The Relevance of the Phrase “Of Christ” in Romans 1:16 in Spanish Scriptures
- Dr. Carlos Donate
- Jul 15
- 12 min read
Updated: Jul 17
By Dr. Carlos A. Donate, ND, L.E.H.P.
Introduction
One of the best “proof passages” in Spanish Scriptures is Romans 1:16, “Porque no me avergüenzo del Evangelio de Cristo; porque es el poder de Dios para salvación a todo aquel que cree, al judío primeramente, y también al griego.” This passage, and especially the phrase, “de Cristo” (Greek “tou christou”) has been revised many times in the Spanish New Testament. It is a good verse to check if you, as an American supporting pastor, want to know whether the Bible your missionary is using is true to the TR or not.
All throughout Europe during the Reformation era, there were many countries that had embraced Erasmus ‘Greek New Testament of 1516 and began the task of translation based on it and included the phrase “of Christ”.
Luther´s Bible in High German in 1522 did include it. In Hungary, it was Gaspar Karoli who first published the Vizsoly Bible of 1590 which included the phrase. In France, Pierre Olivetan translated his Bible in 1535 and included the phrase. In Italy, Diodati, a Calvinist, also consulted Erasmus, and in his 1607 translation included the phrase. In Czechoslovakia, the Kralice Bible, a TR based translation, was published in 1564, and it includes the phrase. Joao Almeida translated the Portuguese Bible in 1644, and he did include it. The Dutch Statenvertaling version which appeared in 1637 includes it. There are more.
However, our Spanish translator and revisor Casiodoro Reina (1569) and Cipriano Valera (1602) did not include it. I have reasons to believe that it was because Reina only had access to a few Latin Bibles (see below).
After all, the Council of Trent in 1546 had declared the Jerome Latin Vulgate as the Catholic Church´s official Bible. Erasmus was forbidden and hard to acquire. Thomas McCrie in his 1829 “History of the Reformation” tells us that the Spanish Inquisition was the harshest than in any other country at the time.
Reina, whose time and circumstances were also quite difficult, could not work openly for fear of being turned over to Diego Deza y Tavera, the Inquisitor General in Seville at the time. (This was the same Inquisitor who finally did arrest 22 of the reformed monks a few later, despite that Reina, Valera, and a few others were able to escape.
Reina, Valera, Gaspar Zapata, Juan Gil, Constantine de la Fuente in the San Isidore del Campo Monastery, had several Bibles at their disposal, including the very Hebraist Ferrara Old Testament (1553), the Santes Pagninus Latin Bible (1528), Boniface Ferrar´s Catalan Bible (1488), and the “Magna” Bible of Benito Arias Montano (1568—just a year prior to Reina´s Bible).
In his Amonestación, Reina does not mention Erasmus. All these Bibles were of the Eusebio-Origen textual family, then others of the Egyptian textual family, mixed (eclectic) with a limited number of Eastern Greek manuscripts (not the official Byzantine text), hence the exclusion. Let’s also remember that he, Reina, said in his introductory remarks that he was aware of several errors in his Bible, and pleaded for future revisors to correct them. (See his Amonestación towards the very end).
This is why Valera took upon himself the need to revise Reina. Similarly, Valera, who worked all alone for 20 years, also left many mistakes (departures from the TT/TR) as we have been able to demonstrate in another study. In defense of Reina and Valera, they did include the phrase “de Cristo” in other similar verses, such as 1st Corinthians 9:12 and 18; in 2nd Corinthians 2:12; 4:4 and 9:13; and Galatians 1:7. It is contradictory for modern critics to deny “of Christ” in Romans 1:16 and yet agree with the phrase elsewhere.
Criticism against the inclusion of the phrase is rampant nowadays. Commonly used Bible study tools like Ellicott´s Commentary deny their inspiration and call for their omission as do so many other Alexandrian theologians.
Ellicott states that “the oldest manuscripts do not include the two words”. He is, of course, referring to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the worst witnesses in textual history! The Pulpit Commentary calls their inclusion “weakly supported”, following the same line of critical thinking.
Charles Hodge, in his “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans”, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 1886 says that the following manuscripts omit it: A, B, C, D, E, G, 17, and 67. Dr. Erroll Rhodes, a modern textual critic himself, says that textual scholars know that when a verse or phrase is omitted in succession, it is biased (See “The Text of the New Testament”, Erroll F. Rhodes, William Eerdmans Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan,1981, pages 295-297).
