This week, I am going to do something very different. I am going to preach from a text that is not in my bible. I preach from the ESV, but this passage is not in there. Neither is it in the NIV, ASV. But it is included in the KJV, NKJV, and the NASB (in brackets). I going to examine the text, but I am also going to seek to explain why it is included in some translations and not in others.
Note: Many would simply gloss over this subject or give a cursory answer for it. But I have decided to address it at length because I believe the tenacity of the Bible is worthy our attention and consideration. The agents of our enemy are always seeking to call the bible into question, and we cannot afford to have a false understanding about the Bible and how we received it.
QUOTE: Dr. James White ”The biggest weapon we hand our enemies is an ignorance of the history of our Bible"
I am treading on very dangerous ground in this message because opinions on this issue are so varied and the vitriol of those who argue can be so intense. I agree that it is a serious issue; but we cannot allow emotion or tradition to cloud the truth.
Illustration: “My Experience Teaching on this Subject” I once taught a lesson on the history of the NT text at a church and during the message I could tell the worship leader (not the pastor) was quote upset with what I was saying. When I concluded, he took the podium and said, “Well, that was certainly a lot of information. Be sure you all go and study to see if what he said is correct.” While I appreciate that, as that is what we all should do, I could tell in the tone of his voice that he did not believe it was.
Illustration: “KJV is the Standard for Some” A few years ago I was challenged in a Sunday school class because two people had bibles that did not read the same at a certain point. The woman challenging me said that the KJV was the right one and anything that was different had altered the Bible.
Most Recent SermonAudio Comment: “Great sermon bro, but honestly, you need to put down both of those nas / esv & pick up the old KJV.”
Some folks get very upset when you bring up this subject, primarily because they are unfamiliar with the issues at hand.
The issue is the Bible manuscripts which underlie our english translation. There are thousands of them (over 5,000 just in Greek), and while they have an amazing amount of agreement within them, there are portions of the text wherein there is question as to what the original manuscripts actually said.
Two Points Regarding The Tenacity of the NT Text
1) The New Testament is the single best documented work of antiquity.
QUOTE: F.F. Bruce “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament”.
As noted, there are approx. 5,700 hand written Greek manuscripts still in existence.
Some manuscripts go back to within one generation of the originals.
Look at these comparisons:
Homer's Iliad, the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, has 643 copies, with the earliest being 500 years after the original.
Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph)
Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed)
Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years after the originals)
Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).
Even Bart Eahrman affirms that the NT is the best documented work of antiquity.
2) The New Testament is the most open religious document, readily acknowledging the textual critical issues in its own footnotes.
The liberals accuse the Christians of trying to hide the fact that our manuscripts contain variants; but nothing could be further from he truth
Our printed Bibles contain them in the footnotes.
Compare this with other religious works, like the Quran, and you will see that they are not open to such things in their text, even though variants do exist within them as well.
Great men of the past were well aware of these things, and their faith never wavered and learned Christians today know these things, and our faith is intact.
The key is, folks, nothing I am saying in this sermon is a secret.
These things are well documented and Christians should never be afraid of truth.
As I have noted, we have come to a place in our text wherein there is not agreement regarding the original reading. Textual variants are common, but most of them are not viable or meaningful (i.e. word order, spelling changes, “movable nu”, homoioteleuton). But a few of them would actually change the text, and thus are very important for us to examine.
Today’s text is one of those.
Either the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer is or is not a part of Matthew’s Gospel. Scholars differ regarding which reading would be the correct one. Most manuscripts include the doxology to the model prayer (for yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.).
But the ones that do not include this portion tend to be older manuscripts and are considered by some to be more reliable.
In regard to the authenticity of the doxology:
JFB “If any reliance is to be placed on external evidence, this doxology, we think, can hardly be considered part of the original text. It is wanting in all the most ancient manuscripts; it is wanting in the Old Latin version and in the Vulgate: the former mounting up to about the middle of the second century, and the latter being a revision of it in the fourth century by JEROME, a most reverential and conservative as well as able and impartial critic. As might be expected from this, it is passed by in silence by the earliest Latin fathers; but even the Greek commentators, when expounding this prayer, pass by the doxology. On the other hand, it is found in a majority of manuscripts, though not the oldest; it is found in all the Syriac versions, even the Peschito — dating probably as early as the second century — although this version lacks the “Amen,” which the doxology, if genuine, could hardly have wanted; it is found in the Sahidic or Thebaic version made for the Christians of Upper Egypt, possibly as early as the Old Latin; and it is found in perhaps most of the later versions. On a review of the evidence, the strong probability, we think, is that it was no part of the original text.”
Now, there are those who take the other side of this issue, and argue for its inclusion:
Probably the strongest argument that I am aware of is its inclusion in the Didache, which is one of the earliest extra-biblical writings which date back to the time of the apostles. If it is not part of the original text, we know at the very least it was a part of the liturgy of the early church, and thus would deserve our attention.
Others have made the argument that if the doxology is not included, then we are left ending the prayer in a negative tone, with the word “evil” and they do not believe that to be appropriate.
Still others have argued that it was common among the Hebrews to add these types of doxologies in their prayers, as is seen throughout the Bible, and Jesus being a Hebrew would have likely followed this model.
As you can see, both sides make compelling arguments as to whether or not this portion of the model prayer was a part of the original manuscript.
