Change of Doctrine For Romans 8: 1 In the Recent English

[tulsa 2011]

A Change of Doctrine For Romans 8: 1 In the Recent English Versions

"There is then no damnation to them which are in Christ Jesu, which walk not after the flesh: but after the spirit. " Tyndale Bible, Romans 8: 1

" Now then there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Geneva Bible, Romans 8: 1

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." King James Version, Romans 8: 1

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." New Revised Standard Version

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," New International Version

What happened to "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?"

The Westcott-Hort Greek is the problem. It says "ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου." "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." But the Textus Receptus says "ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα." μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα, not according to the flesh (sarka), but according to the Spirit (pneuma) is left out. Westcott and Hort claimed that the shorter verse wordings are the best because they are older.

This is a change in a doctrine in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. Yet the church Christians conditioned to prefer the new Bible versions will argue that the new versions are right and the King James is wrong. To omit "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is a change in doctrine. It might be argued that saying there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus implies that those not condemned do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. But Isaiah 28: 10 says "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" Those who want to learn the truth but do not yet have the spiritual ability to see clearly the implications of a scripture and its connections to other scriptures need to be taught according to Isaiah 28: 10. To reduce doctrines down and omit important parts of a teaching makes it harder to learn those doctrines.

 

[Davy]

Hi tulsa 2011.

This confusion surrounding Roman 8:1 is explained by Adam Clarke's Commentary, as coming from a spurious addition to this verse by much later manuscripts. The statement "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is not in any older manuscripts. Therefore, it does not belong in the bible text, as it was an addition made by man. Adam Clark's Commentary goes no to state:- It is a fairly assumed point, that those who are in Christ Jesus, who believe in his name, have redemption in his blood; are made partakers of his Spirit, and have the mind in them that was in him; will not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit... Therefore, this thought is included, whether it be expressed or not, but it was probably added to make this thought more obvious... It is most likely that it was inserted here from the fourth verse. Which says: "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:4, NASB)

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, goes on to add, this quote from Romans 8:4, was probably added as an explanatory comment, and to make the transition to Romans 8:2 easier. No matter what their intentions were, it is still adding to God's Word which carries a serious penalty. (Revelation 22:18)

 

[tulsa 2011]

http://www.studylight.org/com/<wbr>acc/view.cgi?bk=ro&ch=8#1

Adam Clarke Commentary
Romans 8: 1:

" walks not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit.
This last clause is wanting in the principal MSS., versions, and fathers. Griesbach has excluded it from the text; and Dr. White says, Certissime delenda; it should most undoubtedly be expunged."

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/<wbr>holland_ro8_1.html

"The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission.
Romans 8:1 - "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

"The Greek phrase me kata sarka peripatousin alla kata penuma (who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit) is supported by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Among them are 33, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241, 1877, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2492, and 2495. These date from the eleventh to the fifteenth century. The phrase is also included in Codex K (ninth century), Codex P (ninth century), and stands in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus. This is also the reading of the majority of Greek lectionaries. Early versions that contain the phrase include some Old Latin manuscripts (such as ar and o), the Syriac Harclean version, and the Georgian version. Another textual variant that contains part of the phrase reads me kata sarka peripatousin (who walk not after the flesh). This is the reading found in Codex A, Codex D06, Codex, Y, and several minuscules (such as 81, 256, 263, 365, 629, 1319, 1573, 1852, and 2127). It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate (fourth century [1] ), and the Old Syriac Peshitta. The reading in part or in whole has massive and ancient textual support.

The whole verse is cited, with the phrase in question, by Theodoret (466 AD), Ps-Oecumenius (tenth century), and Theophylact (1077 AD). We also have partial citation of the verse by Basil (379 AD). He writes:

And after he has developed more fully the idea that it is impossible for one who is in the power of sin to serve the Lord, he plainly states who it is that redeems us from such a tyrannical dominion in the words: "Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord." Further on, he adds: "There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh." [2]

When the phrase is not included it creates a possible doctrinal error. To say there is no condemnation of any kind to all who are in Christ Jesus is to overlook the whole of Scripture. We are told that it is very possible for those who are in Christ to suffer some condemnation, albeit not eternal condemnation. The Christian who walks after the flesh instead of the leading of the Spirit produces works of wood, hay and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12). Everyone's works will be tried so as by fire. Fleshly works will be burned and spiritual works will endure. We are told, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:15). Therefore, worldly Christians face a certain amount of condemnation.