Succession of omissions demonstrates that the second document copied the previous omission without the proper independent research investigation, then the third witness copied the second, etcetera.
These manuscripts were the basis of the critical apparatus as formulated by Mill, Bengal, Lachman, Griesbach, Tischendorf, Nestle, Westcott and Hort, who all gave credence to Marcion´s Gnostic Bible, published approximately in the year 140 ad.
Marcion´s antisemitic, anti-trinitarian, anti-Old Testament Jehovah gnostic biased Book of Romans excluded the phrase. Marcion was from Sinope, in Turkey. His dad was a bishop there and excommunicated his own son and by the Roman Church due to his twisted unorthodox beliefs. He then started his own church using his own mutilated Bible (so typical of modernists).
Marcion did not care to acknowledge the conversion of Jews to Christianity, much less relegate any authority to Christ. The verse in Romans 1:16 calls for an acknowledgement of Old Testament prophesies, such as Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6, of the Messiah coming someday to save His people, the Jews.
He rejected the belief that the Old Testament Jehovah was the same Father of Jesus in the New Testament (see “The Story of Civilization Part III Caesar and Christ” by Will Durant, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1944 pages 604-605).
Hence, any verse in the New Testament, including the phrase “of Christ” in Romans 1:16 was to be amended (by omission) to negate any Gospel of salvation to the Jews by Christ. The link between “God” (Jehovah) and Christ would be dissolved by the omission.
Some critics cite the omission is evident in P26, perhaps the oldest papyri containing Romans 1:16. That “evidence” is a very old document (circa 6th Century). Early as it may be, it´s mutilated! In his “Canon” it is verse 11, not 16.
The Apostle Paul was aware of the likes of Marcion when he warned believers, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” (2nd Corinthians 2:17), and “But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God”. (2nd Corinthians 4:2). But I like what Dr. Bill Grady said about “the Heretic” as he was called. Grady quoted Tertullian, another contemporary of Marcion, who said: “Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter” (See “Final Authority” by Dr. Bill Grady, Grady Publications, 1993 pages 66 and 67.)
Dr. Jack Moorman, in his book, “Forever Settled”, Bible For Today Press, Collingswood, NJ, 1999 pages 126-133, digs deeply into the reasons for textual corruption, and he mentions a quote given by Irenaeus regarding Marcion. He says, “Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they have themselves shortened.”
Dr. Moorman also mentions Origen, whose Hexapla caused more damage in textual sciences like no other. Origen influenced Jerome, and Jerome influenced Catholicism with his Latin Vulgate, and Reina and Valera who in Spain were influenced by other similar Jeromian translations as we have already stated.
However, I must remind the reader that Origen did acknowledge that when verse 16 says “power of God”, he thought that it is in fact synonymous of Christ Himself (see his “Commentary on the Book of Romans” in Fathers of the Church Book 2, page 86, Volume 103, Catholic University of America Press, 2001, translated by Thomas P. Scheck).
Origen´s Commentary on the Book of Romans, based on Jerome´s Vulgate, reveals that even though Origen did not revise Jerome by “adding” the phrase (that would be forbidden by Church hierarchy), he certainly recognized that it is valid to translate “of Christ”, as we read in his comments. Was he in favor of the inclusion?
Thankfully, all these textual scholars have been rejected by most Bible believers based on a preponderance of evidence, and a clear understanding of why the phrase is doubted. There are even modern translations such as the New Living Translation (Tyndale House), World English Bible, Literal Standard Version, the Lamsa Bible (Aramaic), the Albanian, Romani (Cornilescu), the Russian, the Taw Alamat (Swahili), the Ukrainian, the Basque, the Finnish, and many more which include it! There are even a few textual critics of old that vouch for the phrase, such as Wettstein and Matthai.
So, did God inspire the phrase? Yes. Did He preserve the phrase? It’s found in later Byzantine texts like Codex Alexandrinus (5th Century), Codex Ephraeimi Rescriptus, Minuscules 33, 104, 614 and others. Yes, by counting the evidence (preponderance).
