"There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10)

The Meaning of "No One Righteous"

When Paul makes this statement, he is defining the universal human condition from God's perspective. It does not mean that every person is equally evil or incapable of good deeds; rather, it means:

1. Failure to Meet a Perfect Standard: No human being has ever perfectly and completely obeyed God's holy Law (the Torah), either written on stone or "written in the heart." All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23).

2. Inability to Achieve Righteousness by Effort: The statement demolishes the idea that a person can become justified (made righteous in God's eyes) through their own effort, merit, or performance. No amount of religious work, moral living, or ritual observance can erase the stain of past sin or ensure perfect future obedience.

Righteousness and Reading the KJV

The belief that reading the King James Version (KJV) only makes a person righteous is incorrect because it fundamentally misunderstands the source of righteousness.

• A Translation is a Tool: The KJV is a tool—a highly respected English translation of the Scriptures—used to learn about God and His plan. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

• Righteousness is Spiritual: To believe that using a specific book or translation makes you righteous is to treat it as a religious work. This directly contradicts Paul's message that righteousness comes through faith, not through works or the Law (Romans 3:28).

A person becomes righteous before God through a spiritual transformation and relationship, regardless of which reliable language or translation they use to study the Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and Righteousness

The Dead Sea Scrolls, penned primarily by a strict Jewish sect (often identified as the Essenes) around the time of Jesus, show a community intensely focused on righteousness. They teach us that:

• Righteousness is Found in Strict Adherence: The Qumran community believed true righteousness lay in perfect and absolute obedience to the Law, as they uniquely interpreted it. Their intense focus on purity, ritual, and a specific religious calendar was their attempt to be the only truly righteous people of Israel.

• The Inadequacy of Human Effort: Despite their incredible discipline, their writings still reflect the underlying Jewish belief that ultimate righteousness is a gift from God. Their efforts highlight just how high the required standard was—a standard that even their rigorous lifestyle could not perfectly meet.

The DSS, therefore, confirm the spirit of the Law: it demands perfection. This historical context makes Paul's argument even stronger: if even the most devoted legalists failed to attain perfect righteousness, then the method itself (works of the law) is flawed.

The Relationship of the Work of the Law and Jesus Christ

Paul's core theological argument hinges on defining the distinct but related roles of the Law and Jesus Christ:

The Work of the Law

The Law (the Torah) was given by God for three main purposes:

1. To Define Sin: The primary function is to show humanity what sin is and to make people aware of their own unrighteousness. "The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ" (Galatians 3:24).

2. To Condemn/Guide: The Law acts as a mirror, reflecting our spiritual failure. It shows what a righteous life looks like and thus condemns us for failing to live it.

3. It Cannot Give Life: Paul asserts that the Law is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12), but it is incapable of giving life or making a person righteous, because it merely demands perfection without providing the power to achieve it.

The Work of Jesus Christ

Christ accomplished what the Law could only demand:

1. Perfect Obedience: Jesus lived the perfectly righteous life that the Law required but which no human could achieve.

2. Atoning Sacrifice: He died as a substitute, taking the condemnation (the just penalty) for human sin that the Law demanded.

3. The End of the Law's Reign: Christ is the "end of the law for righteousness" (Romans 10:4). This means He fulfills its purpose, making a new way of becoming righteous available.

The Relationship: The Law points to the need for salvation; Christ provides the salvation. The Law reveals sin; Christ redeems the sinner.

How Someone Can Become Righteous Before God

Paul defines this process using the term Justification, which means being declared righteous or accounted just in God's sight. This is achieved through the spiritual dynamic of faith:

1. Faith in Christ: A person must acknowledge their own sinfulness (as revealed by the Law) and place their complete trust in Jesus Christ—specifically in His atoning death and resurrection—as the only means of salvation.

2. Imputed Righteousness: At the moment of faith, God performs a divine exchange: He imputes (credits or transfers) Christ's perfect righteousness to the believer's account and removes the penalty of their sin.

3. A Gift, Not a Wage: This righteousness is a gift of God's grace, received through faith, and it is entirely apart from any human work (Romans 3:28). This is why Paul's initial statement ("There is none righteous") is so critical—it forces people to abandon self-effort and rely solely on Christ.

