# Colossians 1:14



## JM (Jan 16, 2008)

In whom we have redemption *through his blood*, even the forgiveness of sins: AV

"through his blood," is it in or out of the Bible and which MSS is it found in?

Comments from Dr. White:

YouTube - A Kind Post Card from San Antonio


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 16, 2008)

As you probably know, there is evidence for Ephesians being a circular letter, in which it would have been shared with Colossae and Laodicea and the other churches in that area. Perhaps someone at Colossae, (or somewhere else for that matter), who had both letters at some later date, compared them and inserted the phrase in the margin somewhere in the Colossian letter. Later on, someone might have thought it to be original to the text. Just some speculation.

Blessings!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 16, 2008)

That was good. Very well explained.


----------



## MW (Jan 16, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Just some speculation.



Speculation it is!


----------



## JM (Jan 16, 2008)

Rev. Winzer, I've enjoyed your responses so far and have learned much. You wrote in another post some time ago [I keep track], _"...“the confessing church declares what books she believes are of divine inspiration and form the rule of faith and life (WCF 1:2). This includes the gospel of Mark, that is, the complete text of the gospel of Mark as preserved by the singular care and providence of God. To maintain that the gospel of Mark has been corrupted is to exercise a magisterium over the text and to contradict the reformed confessional belief that it is authoritative in and of itself.”_

Would you apply this argument to Col. 1:14?

Robert Shaw in his exposition of the WCF wrote, _"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."_

Are we still moved by the testimony of the Church that "through his blood" should be in Col. 1:14?

Thanks.

j


----------



## MW (Jan 16, 2008)

JM said:


> Rev. Winzer, I've enjoyed your responses so far and have learned much. You wrote in another post some time ago [I keep track], _"...“the confessing church declares what books she believes are of divine inspiration and form the rule of faith and life (WCF 1:2). This includes the gospel of Mark, that is, the complete text of the gospel of Mark as preserved by the singular care and providence of God. To maintain that the gospel of Mark has been corrupted is to exercise a magisterium over the text and to contradict the reformed confessional belief that it is authoritative in and of itself.”_
> 
> Would you apply this argument to Col. 1:14?



Yes. We have no sound reason to call into question the text of Scripture received by the church. All speculation as to how a reading might have found its way into the traditional text can be easily inverted to provide a plausible argument as to how the reading might have been omitted from other texts. So in this case, one could speculate that a scribe might have indicated "dia tou haimatos autou" occurred elsewhere, and a later scribe subsequently took this to mean it was doubtful, or even decided repetition was needless and so omitted it. We don't know; but God knows! We must trust that He has faithfully preserved His word of truth through the ages in order that the church might stand on an unmoveable foundation. Man's unfaithfulness with the words of Scripture does not make the faith of God of none effect. It's preposterous to think that God, after committing His revelation unto writing in order to counteract the possibility of corruption (WCF 1:1), may subsequently have permitted that written revelation to be corrupted so that the church was left in confusion as to what it is God has said. Me genoito!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 17, 2008)

That was an interesting (and irenic!) presentation of the data by Dr. White. A few comments by me:

Kevin James, in his excellent book, _The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship_ (Micro-Load Press 1990; ISBN: 0962442003), has a brief section on Col 1:14. He says,

Some manuscripts and the modern versions omit “through his blood.” This is a supposed addition made to harmonize 1:14 with Ephesians 1:7 where the same words appear. Because there is no law that says Paul cannot repeat himself in a letter to a different destination, it could also be an erroneous omission.

The King James finds support from 76, 221, and 1611, some Latin Vulgates, one Syriac version, and the early Christian writer Irenaeus. Manuscripts 222, 440, and 0142, Aleph and codex B, and some Latin Vulgates omit the words. (pp. 224, 225)​
When I checked the reference to Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] (in _Against Heresies_, Book V, Chap. II, 2), the epistle the verse was cited from wasn’t noted by Irenaeus, though I assume the editor’s footnote citing Col 1:14 was due to Colossians having [size=+1]amartiwn[/size] _sins_ (as written by Irenaeus) instead of Ephesians’ [size=+1]paraptwmatwn[/size] _trespasses_. (I don’t have Irenaeus’ work in Greek.)