Dr. D.A. Waite explains, in his classic book “Defending the King James Bible”, The Bible For Today Press, New Jersey, 1992, pages 155, 156, that believing in any other Gospel other than the Gospel of Christ can lead someone into placing their faith for salvation on “Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Fairy Tooth or Rudolf The Red Nosed Reindeer”! And “this is a matter of doctrine and theology”.
Dr. Jack Moorman, in his book, “Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version”, The Bible For Today Press, New Jersey, 2005, page 237, lists the following evidence FOR the inclusion: D-c, K, L, P, Psi and all the Majority texts. Ancient translations such as Ethiopic, 5th Century (see Amharic Bible | Search Bible), as well as in 049,056, 0142, and 0151 included it. The earliest Coptic translation was in the 4th Century, and it included the phrase, see The Coptic Holy Bible. Most English Protestant Bibles prior to the 1611 include it, excepting Wycliff, who in1380 published his New Testament, which relied on the Vulgate.
How relevant is the inclusion of “de Cristo”? How many “Gospels” exist? Paul warns us in Galatians 1:6-8, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
The inclusion of the phrase has several very important elements: first, the mention of Christ. Modern Bibles diminish the name or the title. Second, it identifies who is the author of the Gospel. Third, it differentiates the Gospel of Christ from other so-called gospels. Catholicism preaches another Gospel—that of works. They are accursed (anathemized). Fourth, it explains why we should not be ashamed, because Christ´s Gospel is at stake. Fifth, God´s power is ascertained when we preach Christ´s Gospel.
From an AI generated Google search, we read: “In Romans :16, the phrase "of Christ" signifies that the gospel, or good news, is intrinsically linked to Jesus Christ, centering on his life, death, and resurrection. It highlights that the gospel's power to save comes through faith in Christ and that salvation is found only in him. This phrase emphasizes that the gospel is not just a general message of hope, but a specific message about Jesus and his redemptive work…In essence, "of Christ" in Romans 1:16 underscores that the gospel is inseparable from Jesus, his person, and his redemptive work, making him the focal point of salvation for all who believe.”
The omission in today´s modern translations, including the 1909 and 1960 Reina Valera Bibles, is taken from the Nestle-Aland Greek NT apparatus, 26th and 27th editions, and unlike Reina and Valera, these advocates of modern Bibles indicate a lack of concern for truth as found within the TR based Bibles.
The omission, which causes a doctrinal problem and denies the preservation of the words of God, has contributed to the complacent attitude most Christians have towards the Spanish Scriptures. To many, it’s just a small thing that doesn´t really matter”.
God, on the other hand, has promised to preserve every “jot and tittle”, Matthew 5:18. He says in Proverbs 30:5 that “every word of God is pure”. He promised that man shall live “by every word of God”, Luke 4:4. Unlike us, God thinks highly of every one of His inspired words. Only Bible believing Christians, those who are 100% TR and KJV can understand and appreciate this.
I must quote what Scrivener said regarding the TR: “It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus (A.D. 150), and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus”, J. Moorman. Therefore, we must all agree that Reina and Valera did not have the right texts here, otherwise they would have included the phrase like Enzinas and Juan Perez Pineda had already done.
The following list shows that 34 of 60 Spanish translations, reprints and/or revisions which included it, and 26 which omitted it. That means this phrase was known and read in all of these in most of the editions, especially those of the 1800´s, which as I have said, followed the Erasmus, Stephens, Colineus, Beza, Elzevir, and Scrivener family of “received Greek texts”.
In my analysis, I compared well over 60 of them to see which ones included “de Cristo” and which ones omitted the phrase. Here are my findings:
[Symbols | inlcudes it, incluye Om. sig. omitted, omite]
1. 1519, Francisco Jiménez, Políglota Complutense. Inc en griego, Om.
