From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand? “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” by Alan Kurschner.
Luke 23:34a is often known as the so-called, “First Saying of Christ on the Cross.” His intercessory prayer has been an indelible saying in the minds of the biblical literate (and not so literate) for centuries. This saying is perennial sermon fodder for pastors on Good Friday. And those who have viewed the poignant film The Passion of the Christ directed by Mel Gibson may be aware that these words are placed on Jesus’ lips, not once, but twice.
A few years ago I wrote a paper entitled, “Luke 23:34a: From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand?” In it I argued that this saying of Jesus on the cross is likely not original. It was sometime during the second century, probably the middle to the late part, that this saying was added, probably to a gospel harmony, and from then on it eventually found its way into all the text-types and the majority textual history thereafter.
I am not going to reproduce my entire paper here, but I will provide some points of discussion, namely on the textual evidence that shows that this reading lacks important textual support.
Documentary Evidence
There are substantially two readings, a short reading (omission) and a longer reading (insertion). The following Greek evidence is given in a bird’s-eye format, which will allow us to see the significant Greek witnesses all at once. The format here is taken from Reuben Swanson’s very helpful New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus (Luke Edition).[1] Continue reading →
Way of the Master videos, showing a conversation between someone who knows his faith and someone who although a believer has not been equipped to share their faith in Christ.
Why Does the King James Bible Have Some Different Verses Than Modern Translations? Justin Taylor
Have you ever wondered why modern translations of the Bible don’t have certain verses found in the King James Bible? This can be a sensitive pastoral issue, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge.
Wallace highlights two examples, starting with Revelation 22:
In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been.
Then 1 John 5:7-8:
For 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.
Wallace explains that he and many other textual critics would personally prefer to retain these readings, but integrity demands that we go with the best available evidence:
It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. . . . But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally.
Below is a brief video of Dr. Wallace answering a question on the same theme:
Dr. Norman Geisler continues to present an “illustration” or “parable” regarding God’s role in salvation that is grossly sub-biblical, yet very useful for illustrating the difference between man-centered theology and God-centered theology. Dr. James White responds:
What convinced me that reformed theology was correct was not the logical arguments I heard (as good as they were), nor the fact that the vast majority of the church’s great Bible scholars through the centuries believed and propagated it (as impressive as that is). What convinced me was the clear teaching of Holy Scripture.
Having read many counter positions on passages such as John 6, Ephesians 1, and Romans 8 and 9, I was amazed at what people needed to do to try to avoid the clear teaching of the passages. They could not just stay in the same passage and work through the verses one by one, allowing the writer to flow from one thought to the next. Instead, they had to argue that the writers were at one point talking about one thing and then in the next verse or even in the middle of the same verse, were speaking about something completely different. It was hard to follow, but not because of what the text said, but, as I came to understand it, because of the elaborate methodology being implemented to avoid what the text was actually saying. They (“they” being those who opposed reformed theology) would say that in one phrase he is referring to “nations” while in another he is referring to specific individuals, and then in the very next verse it referred to something else. Even if this was the case, what are “nations” but a large group of individual people? The “problem” they had of a Sovereign God choosing people for salvation does not go away. God still does this if he chooses one nation and not another. If God chose one nation, he is choosing individual people who make up that nation, and is therefore by this act, also not choosing other people. As I say, the “problem” does not go away.
In contrast to this, when the Scripture writer is allowed to “speak for himself” as to what he means, by simply taking his words, in context, allowing the words to flow from one statement to the next in the passage as he addresses his overall theme, a consistent correct interpretation emerges. This became so very clear to me. I am reformed in soteriology (the study of salvation) because, bottom line, this is what I believe Scripture teaches.
On these issues, I used to have my feet firmly planted in mid air. What I mean by that is that I just didn’t know where I stood on these things. Not only did I not know, I thought it was a display of humility to say so. Now, it WOULD be humble IF the Scripture was vague, elusive and impossible to understand on these things. Some things are clearer than others in holy Scripture. But when God has made His truth clear, it is actually the height of arrogance to say otherwise. Because there is a God and because He has revealed His existence to every man (as Romans 1 teaches) it is arrogance to be agnostic on the question of God’s existence. It would be like standing in God’s face and saying “You did not make this clear at all.” In the same way, I believe God has addressed the issue of His Sovereignty in the matter of salvation in passages such as Romans 9 and that His truth is clearly revealed here.
One of the men of God who helped me (under God) to see this, is a man who became my friend in this whole process, the man in these youtube videos below, Dr. James White. How thankful I am now to be able to see (although much mystery remains) something of the stunning and majestic glory of God in the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners.
From Great Falls in Montana, Dr. James White teaches on God’s Sovereignty and the ministry of apologetics and evangelism (approx. 53 minutes).
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” – Acts 13:48
Here (below) is Dr. James White speaking for approximately 55 minutes in Great Falls, Montana, on the Romans 9 passage. I recommend it highly.
In his concluding message from Great Falls, Montana, Dr. James White expounds the sixth chapter of John’s gospel. Jesus’ words, heard here in their context and in progression, proclaim much the same revelation as Paul’s words in Romans 8 and 9. God is truly Sovereign in the matter of salvation. (Approx. 46 minutes youtube video below)
What was God’s intention from all eternity in the atonement? What did He intend for Christ to accomplish by His death on the cross?
Orthodox Christians are not universalists (universalism is the ancient heresy that teaches that all people will eventually be redeemed). Instead, believing that only some (and not all) will be saved. The Bible makes it clear that some people will in fact be lost, ultimately lost, in a place of weeping, darkness and gnashing of teeth. Some people will in fact spend eternity in hell.
Knowing this, all of us as Christians limit the atonement in some sense because we agree that not everyone will be saved by the work of Christ. Amongst particularists then there are two main views; the first being what is called “universal redemption” (the view that Christ died to try to save everybody in human history, past, present and future, though His work by itself did not actually accomplish this unless man does something to cooperate).
JESUS THE PERFECT AND POWERFUL SAVIOR
The second and I believe biblical view is called “particular redemption” (Christ actually propitiated the Father’s wrath for a specific group of people – securing redemption for them and providing even the faith that will call upon Him to save them – Jesus being the author and perfector of our faith. The Good Shepherd laid down His life for the sheep, Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25).
In Matthew 1:21 we have the record of Joseph being told, “you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” The question then is, well did Jesus in fact do this? Did He accomplish this? I believe He did. In His work of redemption, Jesus saved God’s people from their sins.
Rev 5:9 says of Christ, “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation…”
Here’s a rather lengthy quote from C. H. Spurgeon on particular redemption:
“The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief. Continue reading →
Back in 2009, Dr. James White taught a three part seminar on the doctrines of Grace in St. Charles. The youtube videos still have much relevance to us now.
Part 1 – Objections:
Part 2 – The Concept of Middle Knowledge and the Divine Decree
James writes: My cameras (both of them) simply refused to go back one hour and 3 minutes or so on this trip, so yes, it stops right in the middle of something, but hey, that’s why you should be there live! 🙂
Part 3 – “So I tried by old and trusty little Casio for Saturday morning…still only managed about an hour.”
As Christians, we are born into a war zone where our enemy rages against us, seeking to devour us. This intense spiritual conflict will continue as long as we remain in this world. God commands us to put on the whole armor of God and to stand against the schemes of the devil. Here’s how.
