WHAT IS TRUTH - Opinion Based on the Bible

The Biggest Problem Presupposition for Modern Versions

July 5, 2024 / 4 Comments on The Biggest Problem Presupposition for Modern Versions

In a short minute and a half presentation Dan Wallace gives the biggest problem presupposition for modern versions. Some hearing it will think it’s wonderful, because they stopped judging based on biblical presuppositions. This clip is only a minute and a half, so easy to digest. He starts with debunking some crazy conspiracy theories I’ve never heard, which make for a bit of a red herring on the main subject. It makes people, who disagree with him, look crazy.

A Positive First Statement

About thirty-seven seconds into his little presentation, Wallace starts making the points I’m addressing. I want to begin by saying that Wallace says something positive with which I agree. He states:

The King James Bible, we still have those manuscripts that the King James New Testament was based on.

Let that sink in. Sometimes people today especially treat people such as myself like we think that preservation comes from a reconstructed text in 1881. I’m talking about Scrivener’s. We never say that, but they still say we do, just because it’s convenient. Wallace debunks that with this statement.

I always like to say, “The translators translated from something.” The manuscripts were there. Printed editions of those manuscripts were there. They translated from them into English.

Then the Problems Begin

Then Wallace says:

The oldest (manuscript) was from the 11th century. Eight manuscripts were essentially used.

Wallace implies two criticisms of the King James Version with those two sentences. One, he says that the King James translators translated from more recent copies. The assumption of Wallace is that that would mean they’re corrupted more through time. They had eleven hundred years for scribal errors to creep in and produce variations on the original text.

The second sentence says that the King James Version came from a minority of the manuscripts. He implies that they didn’t have much with which to compare to make improvements or correct errors.

What the Translators “Used”

Notice that Wallace says, “essentially used.” Why? Why not just “used”? The King James translators examined more than eight manuscripts as the basis of their translation — far, far more. The text from which they translated comes almost entirely from a majority of the manuscripts.

The Greek text for the King James translators represented a period of about a hundred years of examination and study of Greek manuscripts, printed editions, and previous English translations. At least nine editions of the Textus Receptus New Testament Greek text were printed before 1611. The former translators of the previous English translations also looked at manuscripts. Then the translators in the 1611 edition recorded themselves alternate readings.

Also, the men, who printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the invention of the printing press, knew about manuscripts. They knew what was in them. The ones they possessed were ones preserved and available. They may not have relied on other manuscripts than the ones they used, because they rejected them as inferior.

Wallace says “essentially” to give himself deniability and wiggle room. He knows he’s saying something inaccurate. It’s just not true, but it’s based on an argument that Wallace might make with a focus on Erasmus and his earliest printed edition. The King James translators were not translating from Erasmus’s text.

Naturalistic Presuppositions Versus Divine Ones

Important to recognize is that God doesn’t need more and earlier manuscripts for preservation of his exact words. The King James Version translators had the preserved words from which they translated. More and earlier doesn’t mean better. This is a naturalistic presupposition expressed even more clearly by Wallace as he keeps talking.

The manuscripts upon which the King James translators relied is different than what they had available. They used more than just a few manuscripts, but they also had many more available that they didn’t use. They rejected those. The King James translators did not produce a critical text. It was the text God providentially preserved and received by true believers.

Majority and Minority

Wallace continues:

Today we have over five thousand eight hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts and somewhere between fifteen and twenty thousand manuscripts in other languages. So we have a thousand times as many manuscripts as, uh, almost in Greek alone than what the King James translators relied on.

Today we can compare the text behind the King James Version and it agrees with a majority of manuscripts more than the critical text, the basis of the modern versions. Even though Wallace refers to all those presently available manuscripts and translations, he does not mention that the modern versions do not rely on most of them. It sounds like he’s saying that, but he doesn’t, and it just isn’t true.

Overall, Wallace says that the King James translators relied on just eight manuscripts for their Greek text. He then implies that the modern critical text and versions rely on five-thousand eight-hundred Greek manuscripts and fifteen to twenty thousand manuscripts of ancient translations. That’s not true. Modern versions rely almost entirely on three or four manuscripts of the New Testament. If you compared the two underlying Greek texts, the text behind the King James Version is found in a majority of the manuscripts of which he speaks and the modern versions in a tiny minority of them. Do you understand how misleading it is that Wallace says?

Misleading Statements

Then Wallace says:

And our earliest manuscripts don’t go back to the eleventh century. They go back to the second century. So almost a thousand times as many manuscripts. Almost a thousand years earlier.

This is Wallace attacking the King James Version and its underlying text, the Textus Receptus. He’s saying they’re inferior. But is what he’s saying true? What is said again is extremely misleading. What manuscript evidence comes from the second century? A tiny little piece of one page, a mere fragment. The impression you might get from his speech is that we have a manuscript of the entire New Testament from the second century. We don’t. Not even close.