I note that the OPC’s _The Confession of Faith and Catechisms_ (2005), in the LC 97 footnote w, Col 1:12-14 is cited as per the AV.

Dr. Thomas Holland, in his excellent _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, p. 219, asks the questions, 



> First, why would the phrase be found in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and not in his letter to the Colossians? Second, how is it possible to have redemption without divine payment for that redemption? Clearly the phrase should remain in regard to this doctrine. The Greek manuscripts are evenly divided as to its inclusion or omission. This can be demonstrated with the two editions of the Majority Text.*
> 
> Footnote:
> 
> *Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, eds., _The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 605. The critical apparatus of this edition of the Majority Text shows that the phrase, _dia tou aimatos autou_ (through his blood) is found in about half of the Byzantine manuscripts consulted. However, the phrase is found in the Greek text of _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, (Original Word Publishers, 1991) by Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont, and William David McBrayer. Therefore, it is more likely to be the majority reading and should be maintained in the text.



In Robinson & Pierpont’s work, the phrase in question is in brackets. But these are not like the brackets of the modern versions! This is what they say (pp. xlix, l): 



> From time to time certain works will be found enclosed in square brackets [ ]. This indicates that at such a point the Byzantine/Majority manuscripts (or, in the Revelation, the A[size=+1]n[/size] and _Q_ texts) are divided, and it is questionable whether the words in brackets should or should not be considered part of the autograph text…[footnote: …Almost all bracketed readings from Matthew-Jude, however, fall into the category of nearly equally-divided support (60% or less for the main text).



In post #1 of the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/ thread, when responding to Kurschner’s reason number 1, I discuss why the “Majority Text” is not necessarily the true majority, seeing as most of the Byzantine-type manuscripts have been suppressed prejudicially and the _real_ majority is not known.

An internal consideration of great importance, one that Dr. Holland touched on above: note the verse in both AV and MV (modern versions):

AV: In whom we have redemption through his blood, _even_ the forgiveness of sins [‘even’ supplied by AV translators]

MV: In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins

Redemption is not the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins results from redemption, which is the redeeming/purchasing of our souls by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; 1Pet 1:18, 19; Eph 1:14, etc). There is an empty space in the MV’s meaning.

---------

Jason,

I hope this answers your question. Or at least brings a balance to the scale, for better discernment. If you keep listening to CT/ET advocates – such as Dr. White – you will continually be seeking to discern what is the truth behind the literally _hundreds_ – no *thousands!* – of variant readings, and it will never end.

As for myself, I really can’t be coming to the defense of these hundreds and thousands of problem areas the CT introduces into our Bibles, as I have souls and lives to take care of, some of which are in real danger. In some of my fuller threads (Answering Alan Kurschner, What is the authentic New Testament text?, etc) I give lists of books and articles (a good number of them available online) which help the serious inquirer to find a paradigm which explains the disparities of views and enables one to come to an intelligent understanding – and defense of – the Bible God preserved for His people. I have sought to cover a multitude of bases, and to give a wide regimen of pertinent readings.

In a school situation (I realize this is not such), a teacher is not expected to do all the legwork for his students, but to primarily open doors / vistas and show those desirous to learn how to continue learning and what are fruitful directions to take.

I much appreciate your hunger to know, and sympathize with your perplexity at contradictory statements regarding that most precious of possessions: the word of our Savior and God. At some point you are going to have to come to a place of decision, for we must take a stand or be tossed about in the winds of deceit and confusion – both sides of this contest (and there are basically only two) cannot be right, at least one has to be false.

A list of books can be found here: http://www.puritanboard.com/313024-post29.html

A book not on that list is Jack Moorman’s, _Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence_ (also titled _When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”_, and is available from Bible for Today. This book deals with the TR–Majority Text differences – an excellent resource.