We must remember that the word condemnation not only carries the meaning of judgment, but also of disapproval. [3] John informs his "little children" that the heart of the believer is able to pass such condemnation or disapproval on our Christian living (1 John 3:20-21). Not only is there a judgment for believers who stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:12-15; 2 Corinthians 5:9-10), but there can also be a judgment on believers that may cost them their lives if they continue in sin (Acts 5:1-10; 1 John 5:16). Biblically speaking, there is condemnation for believers who walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit. Consequently, the phrase at the end of Romans 8:1 is theologically sound. "

My comments: What the Tyndale, Geneva and King James versions all say for Romans 8: 1 is that those in Christ, who are not in the flesh, that is, they are not totally dominated by the flesh and its love of relationships rather than truth, but are in the Spirit, that is, led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, are not condemned. Or, as the Tyndale Bible says, for them there is no damnation.

Romans 8: 1 says that three things are involved in not being under condemnation, (1) being in Christ, (2) not being in the flesh, and (3) being led by the Holy Spirit. A statement saying that all three of these things must occur before a person is saved, that is, not condemned, can be harder to spin by the false prophets to teach a very easy salvation. Just saying those in Christ are not under condemnation and leaving out not being in the flesh and not being led by the Spirit can make it easier for the false prophets to spin this statement into a doctrine of easy salvation.

With an easy salvation doctrine which does not acknowledge the whole counsel of God (Acts 20: 27), it is easier to claim to be in Christ while rejecting basic and clear doctrines of Christ. For example, Christ in John 10: 16 says "...and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." There are also some texts in which Paul says there is one Body of Christ, or one saved group, one group of the elect (see: I Corinthians 10: 17, I Corinthians 12: 12, Galatians 3: 28,especially, and Ephesians 2: 15, as well as Ephesians 4: 4. To believe that God now has two peoples, as dispensationalism teaches, physical Israel and the church, is to reject a basic and clear part of the Gospel, making the doctrine that God now has two saved peoples, two groups of the elect, and two chosen peoples, or really in dispensationalism two groups but one chosen people another another Gospel (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6-9) and professing another Jesus..

To believe in a doctrine that is clearly contradicted by scripture, and then to claim to be in Christ can be evidence that the person professing this is not really in Christ. Maybe the same person would also claim not to be in the flesh, but to be led by the Holy Spirit also. But to those who know scripture better and have some love of the truth, adding the condition of not being totally in the flesh and being led by the Spirit can help these people come to the knowledge of the truth and come out of their doctrines that contradict scripture.

But Adam Clarke does not say which Greek manuscripts do not contain the phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." And the quote from Thomas Holland above tells us which manuscripts have the phrase, but not which ones do not have it. I would think that the vast majority of Byzantine Greek manuscripts have the phrase, and that the few Greek manuscripts associated with Alexandria, Egypt omit the phrase. Westcott-Hort omitted it in their 1881 Greek text and probably got this omission from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But Adam Clarke wrote his commentary before Westcott and Hort published in 1881 their Greek text and arguments for it as opposed to the Textus Receptus.



[TABLE="class: cf FVrZGe"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: amq"][/TD]
[TD="class: amr"][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[tulsa 2011]

Here is more on the question of which Greek manuscripts have and do not have the phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

