinity. It says this, In this divine and infinite being, There is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided, all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties. So one God, yes, but three. And so we can see the difference in the text from the King James and the LSB.

And we could do the same with the English Standard Version or any of the others. We went to examine this. As I was learning and looking into this, I came across what some other commentators had written and BH Carroll, the old Baptist commentator from the 1800s was one I looked at. I understand something about commentators and commentaries. They are valuable, Because when we come up to a question in the Scripture, the Scriptures are not new.

And with each passing generation, when we have a question, it's good to remember that we're not the first generation to approach the text, and we can indeed stand on the shoulders of some giants. And So let us look back at those who have gone before us. Understanding, of course, that these men are not to be put on the same level as Scripture writers, but we can appreciate their work with the text. B.H. Carroll is one that I've grown to appreciate and so I looked at what he wrote and when he wrote about 1st John he said to the integrity of this book there is only one exception.

The integrity of a book is established when it comes to us in the shape it was originally delivered. It has not lost anything out of it, nothing has been added to it. Now as to the integrity of this book, there is one exception. In the King James Version, 1 John 5, 7, 8 reads, For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Now look at the eighth verse, two words of the second line, in earth.

There are three that bear witness in earth. Let us take out of the King James Version all the seventh verse and the words in earth of the eighth verse. They are unquestionably an interpolation. They do not appear in any of the ancient manuscripts and our standard version leaves them out. So our standard version reads, there are three who bear witness.

It does not say anything about any three in earth or in heaven. The spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three agree in one. With the exception of that seventh verse in the words in earth of the eighth verse of the common version, which certainly are an interpolation by a much later writer, Probably a copyist put them in to fill out his ideas. They do not show in any reputable authentic text. The book is strictly authentic." End quote.

So that's what B.H. Carroll said about this controversy. About this controversy. Albert Barnes was a Presbyterian commentator, but still a very good one, reputable in his commentary. Barnes notes, he says, he says, if the disputed passage therefore be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, for there are three that bear record, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.

The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets asperius should not be regarded as part of the inspired writings are briefly the following. It is wanting in all the earlier manuscripts, in other words it wasn't there in the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript before the 16th century. Indeed it is found only in two Greek manuscripts of any age, one in Codex Montfortianus or Britannicus written in the beginning of the 16th century and the other of Codex Ravianus, which is more transcript of the text taken partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, partly from the polygott, but it is incredible that a genuine passage in the New Testament should be wanting in all the early Greek manuscripts. He goes on to say, it is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity, a passage which would be so much in point and cannot have failed to be quoted if it were genuine. And it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigileneus at the end of the 5th century.

If the passage were believed to be genuine, nay, if it were known to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor. It is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature and in the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to, but it never was. For it must be plain to anyone who examines the passage, the subject, with an unbiased mind, that passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustine, et cetera, are not taken from this place, as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage. They designed to quote it." You see, in the You see, in the early days of church history, there were a lot of controversies about the deity of Christ, a lot of controversies about the trinitarian nature of God. And there was a lot of debates, discussions, and councils that were happening.

And Sometimes there's good evidence to be found in some of those debates as to what was being quoted and what wasn't being quoted. Missing from those debates, discussions, and quotes is this text. Now, why am I bringing all this up? Why not just preach this text? Well again, I know where I was a few years ago.

I also am well aware of what's being said in books and writings on the internet. I know what's being written against the newer versions of the Bible by some, not all, but some, in the King James only camps. And I'm not trying to pick a fight with them, but I want to assure you, brothers and sisters, that you can trust your Bibles, whether you have a King James Bible, or whether you have a legacy standard Bible, or whether you prefer an English standard Bible, or New American Standard, or some other good translation, that You can trust your Bible without going to battle with your brothers and sisters who use a different translation than you do. The Bible has been around, not in its current form. You know, we often think of a Bible as being nice leather or hardback cover with pages like this.

This is a relatively modern form of the Bible. But the Bible has been around in some form for generations, going all the way back to manuscripts, And in those days, going all the way back to the manuscript era, going all the way back to when the original writers wrote, and then they were copied, and then copies were made. Remember, that was before the days of photocopiers. So guess what? One copy went to one church and one copy went to another church, and copies began to flood the known world.

Variants have happened since the very beginning. There have been variations since the very beginning. And so it should not surprise us. It shouldn't surprise us that there are variations in our English translations. But as we look at a text like this, and we see that there's a difference here.

There's a couple of things we ought to remember. Number one, it's rare, it's rare that we find a major difference between the translations. Why? Because God's Word has been so preserved, so preserved, that it's unusual to find a major difference in the Scriptures. So much so that when I read from my legacy standard, if you've got an English standard Bible, if you've got a King James Bible, if you've got a new King James, you can follow along with no problem.

No problem. But also, I want to tell you, the contrary to what has been said out there on the internet, what has been said by some writers and some preachers and some others. There was not some great conspiracy to take out the Trinity from the Bible. That's not what happened here. In fact, I'll quote again from Albert Barnes.

Albert Barnes said it is not necessary, 1st John chapter 5, is not necessary as a proof text for the Trinity. If it's not written in your Bible the way it was written in the King James, don't sweat it. The doctrine of the Trinity is still found in your Bible. Indeed, as Albert Barnes goes on to write, he said, the doctrine which it contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New Testament by passages about which there can be no doubt. The removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity or to modify that doctrine.