IMPORTANT POINT: If we only had one text, we would have no variations. But we would also have no way of knowing if that one manuscript contained an error. Having many manuscripts opens the door for variations, but it closes the door for wholesale corruption, because if someone tried to introduce something heretical into the text at some point, we have so many others that we could use to deny its inclusion.
Question: "Why would God allow these textual variants?”
Answer: The answer that I believe is most appropriate is that with the expansion of scripture under the persecution present in the early church, and the desire to have the gospel go out into all of the world, variation is the natural result. God has preserved His Word, not by ensuring that there would be no variation, but by ensuring that there would be so many copies that no one person could come along and make wholesale changes without their being noticed.
NOTE: The opposite is true for Islam. Early in the life of the Koran, a man name Uthman gathered the existing manuscripts of the Koran, revised them and destroyed the sources. There is no way of knowing what Muhammed actually wrote because of this. However, because of the massive and quick expansion of the New Testament it was impossible for anyone to do that.
Were there only one text, there would be no variations. However, were there only one text, there would also be no way to ensure that the person who maintained that one text had not corrupted it. With the massive amount of copies we have (more than any other work of antiquity) there is no way such wholesale corruption could occur. That is why textual variation actually increases my faith, because it shows we have a text which is strong enough to be scrutinized and is not afraid of it's own history, readily acknowledging it's historical issues right in the footnotes (something the Koran would never do!).
THINK ABOUT IT: It was not until 1949 that we possessed the technology to make an exact copy of something. That was when the photocopier was invented. Prior to that, every copy was subject to the introduction of scribal mistakes. Even the printing press required that every copy be typeset, and that could contain an error.
NEED TO UNDERSTAND: By studying to determined the original reading of the bible, we are not denying the inspiration of the text. In fact, it is our belief in the inspiration of the Bible that causes our desire to study. We believe the Bible is God-breathed; but we do not believe that it came to us in english. It was written in Hebrew and Greek (little Aramaic) and the manuscripts that contain these original languages are so plentiful that it boggles the mind. Our goal is to know what the original manuscripts (called the “autographs”) said, because those are what we believe are inspired.
Our Church Statement of Faith: Scripture. We believe, that while God has revealed Himself in His creation, He has spoken to us most clearly in His word (Psalm 19; Rom. 1:18-20). The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are breathed out by God, holy, complete, and entirely without error in the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16; John 10:35; 2 Peter 1:20-21). The Bible is our final authority in life, doctrine, and godliness (Mt. 4:4; 2 Peter 1:3-4).
One of the most important biblical conferences of the last century was held in Chicago in the 1970s, on the subject of Biblical Inerrancy. In that conference, a statement regarding the inerrancy of Scripture was adopted, and it includes the following:
Article X: We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
QUESTION: Why do the originals not exist? We don't know, but here is an idea. Can you imagine the veneration that those originals would receive? They would be idols.
The Bible is the most important document ever written and it is worthy to be defended with more than just emotions and traditions. Portions of it are over 3,500 years old. It has been examined by believers and skeptics, through and through, and has always maintained a level of integrity which is second to none. The issues we have discussed today do not rob the text of its majesty. They remind us of how powerful God is in preserving his Word. We need not be afraid to study the source material and ask hard questions because in doing so we are reminding that, while these variations do exist in the copies, the original does remain in the manuscript tradition. Nothing has been lost to time, and no wholesale corruptions have been introduced.
QUOTE: James White “The simple fact of the matter is that no textual variants in either the Old or New Testament in any way, shape, or form materially disrupt or destroy any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.” [The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009), 67.]
So, if someone asked me whether or not I believe the doxology of the model prayer should be included in the text of the Bible, I would say I remain uncertain based on the evidence I have seen, but I lean against its inclusion.
However, I would not deny that it is an orthodox doxology, that it provides a strong conclusion to the prayer itself, and that we should use it in our own expressions of both private and public worship.
Because of this, and after a very lengthy introduction, I want to provide 3 thoughts on the words of the doxology to bring a conclusion to our study of the model prayer.
I. It maintains consistency with other doxologies in Scripture.
Many have compared it to the doxology of David
1 Chronicles 29:11-12 “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all. 12 Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.”
II. It demonstrates our dependency on the One from Whom all blessings flow.
“For” - Connects it with the six petitions of the prayer. We give these to you “because”…
“Thine / Yours” The reason we can trust God with our petitions is that His is the kingdom, etc.
QUOTE: John Calvin “It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latin for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits.”
III. It contains a concluding principle for all of our prayers.
“Forever”
All of our prayers should be prayed with a view to eternity.
We tend to be very myopic and short-sighted.
When we utter the word “forever” we are reminded of the weighty reality of our faith.
“Amen”
The final word of the prayer. It comes from the Hebrew, and it sounds the same.
In fact, I believe it is said the same in all languages. It has been transliterated all around the world.
It is a declaration of affirmation. “So let it be!”
Conclusion: The word doxology comes from the Greek word “Doxa” which means “glory”. These are words of Glory to God.
We should glorify God, in particular for preserving His Word for us.
Not in the way some may have preferred, but in a way of His sovereign choosing.
We have God’s Word. We know the truth. We are confident in it.
To Him be glory, honor, and praise forever. Amen.