King James Bible, manuscript evidence

"
The Greek phrase, "uh kata sarka peripatousin alla kata pneuma" (who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.) is supported by a number of minuscules. Among them are 33, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241, 1877, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2492, and 2495. These date from the eleventh to the fifteenth century. In fact, according to the United Bible Societies Greek Text, among the minuscule witness, only minuscules 1739 (tenth century) and 1881 (fourteenth century) support the reading which omits the phrase. The standard Alexandrian uncials also omit the phrase from verse one. But it is included in Codex K (ninth century), Codex P (ninth century), and stands in the corrected margin of both Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Claromontanus (sixth century). Also, it is included in the Latin Vulgate (fourth century), "nihil ergo nunc damnationis est his qui sunt in christo iesu qui non secundum carnem ambulant", and the Old Syriac Peshitto (second century). The whole verse is cited, with the phrase in question, by Theodoret (466 AD), Ps-Oecumenius (tenth century), and Theophylact (1077 AD). We also have partial citation of the verse by Basil (379 AD). He writes,
And after he has developed more fully the idea that it is impossible for one who is in the power of sin to serve the Lord, he plainly states who it is that redeems us from such a tyrannical dominion in the words: "Unhapply man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord." Further on, he adds: "There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh." (Staint Basil, "Concerning Baptism," in The Fathers Of The Church: Saint Basil Ascetical Works, "trans." Sister M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9 [New York: Fathers Of The Church, Inc., 1950], 343.)"

 

[Ophel]

There is no change in doctrine. It is a manuscript difference only.

 

[tulsa 2011]

A Change of Doctrine For Romans 8: 1 In the Recent English Versions

"There is then no damnation to them which are in Christ Jesu, which walk not after the flesh: but after the spirit. " Tyndale Bible, Romans 8: 1

" Now then there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Geneva Bible, Romans 8: 1

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." King James Version, Romans 8: 1

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." New Revised Standard Version

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," New International Version

What happened to "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?"

The Westcott-Hort Greek is the problem. It says "ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου." "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." But the Textus Receptus says "ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα." μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα, not according to the flesh (sarka), but according to the Spirit (pneuma) is left out. Westcott and Hort claimed that the shorter verse wordings are the best because they are older.

This is a change in a doctrine in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. Yet the church Christians conditioned to prefer the new Bible versions will argue that the new versions are right and the King James is wrong.

Adam Clarke says of Romans 8: 1 that "This last clause is wanting in the principal MSS., versions, and fathers. Griesbach has excluded it from the text; and Dr. White says, Certissime delenda; it should most undoubtedly be expunged." What are the "principal manuscripts" according to Griesbach? "Dr" C. I. Scofield would call these "principal manuscripts" the "best" manuscripts.

Most likely Griesbach means that the "principal manuscripts" are the oldest Greek manuscripts. Westcott and Hort said that the Greek texts associated with Alexandria, Egypt, mostly the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are the "best" manuscripts.

But Westcott and Hort wrote in 1881, which was 212 years ago. The issue of whether the verses or parts of verses that are missing from the new Bible versions - and from the Westcott-Hort Greek text - were added to the Textus Receptus, or the "best" or "principal" Greek texts left them out depends on some honest scholarship. Griesbach (1745-1812) and 19th century textual criticism goes back even farther than Westcott and Hort, and what 19th century textual criticism called the "best" Greek texts because they were the oldest may not be true by scholarship done in the last 200 years.

John Burgon (1813-1888) was another 19th century man who opposed the idea of the textual critics like Griesbach and Westcott-Hort that the Bible can be assumed to be like any other old book and studied as such. Burgon emphasized the supernatural inspiration of the exact wording of scripture.

See http://www.uv.es/~fores/<wbr>programa/majorityvscritical.<wbr>html

"Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt
where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries."
Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate
in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any
papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)."

The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early
papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this
text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as
mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings."

See http://www.bibleviews.com/<wbr>authority-6.html

"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after
Westcott and Hort's time."

"The papyri discovered since the 1890's are the Oxyrhynchus papyri in
1896ff., Chester Beatty papyri in 1930-31, and Bodmer papyri in
1956ff. They represent a 600 percent increase,[86] and 31 are pre-300
a.d.[87] The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75--these are equivalent to one-third B text and represent every New
Testament book except 1 and 2 Timothy)[88] represent a several
thousand percent increase as far as their importance."

"The finding of many early papyri New Testament texts in the twentieth
century has shown that the Byzantine, the text behind the Textus
Receptus, has very early support."

"Zuntz also found P46 to be a witness to the existence of Byzantine
readings in the second century."

That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse
wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This
does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably
originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times.