The righteous standing is thus an external declaration by God, based not on the person's performance, but on the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Do not forbid speaking in tongues

1 Corinthians 14:39, "So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues."

Word-by-Word Exegesis

“Do not” (μὴ)

Greek: mē (μή)

This is the negative imperative particle, used to prohibit an action.

The nuance here is “do not continue to” or “make sure you never” forbid.

Paul is not just advising but giving an apostolic command.

“Forbid” (κωλύετε)

Greek: kōluete (κωλύετε) – from kōluō (to hinder, prevent, restrain).

Verb is present active imperative – “keep on forbidding” is the sense.

Paul tells them explicitly: don’t engage in the practice of shutting down tongues.

This implies some in Corinth might have been tempted to over-correct abuses of tongues by banning them outright.

“To speak” (λαλεῖν)

Greek: lalein (λαλεῖν) – “to speak, talk, utter sounds.”

In Pauline usage, lalein often carries the sense of making vocal expression, not necessarily structured discourse.

In the context of tongues, it refers to the audible act of speaking in a language given by the Spirit.

Important: it’s not “to babble” but “to express vocally.”

“In tongues” (γλώσσαις)

Greek: glōssais (γλώσσαις) – plural dative of glōssa (“tongue, language”).

Can mean:

The physical organ (tongue).

A known or unknown language.

In 1 Corinthians, the plural form strongly points to languages (real or Spirit-given speech forms).

By Paul’s consistent usage, “tongues” refers to Spirit-inspired utterances, distinct from ordinary human languages but still communicative when interpreted (see 1 Cor 14:2, 13, 27).

Theological & Contextual Implications

Balance with Prophecy:

The verse is part of Paul’s conclusion in 1 Cor 14, where he elevates prophecy for edification of the church.

Yet, he insists tongues should not be forbidden; they have a legitimate place, especially with interpretation.

Correcting Abuse vs. Suppression:

In Corinth, tongues were overused in chaotic worship gatherings.

Paul regulates (14:27–28: only a few, in turn, with interpretation), but never abolishes.

Modern Implication:

The verse undercuts both extremes:

Abuse (chaotic, unedifying tongue-speaking).

Rejection (forbidding altogether).

Paul sets a balanced theology of charismata (spiritual gifts).

“Do not” → Absolute prohibition against prohibition itself.

“Forbid” → Blocking, preventing, restricting.

“To speak” → Vocal utterance, Spirit-led speaking.

“In tongues” → Spirit-inspired languages, plural, part of the gifts of the Spirit.

The statement "do not forbid to speak in tongue" is a direct reference to a command from the New Testament. The apostle Paul gave this instruction to the church in Corinth, and the full context of his teaching provides important details for understanding its meaning. 

Context for speaking in tongues

To understand Paul's command, it is crucial to consider the broader context of 1 Corinthians 14, where he outlines rules for using spiritual gifts during church gatherings. 

The proper use of spiritual gifts

The purpose of spiritual gifts is to edify, or build up, the church. Paul makes a clear distinction between the gift of prophecy and the gift of speaking in tongues. 

Prophecy: This is preferred for public worship because it is a message spoken in a language everyone understands. It directly strengthens, encourages, and comforts the entire congregation.

Tongues: Speaking in tongues is a form of prayer spoken to God in a language unknown to the speaker. While it edifies the individual, it does not build up the wider church congregation unless it is interpreted. 

The importance of interpretation

Because of the need for mutual edification in a church setting, Paul gave strict guidelines for how the gift of tongues should be used in public. 

No more than two or three people should speak in tongues during a service, and they must speak one at a time.

An interpreter must be present to translate the message so that the whole church can be edified.

If no one is available to interpret, the person speaking in tongues should remain silent in the public meeting and speak only to themselves and to God. 

Paul's overarching message

Paul's instruction "do not forbid to speak in tongues" is not an unconditional command to permit it at any time or in any manner. His teaching is a balancing act between appreciating the legitimate spiritual gift and preventing its misuse and abuse. 

His full message can be summarized as:

Prioritize intelligibility: Value prophecy over uninterpreted tongues in corporate worship because it builds up the entire body of believers.

Maintain order: The use of all spiritual gifts should be orderly and decent to avoid chaos and confusion in the church.

Do not quench the Spirit: Do not forbid or prohibit the gift of tongues entirely, as it is a valid work of the Holy Spirit. Instead, use it according to the guidelines he provided. 