As it was never used to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its rejection and its removal from the New Testament will do nothing to modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced and held and successfully defended without it. And it can and will be so still." The memes and the books, the posts on social media, those who claim that the modern translations have removed the Trinity are misinformed at best or misleading at worst. Notice if you will again reading from the legacy standard John chapter 15. John chapter 15 in verse 26.

Standard. John chapter 15, verse 26. John chapter 15. John chapter 15. When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, The Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." So this is Jesus talking.

He says when the advocate or the comforter, the way the King James translators used it. But again, what do we find here? We find a Trinitarian passage. When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness by me. A very trinitarian passage coming from John How about Matthew chapter 28 Matthew chapter 28 right there in the Great Commission.

Matthew chapter 28 and verse 19. Jesus said, Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Again, a very Trinitarian passage. No, There was not some grand conspiracy to remove the Trinity from the Bible. The New Versions do not remove this doctrine from the Bible. Satan or some evil preacher, some evil Bible translator did not do that.

When the translators made the decision to do what they did in 1 John, there's a manuscript reason for it. Indeed, the memes, the books, they're only showing one side. Taking one verse and saying, look, it's kind of a gotcha kind of a moment. And they say, look, this is gone. Here's 1 John 5 in our favorite Bible version, and it's different over here, our Bible version is better.

The reality is, the Bible wasn't meant to be picked through like that. It's not meant to be picked through like that for preaching. It's not meant to be picked through like that for memes either. Indeed, If I wanted to, or if anybody wanted to, they could take the LSB and make memes and say, look, here's how this Bible version is superior than yours. Look over here just to give you an example in Acts chapter 16.

Acts chapter 16 and verse 7. And after they came to Messia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them. Now if you can imagine a sheet of paper, and over here on one side you've got the LSB, and on the other side you've got the King James. Like they do often on social media or in books, they say, well, here's the LSB, it says the Spirit of Jesus, and over here on the King James it just says the Spirit, and of Jesus is missing. Why did the King James remove of Jesus?

Well, how about in Jude in verse 5? In Jude in verse five. Jude in verse five. Now I want to remind you, though you know all things that Jesus, having once saved the people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. You Bible scholars who have been reading your Bibles for a long time, you know that there were people who were saved out of the land of Egypt.

And you know that in the Old Testament there's no mention of Jesus there. Jesus is not mentioned until the New Testament. But according to your English translation here, He says it was Jesus who did that. The LSB translators bring this up in their notes, and they say there is a text critical issue here regarding whether the best reading indicates it is Jesus or the Lord who saved the people out of the land of Egypt. Now they say the heaviest textual evidence points to Jesus as the correct reading, while only one ancient manuscript reads the Lord.

That Jude would attribute Israel's salvation from Egypt to Jesus is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of Jesus' pre-existence and his work in the Old Testament. This also follows seamlessly in context as Jude has mentioned Jesus Christ as Master and Lord in the previous verse. He is clearly the one in view as Savior and Judge in this verse. And the fact that Jude would bring Jesus into view in relation to this Old Testament context serves to remind his readers about the character of their Lord. They are to know that Jesus is concerned about more than mere outward identification with the people of God, as was the case with unbelieving Israelites saved from Egypt.

Rather, he is concerned about the genuine faith of those whom he came to save, for his salvation reaches to the very hearts of his people." End quote. And So we have texts like that, which if we wanted to, we can make memes and things like that and say, well here this one is far superior than your favorite translation, but we don't do that. And to my knowledge, so far nobody has done that. I'm sure somewhere there might be a fringe group out there that's doing that sort of thing, but Before we get into the text here, and I'm going to preach the text, but I wanted to address the elephant in the room, so to speak. Bottom line is, I was big in this sort of thing, in this translation tribalism, and I'm tired of it.

Tired of it. The Bible is a sword. And whether it's the sword, the sword of the spirit, whether you're carrying around a King James or a new King James or English Standard Version or NASB or LSB, whatever you've got. Faithful translation. There's many good swords out there.

It's not meant to be picked up and lifted against your lifted against your mothers and sisters who use a different one than you do. Even in a text like 1 John chapter 5. The reality is this, and we can rejoice. There was no grand conspiracy to remove the Trinity from the Word of God. Nobody in this room, nobody in this room who holds to a modern Bible version is Unitarian.

Nobody has gone into some heresy because we read 1 John chapter 5 and didn't find what was written in the King James here in this text. Here in this text. We can rejoice that God's Word has been preserved, regardless of which Bible version you've got in your lap. Not only is the Trinity still here in the Scriptures, but we can rejoice also that we have a great embarrassment of riches in this land. That God's Word has not only been preserved, but we have so many different translations when there's still places in this world who don't have the Bible in their language.

And so let's use the Bible the way it's intended to be used and understand the enemy is not your brother and sister. The enemy is not someone who's a little bit different than you. The enemy is not the Bible translation that reads a little bit different. There is an enemy and we are We are at war, that's for sure. Let's make sure we're fighting the right fight.

May God add a blessing to the preaching of his word.