I have told the Lord that when it comes to caring for souls or writing (such as here), the former will be my priority. I will be praying that you come to clarity on these things that so interest you.

Steve


----------



## JM (Jan 17, 2008)

Rev. Winzer, Mr. Rafalsky...

Since both of you good men have started posting in the Translation and MSS forum I feel God has used you to restore my confidence in the Bible. I used the AV and had before reading your posts but lacked the confidence to stand up for it. I'll continue to read and learn from your posts.

Thank you.

jason


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 17, 2008)

Dear Jason,

I noticed that Mr. White or someone has removed this video from YouTube.com, so I haven't been able to watch it as it says, "We're sorry, this video is no longer available." I cannot comment on Mr. White was saying, but here is some Scriptural admonition for your edification consistent with your question about this verse.

The Apostle Paul instructs us that:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, *and is profitable for doctrine*, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfectly, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I would like to emphasize the first mandate, Scripture is profitable for doctrine, the reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness all hinge upon that prior mandate toward Scripture teaching profitable doctrine so that the man of God may be perfectly, throughly furnished unto all good works. While those that, for whatever reasons, support variants that diminish doctrinal teachings, Paul tells us that in the mouth of two or three witness shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1) 

1 Timothy 1:1 says that Paul was "an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior, and the Lord Jesus Christ”, and in 1 Timothy 5:1 & 19 it is written, "Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father...Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." 

When it comes to manuscript evidence, the argument generally is that older manuscripts don't have a witness to this or that verse, and later ones do, hence the later ones are scribal interpolations of other books. And it is important to remember that the manuscripts that they defer to ultimately, as witnesses, disagree with themselves so much that one cannot vouch for their veracity.

Generally, the argument against Colossians 1:14, says it is an interpolation with Ephesians 1:7 because both have "through his blood". This presuppositional concept in which the text is approached is derived from Griesbach and the German critical school, Letis tells us:

"Griesbach had as one of his canons: "When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which is more than the others manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious."

Johann Jakob Griesbach, Novum Tesamentum Graece (Halle, 1796), p 62 as cited by Dr. Theodore Letis, EF Hills Contribution to the Ecclesiastical Text p 91

In other words, if the Scripture is too consistent toward sound doctrine, the orthodox Christians are accused of altering the text in favor of sound doctrine, and hence the critical schools are correcting these doctrinally polluted texts back to the original testimony of the Apostle Paul, which supposedly doesn't bear witness to the reading in question. This is their work, that all scripture is not profitable for doctrine, that in the mouth of two or three doubtful witnesses every word may be brought into question.

Let's look further into what Paul tells us about doctrines and elders. In 1 Timothy 3:2-13 we find the qualifications for being an elder, one of which is being blameless. Pastor Archie Allison in his work, "_The Biblical Qualifications of Elders and Deacons, An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:2-13_" tells us what blameless means:

"By “blameless” the Scripture does not mean that a man must be sinless
in order to be an overseer in the church of God. To be blameless is to be
irreproachable. No one should be able to lay a charge against an overseer
and make it stick. To be blameless does not mean that one is able to evade
accusation or conviction. Rather, a man is blameless or above reproach when
his words and conduct conform to the holy commandments of God in
Scripture, so that he cannot justly be accused or convicted of any sin...The overseer’s reputation should be above reproach. No one should be able to lay hold of him or assail him or reproach him because of his sins, whether in speech, conduct, or doctrine."

Paul admonishes us concerning true doctrines, in 1 Timothy 4:6-7:

"If thou put the brethern in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, wherefore unto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness."

He continues 1 Timothy 4:16 declaring:

"Take heed unto thyself, and, unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

and again in 1 Timothy 6:1-5:

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

and again regarding Elders in Titus 1:9:

"Holding fast the faithful words as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision. Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake...Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine...In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you."

