# 1 Peter 1:22 through the Spirit



## raydixon9 (May 31, 2015)

ESV

22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,

NASB

22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a [a]sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from *the heart,

KJV

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

Geneva 1599

22 [a]Having purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, to love brotherly without feigning, love one another with a pure heart fervently:

Please note the phrase "through the Spirit." Why is this in the KJV and Geneva? Why is this not in the ESV or NASB? Is this just a textual variance? Could someone explain this variance if it is that? Which is more accurate in your opinion? Our sermon today included this passage and as I read Calvin's commentary this morning he included "through the spirit" and made much ado about the phrase. Our pastor preaches out of the NIV which does not include it so it has peaked my curiosity. Will y'all please help me get a little bit of a better understanding of this issue?

Thanks,
Ray*


----------



## raydixon9 (May 31, 2015)

Still not clear, a few entries from some random commentaries:

Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible
through the Spirit—omitted in the oldest manuscripts. The Holy Spirit is the purifier by bestowing the obedience of faith (1 Pe 1:2; 1 Co 12:3).

A Commentary to the Holy Scriptures
By the spirit, is wanting in several MSS. If, as is probable, authentic, it should be joined to ἡγνικότες not to ὑπακοή. It denotes the Holy Spirit, by whom alone the soul can be purified, Acts 15:8, 9; Rom. 8:13; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 5:9. πνεύματος is also without the article in ch. 1:2.

The Pulpit Commentary
In obeying the truth through the Spirit; literally, in the obedience of the truth. Obedience is the condition of purification. God’s people are elect unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. While they walk in the path of obedience they are walking in the light, the light of truth, the light of God’s presence, and then the blood of Jesus Christ is cleansing them from all sin (1 John 1:7). The genitive (τῆς ἀληθείας) seems to be objective, “obedience to the truth,” rather than obedience wrought by the truth. The truth is God’s truth, the truth revealed in his Holy Word. So theLord himself said, “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). The words, “through the Spirit,” are not found in the best manuscripts; they may be a gloss, but a true one.

Exegetical Summary of 1 Peter
TEXT—Some manuscripts include διὰ πνεύματος ‘through the spirit’ after τῆς ἀληθείας ‘to the truth’. GNT omits this with an A rating, indicating that the text is certain. It is included only by KJV.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 31, 2015)

It seems to be present in the majority text but not in Critical text doesn't seem to be just a TR one because the World English Bible has it and the English Majority Text Version has it as well. Just guessing but I am thinking codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus probably lack the text and would be the reason why the ESV and NIV would leave it out.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 31, 2015)

Ray, I don't know how deeply you've looked into the Critical Text vs. Majority Text debate, but this sort of thing is common among the newer bible translations.

In study bibles you might see footnotes explaining the discrepancies. Generally speaking, the versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, and also older ones like the ASV and RSV rely on the "Critical Text." That's a compilation of the Greek developed in the 19th century through the 20th century that gives greater weight to older manuscripts than to the number of manuscripts. That Critical Text omits certain phrases or even verses found in the KJV.

The KJV and other bibles follow what has been called the "Majority Text" or "Textus Receptus" (or other names). This text was developed and refined in the 14th and 15th century and was well established until the 19th century.

It should be emphasized that neither version is set in stone (there are variations within each family) nor does either claim to be identical to the original.

I have oversimplified in the extreme, and I've left out even generally why one would prefer one over the other, but suffice it to say that what is in your English translation will be influenced by which manuscript family you are translating.


----------



## raydixon9 (May 31, 2015)

Thanks for your responses. I am familiar with CT vs TR. No doubt this is a variance. I'm more curious as to whether or not someone has anymore insight into the actual variance.

Here is what I'm thinking. The phrase "through the spirit" has meaning. Obviously, we can't do anything good without the Spirit. We can't obey the truth without the help of spirit.

I could see someone using 1 Pet 1:22 as justification for "purifying" ourselves by "obedience" to the truth. Works based "purification." Tack on the addendum, "through the spirit", now we have good reason to purify ourselves as it is not our work.

Thoughts?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 1, 2015)

raydixon9 said:


> Thanks for your responses. I am familiar with CT vs TR. No doubt this is a variance. I'm more curious as to whether or not someone has anymore insight into the actual variance.
> 
> Here is what I'm thinking. The phrase "through the spirit" has meaning. Obviously, we can't do anything good without the Spirit. We can't obey the truth without the help of spirit.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 1, 2015)

raydixon9 said:


> Thanks for your responses. I am familiar with CT vs TR. No doubt this is a variance. I'm more curious as to whether or not someone has anymore insight into the actual variance.
> 
> Here is what I'm thinking. The phrase "through the spirit" has meaning. Obviously, we can't do anything good without the Spirit. We can't obey the truth without the help of spirit.
> 
> ...