Also, having more manuscripts available now does not void God’s preservation. God didn’t need thousands more manuscripts to preserve the words of the originals. He could do that in a few. In his speech, Wallace uses the word “stupid” to describe people’s thinking. Maybe Wallace thinks people are too stupid to catch the problems with what he says. If the thousands they find agree almost exclusively with the ones that the translators used, that just illustrates the point.

Many people for many years have talked about the misnomer of judging something better because it’s older. In recent days, men found a very old copy of the Gospel of Thomas. They likewise found a Gospel of Judas. Age doesn’t mean either of those are believable. They could have easily lasted so long because few to none used them or relied on them for centuries and centuries.

The Biggest Problem

The biggest problem for Wallace he expresses at the end of his video, when he says:

The longer we go, as time goes on, we’re getting closer and closer to the original text.

Wallace says to his audience, “We’ve lost the original text. We haven’t had it.” He says we’re getting closer. How does he know that? If it was lost for thousands of years, what evidence is there that we know better now? It’s all naturalistic. According to Wallace, certainty still won’t exist.

The statement of Wallace betrays a rejection of the biblical doctrine of preservation. He doesn’t have one. Wallace doesn’t believe or teach one. He does the opposite. Saying that God perfectly preserved His Words, Wallace would say that’s rife for causing doubt. God promised He would and He didn’t, so that teaching would cause people to eject from the faith. Daniel Wallace and modern version proponents do not operate on faith in scriptural presuppositions. They offer something far less than that. This naturalistic presupposition is their biggest problem.

Optimistic Premillennialism

July 3, 2024 / 10 Comments on Optimistic Premillennialism

Versus Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism, an eschatological position or framework, seems to be making a comeback. When I say that, I still think a relatively small minority of professing Christians are postmillennial. The events of the twentieth century, namely two world wars, killed postmillennialism with most people. However, partly because of renewed popularity of Calvinism and reformed theology, many more are arguing for postmillennialism again. This eschatological position has its same major problems, but more treat it favorably right now than I’ve ever seen.

The rise of postmillennialism dovetails also with the promotion of Christian nationalism. The idea of Christian nationalism parallels with postmillennialism. In most ways, postmillennialism has become an American thing. Christian patriots back their fervent patriotism with an eschatological position and argument. Postmillennialism isn’t true, but it’s attractive in numbers of ways because of its optimism.

To believe in postmillennialism, advocates commonly caricature and trash premillennialism. They also take extremes of premillennialism, the wackiest among premillennialists, as representative of the whole. One particular attack is upon the pessimism of premillennialism. The language of pessimism is that “we lose down here.” Another one is that “everything’s got to get worse before it’s going to get better.”

Pessimism Is Wrongful Premillennialism

Premillennialists apparently can embrace the downfall and destruction of a present age. I believe that pessimism is not a biblical attitude. Premillennialists should reject pessimism. I don’t believe pessimism is the natural consequence of a literal approach to scripture. As I see it, the pessimism is a human construct that rises from an extreme form of separation. It’s what some might characterize as a “holy huddle, waiting for the rapture.”

The optimism of premillennialism should come from a joyous literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture. Premillennialists look forward to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, but Jesus is King to true Christians right now. Jesus has not rescinded the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26-31. True belief and practice of scripture applies all of scripture to all of the world. Believers should say something about everything to which the Bible applies, which is to everything.

Professing true believers, premillennial ones, very often and incoherently have reduced Christian living to delivering people quickly before Jesus comes back. Time is so short that they don’t have time for much of what scripture teaches. Instead, they should obey all of the Great Commission, that is, teaching believers to obey all the commands of Jesus Christ. Premillennial believers should represent the future kingdom in the age in which we live. That’s true conversion.

Pessimistic Postmillennialism

As a bit of an aside, postmillennialism is also pessimistic. It might think that the church will bring a future state with Jesus in charge. In so doing, however, it crushes Israel. Israel, also elect of and by God, becomes a pessimistic casualty of postmillennialism.

Why would someone think of a cheery future for elect church with a pessimistic view of elect Israel? Postmillennialists are pessimistic about what God really said in the Bible. They can’t take it literally. Instead they formulate it to their fictional version of the future, spiritualizing a gigantic chunk of scripture. I wouldn’t call that optimistic.

A primary basis for believing a positive view of my future, both near and far, is that God keeps His promises. He has done and will do that with Israel. The two go together. This results in a short term observation that God preserves Israel, a right, optimistic way to see the world. The Iranian drone or missile attack this year saw 99 percent failure. That could create some pessimism for postmillennialists, who bank on the replacement of Israel.

Right View of Imminence

A belief of dispensational premillennialists is imminence. Imminence means that we don’t know when Christ will return. Christ could come back in the next hour or in the next millennia. Believers can derive hope in dark times from imminence. That is realistic. However, premillennialists don’t know. The purification that comes from the accurate, rightful belief in imminence should attach itself to obedience to everything that the Bible says.

I’m very okay with a Christian nation. Churches can’t jump to that. Several steps come in between, but biblical Christians should have something to say about how true Christianity will shape a nation.