2. 1543, Francisco de Enzinas, Inc
3. 1558, Juan Pérez Pineda, Inc
4. 1569, Casiodoro de Reina, Om
5. 1596, Cipriano de Valera, Om
6. 1602, Cipriano de Valera, Om
7. 1625, Cipriano de Valera, Om
8. 1708, Cipriano de Valera, Sebastian de Enzina, Inc
9. 1790, Phillipe Scio de San Miguel´s Biblia Sacra, Om
10. 1807, Cipriano de Valera, Inc
11. 1817, Cipriano de Valera, Inc
12. 1823, Torres-Amat, Om
13. 1831, Cipriano de Valera, Inc
14. 1862, Cipriano de Valera, Lorenzo Lucerna, Inc
15. 1865, Cipriano de Valera, Mora and Pratt, L. Palacios, E. Palmer Reeves, Inc
16. 1869, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Inc
17. 1870, Cipriano de Valera, Barcelona, Inc
18. 1871, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Cambridge, New York, Inc
19. 1872, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Cambridge, New York, Inc
20. 1875, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Cambridge, New York, Inc
21. 1876, Cipriano de Valera, Trinitarian Bible Society, London, Inc
22. 1878, Cipriano de Valera, E. Palmer Reeves, London, Inc
23. 1884, Cipriano de Valera, E. Palmer Reeves, London, Inc
24. 1885, Cipriano de Valera, E. Palmer Reeves, London, Inc
25. 1886, Cipriano de Valera, E. Palmer Reeves, London, Inc
26. 1888, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Inc
27. 1891, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Inc
28. 1897, Cipriano de Valera, Madrid, Inc
29. 1900, Cipriano de Valera, New York, Inc
30. 1906, Cipriano de Valera, American Tract Society, New York, Om
31. 1909, Reina-Valera de ABS y de Asociación Biblica Internacional de Dallas, Om
32. 1916, Versión Hispanoamericana, Thompson, Drees, Araujo and Lindegaard, Om
33. 1919, Pablo Besson en Argentina, Om
34. 1923, Reina Valera by Pratt, Om
35. 1944, Nacar Colunga, Om
36. 1950, Traducción del Nuevo Mundo (Jehovah´s Witness), Om
37. 1960, Reina Valera de ABS y UBS, Om
38. 1966, Dios Habla Hoy, ABS, CELAM, Om
39. 1966, Biblia de Jerusalem, Om
40. 1966, Dios Llega Al Hombre, o Versión Popular, Om
41. 1977, Reina Valera by CLIE (Spain), Om
42. 1979, Versión Nueva Internacional (or NIV), Om
43. 1986, Biblia de Las Americas, Lockman Foundation, Om
44. 1994, Santa Biblia en Arameo by Centro Cultural Nueva Creación de Sonora, Om
45. 1996, Martin Stendal of Colombia, Inc
46. 1998-2024, Cipriano de Valera by IBBG et al (Purificada 1602), Inc
47. 1999, Biblia Textual de la Sociedad Bíblica Iberoamericana, Om
48. 2000, Palabra de Dios Para Todos, World Bible Translation Center, Om
49. 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010 and 2023, Reina Valera Gomez, RVG, by Dr. Humberto Gomez et al, Inc
50. 2003, Traducción al Lenguaje Actual, de la Sociedad Bíblica Colombiana, Om
51. 2005, etc, Cipriano de Valera by William Park (a.k.a. “Preservada”) Inc
52. 2006, Peshitta in Spanish, Instituto Cultural Alef, Om
53. 2009, Reina Valera SUD (Mormons) Inc
54. 2010, Nueva Biblia Viviente, Om
55. 2010, Nueva Traducción Viviente, Inc
56. 2011, Reina Valera Contemporánea, Om
57. 2015, Reina Valera Actualizada, Om
58. 2018, Reina Valera Revisada, Editorial Vida, Om
59. 2018, Reina Valera of the Trinitarian Bible Society of Grand Rapids, Inc
60. 2021, Reina Valera Jubileo by Martin Stendal (a.k.a. “SEE” or JUS, Inc
Conclusion
Considering that the Critical Text proponents would cite P26 as “evidence” of the omission, it is appalling that Fundamentalists would go along with that idea.
The overwhelming approval of Bible believers world-wide in favor of the inclusion of the phrase is a witness to God´s preserved words.
Why would the Fernandez-George IFB Hispanic crowd continue using the 1909 and the 1960 which omit it? Such complacency or apathy is worrisome.
Unless they´ve changed, and now embrace the omission, they and other denominations should refuse to be associated with a “complacent” opinion held by the modernist textual movement.
We pray that they reconsider their position and switch over to the absolute certainty of the Textus Receptus. “Τόϋ χριστο” is inspired, preserved, translated in Spanish as “de Cristo” and it strengthens the teaching of Romans 1:16 as God´s power unto salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek. There are several TR-based Spanish Bibles they could adopt, but we would point them to the best of all, the RVG.