Paul tells explicitly, then, that Scripture is given for doctrine, he places tremendous weight upon it and goes on to teach us to hold to true doctrine, and to measure men by this standard, and each time exhorting us unto truth while warning us to not listen to profane words, wives tales, jewish fables, commandments of men and questions and disputing's about words.

Should we hold our men that enter the offices of Elder to a higher standard than the Scripture's from the Apostle's themselves? Or should we receive the Scriptures as being *blameless* and not receiving accusations against them without two or three witnesses in which the character and veracity can be vouched for, besides merely the age of a manuscript?

If you were an Elder and someone in the Church brought accusations against you, does the testimony of an older man against you outweigh the testimony of a younger man for you? Paul told Timothy to "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." 1 Timothy 4:12-13 Should we not receive younger testimonies that meet these qualifications over older testimonies that are so inconsistent amongst themselves that no one may vouch for their veracity?

Is it plausible that the Apostle in his letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians told them the same thing in the exact same words, intending to give them separately the exact same doctrine with the exact same emphasis, since he placed such weight upon holding to sound doctrine and that he would establish those teachings with two or three written witnesses of the truth?

Are we supposed to believe that Providential Preservation is the witness of the Holy Spirit through history as giving to true and faithful Protestant Churches His Holy Scripture, which through the ages is tattered and torn and rests truly preserved in late manuscripts, or that the pristine older manuscripts that don't show the signs of use, nor more importantly the witness of the Holy Spirit, is finally going to be restored after centuries of continual use of the prior texts?

In the Westminster Confession of Faith we are told that the Hebrew and Greek have been protected by the Lord..."and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." WCF 1:8

What is the controversies of religion in Colossians 1:14, and even if it could be proved that it was an interpolation, what heresy is it teaching?

Consider the presupposition of the critical camp, they do not believe that the word of God has been kept pure in all ages, but rather that is was kept pure in the oldest manuscripts and corrupted toward orthodox doctrines through the ages in latest ones. That Protestant and faithful Churches have had corrupted Bibles for centuries, and their corruptions are toward sound doctrine.

What is a man supposed to think of men that labor unceasingly to tell us, "Thus the Lord didn't say..." about texts that teach this or that doctrine, compared to the admonishments of Scripture on how elders are supposed to behave in word, deed and doctrine? 

With their mouths they tell us their works are not diminishing the doctrines, but your own testimony here is that their works breeds doubt in the heart and lacked confidence to stand upon the historical Protestant text? What are we supposed to think of such men that rebuke the Apostles with witnesses that they cannot vouch for and deliver unto us nothing more than their opinions, which they assert as unassailable truth, regarding documents that span centuries, upon multiple continents, and which ultimately have nothing but their supposition and speculation to offer?

Without proof of two or three witnesses in which the plaintiff can vouch for their veracity, I will not because I cannot, justly receive these accusations against the testimony of the Apostle Paul as preserved in the historic Protestant texts.

In Christ's Bonds,


Thomas


----------



## JM (Jan 17, 2008)

Thank you Thomas for taking the time, if you click here you should be able to view the blog post, or maybe Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White will still have it up.

Peace,

j


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 28, 2008)

Friends,

just a quick word to say that I'll only be posting infrequently for the next six weeks or so, as I'm getting ready to travel, and have a lot of preparing to do, and getting things in order, and then I'll be back in America for a month before returning here mid-March, Lord willing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 28, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Friends,
> 
> just a quick word to say that I'll only be posting infrequently for the next six weeks or so, as I'm getting ready to travel, and have a lot of preparing to do, and getting things in order, and then I'll be back in America for a month before returning here mid-March, Lord willing.



Hope you have a good trip.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 28, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Friends,
> 
> just a quick word to say that I'll only be posting infrequently for the next six weeks or so, as I'm getting ready to travel, and have a lot of preparing to do, and getting things in order, and then I'll be back in America for a month before returning here mid-March, Lord willing.



May the Lord watch over you, brother!


----------