I've seen criticism of CT text translations that omit, or put verses not included in the early manuscripts in brackets or footnotes, saying they are denying our Lord, the Holy Spirit, or some important doctrine. It seems in most cases there are verses present, in that CT text, that affirm what the aforementioned omitted, bracketed, or footnoted verses assert. For example, 1Peter 

1 Peter 1 New International Version (NIV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, *through the sanctifying work of the Spirit*, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you* by the Holy Spirit *sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> It seems to be present in the majority text but not in Critical text doesn't seem to be just a TR one because the World English Bible has it and the English Majority Text Version has it as well. Just guessing but I am thinking codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus probably lack the text and would be the reason why the ESV and NIV would leave it out.



Edward is correct. It's not in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. But there is much more. It's not in Alexandrinus. It's not in Ephraemi Rescriptus (an uncial from around 345ad), nor Althous Laurae (though that's a much later uncial), various miniscules. So take Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, through in two more very early uncials I already mentioned and then one more piece which is a papyrus, p72 from the Bodmer papyri, which predates all of those (third century)....that's why its not in more recent translations.

Once you have early uncials and then a papyrus to back it up, that's very strong evidence from a manuscript perspective.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Once you have early uncials and then a papyrus to back it up, that's very strong evidence from a manuscript perspective.



Strong evidence for what? If I find the sayings of Jesus in an old manuscript dated to be written between AD 130 and 250, is that "evidence" Jesus actually said what it records?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 2, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Ray, I don't know how deeply you've looked into the Critical Text vs. Majority Text debate, but this sort of thing is common among the newer bible translations.
> 
> In study bibles you might see footnotes explaining the discrepancies. Generally speaking, the versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, and also older ones like the ASV and RSV rely on the "Critical Text." That's a compilation of the Greek developed in the 19th century through the 20th century that gives greater weight to older manuscripts than to the number of manuscripts. That Critical Text omits certain phrases or even verses found in the KJV.
> 
> ...



Victor,

This seems to be a misconception. The TR is not the Majority text. Erasmus differed from the Majority Text in a few areas. The textus receptus brought back things from the Latin Vulgate that the Majority Text did not have.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 2, 2015)

MW said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> > Once you have early uncials and then a papyrus to back it up, that's very strong evidence from a manuscript perspective.
> ...



Matthew, what's your point? That is where your New Testament comes from: old manuscripts that then were collated into a Greek text that got translated by some men. No manuscripts used to form the Greek texts used to translate the KJV were from that early. However, same concept. Different and fewer old manuscripts are the source material for the KJV.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 2, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Victor,
> 
> This seems to be a misconception. The TR is not the Majority text. Erasmus differed from the Majority Text in a few areas. The textus receptus brought back things from the Latin Vulgate that the Majority Text did not have.



Yes. I was not trying to get into detail: 



> I have oversimplified in the extreme,



But of course you are right. In any event, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## MW (Jun 2, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Matthew, what's your point? That is where your New Testament comes from: old manuscripts that then were collated into a Greek text that got translated by some men. No manuscripts used to form the Greek texts used to translate the KJV were from that early. However, same concept. Different and fewer old manuscripts are the source material for the KJV.



My point is that your exaltation of old mss. leaves us without a New Testament. The insistence that the old mss. must be regarded as mss. of the "New Testament" is simply assumption.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 2, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Victor,
> ...



Sorry brother, I hope I didn't sound harsh.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 3, 2015)

MW said:


> My point is that your exaltation of old mss. leaves us without a New Testament. The insistence that the old mss. must be regarded as mss. of the "New Testament" is simply assumption.



Matthew, you make two declarative statements above. They are conclusions. You give no reasons. You give no premises. Don't just make two declarative statements. Give reasons. Give premises. 

Everybody involved wih Ligonier except Joel Beeke uses something other than KJV. James White, John MacArthur, Jon Piper, Michael Horton, so many people at this website are all people preaching and teaching Reformed theology with something that is not a KJV. 

So these people are doing great things with Bibles based on manuscripts that leave them without a New Testament? Really?


----------