"Zuntz concludes his study of the epistle's text by stating that after
around 150 b.c. the oldest papyri "rather suddenly . . . give a text
which substantially agrees with that of the extant Byzantine
manuscripts."[95] Thus Zuntz acknowledges that the Byzantine readings
"are far older than the manuscripts which attest them."

http://textus-receptus.com/<wbr>wiki/Romans_8:1

"In Romans 8:1, the vast majority of Greek texts, including Sinaiticus correction, D correction, some Old Latin copies like ar and o, the Syriac Harkelian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions, support the KJV/TR reading. "

"However Sinaiticus original, and Vaticanus omit all these words..." And Westcott and Hort got their shorter wording of Romans 8: 1 from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

"So it is missing in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. In the footnotes of the United Bible Societies fourth revised edition, the names of Marcion and Origen appear as those who are the ones responsible for removing the above part of this verse. It is interesting to note that a fifth century (maybe earlier in date) manuscript entitled Alexandrinus (A) contains the removed portion, yet the modern scholars of today have chosen to leave it omitted since it does not appear in the two "crowning manuscripts" of modern scholarship. "

http://www.scionofzion.com/<wbr>romans_8_1.htm

"Corrupt Manuscripts
This verse is corrupted in the following manuscripts:
Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus - Fourth century (original)
B 03 - Vaticanus - Fourth century
C 04 - Ephraemi Rescriptus - Fifth century (original)
D 06 - Paris: Claromontanus - Sixth century (original)

Manuscripts which agree with the Textus Receptus for this verse
Byzantine Text (450-1450 A.D.)
Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus - Fourth century (corrected)
D 06 - Paris: Claromontanus - Sixth century (corrected)
K 018 - Ninth century
L 020 - Ninth century
P 025 - Ninth century
33 (Minuscule) - Ninth Century

Published Critical Greek Texts with Corruptions
Omit “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Greisbach, Johann - 1805
Lachmann, Karl - 1842
Tischendorf, Constantine - 1869
Tregelles, Samuel - 1857
Alford, Henry - 1849 revised in 1871
Wordsworth, Christopher - 1856 revised in 1870
Westcott and Hort - 1881
Weiss, Bernhard - 1894
Nestle - 1927 as revised in seventeenth edition in 1941
Nestle-Aland - 1979 - Twenty Sixth Edition
Nestle-Aland - 1993 - Twenty Seventh Edition
United Bible Societies - 1983 - Fourth Edition
Von Soden, Freiherr - 1902"

"The Roman Catholic institution would love nothing more than to leave out that portion because if a person is walking according to the Spirit, it means they are saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. If a person is walking after the flesh, it means they are unsaved but it also means they are able to be brought under the bondage of works gospels, such as Roman Catholicism, who keep their adherents fastened to a system of rituals and works. A person who is in the flesh, will continue to work for their salvation according to the dictates of their church or institution. They may work for it, but will never attain it.

(Rom 8:4 KJV) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The fulfillment of God’s righteous law comes by being indwelled with the Holy Spirit through salvation. Christ fulfilled the requirements of God’s Holy Law for all His people. So those who are walking in the Spirit through salvation have also, in Christ, fulfilled the demands of God’s Holy Law. To remove that part of Scripture gives a person, who is involved with false gospels a false assurance that just because they are doing religious works, they are in Christ Jesus. This is one of the grave dangers of tampering with the Word of God because those who use these versions do not have the entire Word which means they are being deceived by a corrupted version. God gave every word in the Bible for a purpose and for someone to remove anything is to endanger the eternal souls of people.
By removing that part of verse one, it conveys to those working for salvation that they are not under condemnation. Every person who is not born again is under the wrath of God. No human being can work themselves out from under the wrath of God."

This argument over whether "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" was removed from the Greek Alexandarian texts, or whether it was added by the Byzantine texts underlying the Textus Receptus can go on and on. But honest scholarship done since Westcott and Hort wrote 212 years ago supports the wording of Romans 8: 1 by the 1526 Tyndale, 1587 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV.

John Burgon rather than Johann Jakob Griesbach and Westcott-Hort is the guy who earnestly contends for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1: 3).

 

[Ophel]

There is no change of doctrine in scripture in that passage. It is a mere difference in manuscripts. The meaning of the verse is not twisted or manipulated. This whole premise of 'change of doctrine' is devised to cause a person to DOUBT that the scriptures are not the truth.

 

[clark thompson]

No translation is perfect this why I use many.