The Internal Witness
There is also another witness that we mustn’t ignore. This witness is the internal evidence. As
for internal witness over the disputed comma, we appeal to syntax. Syntax demands the 7th verse
of the 5th chapter of John. If we are to make any sense of the 8th verse, that men have without
question retained, then the 7th verse must be accepted. For if the 7th verse is omitted, how then are
we to explain the masculine adjectives τρεις, and οι, as well as the masculine participle
μαρτυρουντες in regard to the neuter nouns that follow, the spirit, the water and the blood?
There is no agreement between them. In ignoring this problem one would have to ignore the
violation of elementary Greek grammar.
The masculine adjective “three”, and the masculine participle “witness or testify” in verse 8, must
refer to the masculine the Father and the Word and the Spirit of the previous passage. Although
“the Spirit” is neuter in the above passage, the masculine nouns Father and Word demand the
masculine including the Spirit simply by the force of attraction. These then that bear witness in
verse 8 refer to the antecedent of the 7th verse. Thus the Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit
bear testimony to the spirit and water and the blood. Otherwise the passage makes no sense.
8Gregory of Nazianzus was one of the first to set forth this argument in 385 AD. In his
Theological Oratations, his 5th on the Holy Spirit wrote, “What about John then, when in his
Catholic Epistle he says that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water, and the
Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he ventures to reckon, under one
numeral, things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the
case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial?
Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for
after using three in the masculine gender he added there words which are neuter, contrary to the
definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the
difference between putting the masculine three first, and then adding one and one and one in the
neuter, or after a masculine? One and one and one to use the three not in the masculine but in
the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity.”
Gregory’s argument is based solely upon syntax. He is simply saying that one can not mix the
neuter with the masculine. Instead of using the words neuter and masculine he uses the terms
consubstantial and non-consubtantial. In doing so he is demanding the acceptance of the
Trinitarian witness. The testimony of the three witnesses can not be rejected because of the
8 6The Post Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, (Grand Rapids: Erdmans 1978 7:233-234;
grammatical construction. It strongly demands it. There is no way that one can mix the neuter
with the masculine and make sense of the passage. Neither should we think that this passage is
an ellipsis. That is, the Trinitarian witness is to be understood because of the construction of the
verse 8. It is far more reasonable to accept the Father, the Word and the Spirit as supplied in
verse 7 than to ignore them.
Almost 1500 years later Gregory’s argum