1 Corinthians 14:2 "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit."

The Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and the Alexandrian Text

Introduction

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) asserts that the God who inspired the Scriptures in every word also preserved them throughout history, ensuring His people continual access to His uncorrupted Word. While some defenders of VPP identify the Byzantine text-form or the Textus Receptus as the locus of that preservation, the textual evidence suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition, reflected in modern critical editions of the New Testament, better fulfills this theological conviction. This essay argues that the Alexandrian text aligns more closely with VPP because it (1) represents the earliest textual witnesses, (2) exhibits greater scribal fidelity, (3) enjoys geographical and historical diversity, and (4) has been providentially recognized in the Critical Text through modern textual scholarship.

Early Attestation of the Alexandrian Tradition

The Alexandrian manuscripts are the earliest surviving complete witnesses to the New Testament. Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ, fourth century) and Codex Vaticanus (B, fourth century) contain nearly the entire Bible and are considered by textual critics to be among the most reliable witnesses.¹ In contrast, the Byzantine text-form does not appear consistently until the ninth century and becomes dominant only in the medieval period.² If preservation requires historical continuity, the Alexandrian manuscripts demonstrate divine preservation far better than the Byzantine tradition.

Transmission Quality and Scribal Conservatism

The Alexandrian tradition is characterized by shorter, more difficult readings, which scholars regard as more authentic, since scribes more often expanded or smoothed texts than abbreviated them.³ For instance, the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) and the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) are absent from the earliest Alexandrian witnesses but appear in later Byzantine manuscripts. This indicates later interpolation for liturgical or doctrinal purposes. Daniel Wallace observes that “scribes tended to harmonize and expand the text” in Byzantine manuscripts, whereas Alexandrian witnesses preserve the harder and earlier form.⁴ Thus, if VPP means the preservation of God’s inspired words as originally written, the Alexandrian tradition is more consistent with that aim.

Geographical and Historical Diversity

The Alexandrian text is not confined to Egypt. Its readings appear in early versions (Coptic, Old Latin, Syriac) and in patristic citations across the Christian world. Origen (third century) and Clement of Alexandria (second–third century) frequently cite readings aligned with the Alexandrian text-form.⁵ This demonstrates that the Alexandrian tradition was widely recognized and preserved long before the Byzantine form achieved dominance in Constantinople. The Byzantine text, while numerically dominant in later manuscripts, reflects a more localized and standardized tradition rather than widespread early preservation.⁶

Providential Preservation in the Critical Text

The modern Critical Text (Nestle-Aland 28th edition; UBS5) is the fruit of comparing thousands of manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations. This process illustrates divine providence: God preserved His Word across a multiplicity of witnesses and guided the church to recover it. Michael Kruger argues that textual variation is not evidence against preservation but “the very means God has used to preserve the text across time and space.”⁷ Thus, preservation does not require a single “perfect” manuscript line but the recognition that God ensured His words were never lost and could be faithfully reconstructed.

Misconceptions About Majority Equals Preservation

Byzantine-priority advocates often equate preservation with majority witness. Yet numerical superiority is not the same as divine preservation. Bruce Metzger emphasizes that “the age of manuscripts is more important than their number.”⁸ Furthermore, in biblical history God has often preserved truth through a faithful remnant rather than a popular majority (cf. 1 Kings 19:18). Likewise, the Alexandrian tradition—though a minority in numbers—carries greater weight due to its antiquity, fidelity, and wide attestation. Preservation should therefore be understood as accurate preservation, not merely popular preservation.

Conclusion

If Verbal Plenary Preservation is true, the Alexandrian tradition offers the clearest evidence of God’s providential preservation of the inspired text of Scripture. Its early and widespread attestation, conservative transmission, and recovery in the modern Critical Text (NA28/UBS5) demonstrate God’s ongoing care for His Word. By contrast, the Byzantine tradition reflects later scribal tendencies and lacks grounding in the earliest centuries of the church. Thus, the Bible has indeed been preserved—not exclusively in the Byzantine tradition, but most reliably in the Alexandrian tradition as reflected in the Critical Text.

Notes

1. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 107–12.

2. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 279–82.

3. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), xxxiv–xxxvi.

4. Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2011), 44–46.

5. Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 85–87.

6. Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 62–64.

7. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 204–7.

8. Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 276.