In doing some reading while revising my commentary on Romans (I’m up to chapter 8 now), I came across this whopper from the sermons of Charles Spurgeon, on Romans 8:1b:
““who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” You who have the Revised New Testament will kindly look at it. Do you see this
sentence there? To your surprise it is omitted and very rightly so. The most learned men assure us that it is no part of the original text. I cannot, just now, go into the reasons for this conclusion, but they are very good and solid. The oldest copies are without it—the versions do not sustain it and the fathers who quoted abundance of Scripture do not quote this sentence! We must admit that it is an opinion inserted in later copies by some penman who was wise enough, in his own conceit, to think that he could mend the Bible!
Do you ask me, “How did it get into the text?” Remember that there always have been many divines who have been afraid of the Doctrine of free Justification. They have been half afraid that sinners should get comfort by faith and should not see the necessity of a change of life. They have questioned the wisdom of ascribing salvation wholly to a man’s being in Christ and so they have guarded the more open passages whenever they have seen a chance of so doing. In so doing they stated Truth, but they stated it out of season and from motives which were unsound. Probably the sentence now before us was put in and allowed to remain, by general consent, in order that the great Truth of the non-condemnation of those who are in Christ Jesus might be guarded from that Antinomian tendency which would separate faith from good works. But the fear was groundless and the tampering with Scripture was unjustifiable. We are greatly obliged to our revisers for leaving out the sentence, since it should not be there and, without it, the Doctrine of Justification in Christ is made more clear than in the Authorized Version. In the last chapter of the Book of Revelation, service of the same kind is most properly rendered, for instead of, “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of Life,” the Revisers have given us a more accurate text—“Blessed are they that wash their robes.” In these two cases we have proof that the more nearly the text of Scripture is restored to its original purity, the more clearly will the doctrines of Grace be set forth in it. The more we get back to true Scripture, the more shall we escape all interference with the complete and perfect salvation which comes of our being in Christ. We are not justified by the manner of our walk, but by our being in Christ Jesus!” (sermon number 1917).
This passage contains so many errors that it is hard to know where to begin, but begin we must if we wish to be zealous for truth.
1. “The most learned men assure us that it is no part of the original text.” This is wrong. John Burgon, who was, without a doubt, very learned, argued for the text to remain unchanged. Why did Spurgeon ignore Burgon’s work? As the years have worn on, other “learned men” have demonstrated that the King James rendering is accurate and any version that omits the last part of 8:1 is greatly flawed.
2. What is this worship of scholarship that Spurgeon (and others like him, such as Oliver Greene or John R. Rice) suffered from? Some “great scholar” said a thing and these men swallowed it hook, line and sinker without searching it out. Great men are not always wise and are as wrong as often as are other men.
3. Spurgeon was not a textual critic, so it was dangerous for him to simply take the word of the so-called Greek scholars who attacked this verse and Revelation 22:14. What if they were wrong? If Spurgeon could not independently verify the textual notes on Romans 8:1 or Revelation 22:14, then he should have said nothing at all, for safety’s sake, and for the sake of his congregation.
4. “The oldest copies are without it—the versions do not sustain it and the fathers who quoted abundance of Scripture do not quote this sentence! We must admit that it is an opinion inserted in later copies by some penman who was wise enough, in his own conceit, to think that he could mend the Bible!” This is wrong. The manuscript evidence for these six words are:
1- Textus Receptus
2. The following uncials: Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Codex Athous Laurae
3. The following minuscules: 81, 629, 2127
4. The following Old Latin manuscripts: Demidovianus, Augiensis, Speculum, Bodleianus, Harleianus-Londiniensis
5. The following versions: Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Gothic, Armenian
6. The following Church Fathers: Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Ephraem, Basil, Chrysostom
So how could Spurgeon claim that no church fathers supported the traditional reading? And what of the ancient versions listed above? How could Spurgeon claim that no versions supported the traditional reading?
5. “We must admit that it is an opinion inserted in later copies by some penman who was wise enough, in his own conceit, to think that he could mend the Bible!” Spurgeon is being hypocritical here, as he is doing EXACTLY the same thing, inserting his opinions and the opinions of the “scholars” against the KJV translators, who, after reviewing the text a minimum of 15 seperate times, included the passage.
6. But Spurgeon then throws a bone to the defenders of the AV at the end of his tirade, by admitting that for clarity’s sake, there is no real harm in retaining the reading. But he cannot have it both ways. Either the reading is accurate and should be retained or it is in error and must be purged. You can’t play both sides of the fence, as he attempts to do here.
More can be said but this will suffice. What is the lesson here? Greek scholarship has been wrong more than it has been right in cases like this. There is ample and sufficient evidence for ALL traditional text readings. But we must also beware of making scholarship into an idol. Simply because some “scholar” makes a claim means nothing. He is to be examined and proofread as no man is infallible.
It is greatly disappointing to see Spurgeon when he makes attacks on the traditional readings like this. In reality, Spurgeon was no real friend of the King James Version as he attacks it often. It makes us wonder why he was styled as the “Last of the Puritans” when he often went out of his way to attack Puritan-era Bible translations, such as the King James? He was more of a modernist in this regard.
It is also sad to see people adopt a similar position for no other reason than because “Spurgeon taught it”. Many Baptists make an idol of Spurgeon, as many do of Calvin or John R. Rice or some other man of the past. This man-worship has caused great damage in the church and is a sin which we MUST separate ourselves from. As always, our final court of appeal must be “What saith the Scriptures”, not “What saith (insert your favorite preacher here).”
Posted by pilgrimway 
