Good afternoon,

Concerning the JFB commentary you cite on this verse, there is another source that is of greater weight in support of the 1Jn 5:7 verse and that is Cyprian in his first treatise, Unity of the Church, article 6:

“6. … He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (from Ante- Nicene Fathers, Volume 5, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright© 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)”

We know that he lived during the late second and early third centuries (200-258). Taking this into consideration it begs the question why he would quote such a verse if it were not handed down to him from first or second century witnesses. We know also that he studied under Tertullian who was born in 160 and converted between 190 and 200.

We also know “The precise year it is impossible to determine; but it was probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and perhaps about the year 68 or 69 A. D., though some think not before 80 A. D.”  (from Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright© 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Again this is not that far removed from the dates of Tertullian’s or Cyprian’s writings.

Barne’s notes commentary:

“I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in NO Greek manuscript written before the 16 th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age- one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in ALL the early Greek manuscripts.

II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.  (from Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database Copyright© 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)”

It is interesting to me that in this commentary, as well as the JFB, there is no mention of Cyprian quoting this passage in dispute even though it occurred in the late second or early third century. This again begs the question that even though it may be wanting in many MSS, why was a third century writer quoting it? I realize there is no way to verify this, but his statement suggests that it is reasonable to believe that before the 2nd century the trinity was being taught. Now obviously one can assume that this would have been heresy, but then there is nothing in history to suggest that Cyprian was seen as a heretic.

What are your thoughts? I go back and forth on the entire subject of a triune God, and to be honest the statement by Cyprian is rather convincing evidence pointing to an early teaching on the trinity at least at the end of the first century which is not that far removed from the writings of John.

R____,

PS. I have enjoyed the teachings I have read on your site.

Hi R____,

Thank you for pointing this out. It is a quote of which I was unaware.

Nevertheless, “the sum of [ God’s] word” demonstrates that the “Godhead” is to be “understood by the things that are made”.

Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever. (ASV)

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We are not left to guess which “things that are made” reveal to us who is “the head of Christ”. We are told who is the “head” of whom in the “Godhead”:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God [“the Father” 1Co 8:6].

Right there in 1Co 11:3, as throughout the New Testament, only Christ and His Father are mentioned, and what the scriptures call “the holy spirit of God” is not mentioned, simply because it was never even considered to be a personality. Notice how the scriptures demonstrate the apostles used that phrase “the holy spirit”, or in the Greek “the hagios pneuma”:

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

It is not Christ who IS the holy spirit. Rather what the scriptures do reveal is that God has given “all things that [He] has” to Christ, and Christ in turn is now empowered to give His Father’s spirit to a select few, and by “the holy spirit of God”, Christ can now dwell in all those who are given to Him of His Father.

Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Again, notice there is no mention of the holy spirit as a person when our Lord refers to His “head”:

Joh 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine [ including the Father’s “hagios pneuma”]: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

So what are we to make of that very early reference to 1Jn 5:7 by Cyprian in the late second and early third century? Here is what that indicates:

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

So the apostates who would lead the church into apostasy are clearly shown to have been right there among the very “elders of Ephesus” and in “all they in Asia”, before the apostles died and while they were yet ministering to the churches. Consider these verses of scripture:

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

“Asia” is where Paul spent the bulk of his time, and where he received the bulk of his persecution. It happens to be the same area which as a type of the entire Babylonian, orthodox Christian church, the book of Revelation is addressed:

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

The apostle Peter knew what was taking place in the church, and it provoked him to write this to the same people who were “wrest[ ing]” the words of the apostle Paul before the apostles had even died, much less “the late second and early third centuries” when Cyprian was quoting those who had already “wrested” the Word of God concerning what is the nature of the “Godhead”:

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

John wrote the book of Revelation to the very people who had him put on the Isle of Patmos, and this is what he reveals about those people and what was already done in the church before he was ever sent to Patmos:

3Jn 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jn 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

Diotrephes could not cast out those John had sent to the church if the church had not been behind Diotrephes.

“All they which are in Asia” had forsaken Paul. Peter tells us that those in the churches he was addressing were “wresting… the… scriptures”, and John tells us that he was not received by the church, and those he sent were “cast out of the church”. So the apostasy of the church was an accomplished fact before the apostles were even dead. How much more apostatized, wrested and corrupted had the church become by the time of Cyprian who “lived in the late second and early third centuries”? Old manuscripts do not equate to uncorrupted manuscripts. The fact is that the oldest manuscripts are some of the most corrupt. A much better and more Biblical way of deciding which manuscripts are most reliable is to go to “the sum of thy Word”, and when we use that method, we must most definitely confess that Mat 28:19 is not in the majority of the manuscripts, and neither Isa 1Jn 5:7.

For in depth proof of those statements read these links:

Can A Lie In The Translation Be Weeded Out?

Spurious Verses In KJV

So again I want to thank you for bringing this early quote from Cyprian to my attention. I hope you will continue to “enjoy what you are reading on [the] site”, and I hope that after reading all of this with a desire only to know the Truth, that you will understand why I am not surprised to find that “before the 2nd century the trinity was being taught”. Neither am I the least bit surprised to discover that Cyprian was quoting an already corrupted text as early as “the late second and the beginning of the third century”. The church had, in the words of the scriptures themselves “all… forsaken, wrested the scriptures, and cast out of the church” those who were faithful to the apostles teachings over a century earlier.

Your brother in Christ,

Mike