For instance, patriarchy is not a postmillennial position. That’s a biblical position. Premillennialists should not be silent on such things as the patriarchy just because they don’t think they have time to do it. That isn’t true belief in imminency. Premillennialists too should support all the biblical beliefs that could transform a nation, just like they will transform the world when Jesus reigns over it.

I call for dispensational premillennialists, who teach the true biblical eschatology, to embrace and promote optimism. That doesn’t mean we believe in the world system. The answer isn’t there, of course. However, dispensational premillennial churches should teach everything that the Bible teaches about everything. That is Christianity. Enjoy that. Help people in every area of life!

Is the Post-Birth Abortion Claim a Lie?

July 1, 2024 / 8 Comments on Is the Post-Birth Abortion Claim a Lie?

Presidential Debate Point

One talking point after the debate between President Biden and President Trump was Trump lied every time he spoke. Almost every Biden surrogate used this talking point and I believe it got some leverage afterwards, despite the historically bad performance by President Biden. The most referred “lie” by the pundits after the debate was Trump’s claim that Democrats even supported abortion after birth. Again and again they talked about that as a lie.

The Democrat support of also murdering babies born alive after botched abortions is a true and real thing. It would be worth reading former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy’s piece in 2008 at the National Review. You should read the whole article. McCarthy produced this following quote (a transcript) from then state Senator Obama, who voted against a bill to save those babies (italics provided by author in same way as original article):

Illinois State Senator Obama

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician

(a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Obama Continued

State Senator Obama continued:

Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

Never Rescinded

Democrats or Obama have not rescinded those remarks. They have spun them to cover, but this is what they think. They believe this. If a baby survives the abortion, Democrats favor allowing the doctor legal cover for following through with an abortion. It’s true. That’s no longer an abortion per se, and someone might argue that, but that’s not really an argument. They are finishing after birth what they unsuccessfully tried before the baby exited the mother’s birth canal.

I understand the confusion. If you allow for murder before the baby exits, but you fail at that murder and the baby survives, what difference does it make if you murder the baby after he’s on the operating table? Everyone knows it’s a murder either way.

Boxer in the House of Representatives

Barbara Boxer, the former congresswoman from California, famously said in a debate on the floor of the House with Rick Santorum that the life of a child begins when they take the baby home from the hospital. George Will wrote about this in a column at Newsweek:

In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”

Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”

When Trump talks about post-birth abortion, he talks about the stream of thought and evidence above and more. The hired fact checkers of the Democrat Party don’t like what it does to their abortion argument, but he is right to take the abortion argument that direction. It is an instinctive and successful negotiating tactic of President Trump. If it were a lie, he’d have no evidence for his point. Yet, he and other Republicans do.

Jill Stanek

Democrats say infanticide is illegal in every state. It is a matter of defining terms. In the testimony for the “Born Alive Bill” in Illinois, a practicing nurse, Jill Stanek, said that babies born alive after a botched abortion live 10% to 20% of the time. The Wikipedia article on this episode reads:

Stanek generated national news during the 2008 Presidential campaign when publicizing Barack Obama’s four votes against Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act while state senator, as well as his state senate floor testimony. She posted a vote tally on her blog showing that, during a March 12, 2003, meeting of the Illinois State Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, Committee Chairman Barack Obama prevented the passage of an amendment to Bill 1082 that would have conveyed “the rights of personhood upon any fetus expelled or extracted from the womb if that fetus was capable of breathing or voluntary motion.”

How Democrats Support Infanticide

Democrats might oppose infanticide (that particular word), but do they support the prosecution of doctors who kill living babies outside the mother’s womb, the ones who survive the abortion? They won’t answer that question. Trump is right to go on the offensive on this point the way he does. The Democrat position explains how Boxer could have said what she did in her interchange with Santorum in the House of Representatives. These three pieces of evidence, Obama as an Illinois state senator, Boxer in the House, and Jill Stanek as an eyewitness, indicate that Democrats do support post birth abortion. I would contend those are examples to which Trump referred in the debate.

It hurts Democrats on the abortion issue to reveal such an extreme as post-birth abortion. However, they have never nullified these examples given. They don’t disassociate themselves from Obama and Boxer, who took these positions. It is not a large distance between murder in the womb and murder outside of it.

The Sinner’s Prayer Absent From Evangelism in Church History

June 28, 2024 / 3 Comments on The Sinner’s Prayer Absent From Evangelism in Church History

Is the sinner’s prayer a methodology for evangelism present in the overwhelming majority of church history? No.

Some time ago I read Dr. Paul Chitwood’s 2001 Ph. D. dissertation The Sinners Prayer: A Historical and Theological Analysis (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001). It is a valuable historical analysis of the development of the evangelistic methodology dominant in the evangelical and fundamentalist world today, namely, the practice of having the lost repeat a “sinners prayer” in order to become Christians. Dr. Chitwood argues convincingly: “The Sinner’s prayer did not appear until well into the twentieth century. . . . Moreover, the concept of bringing or inviting “Jesus into your heart” is one that does not occur readily before the turn of the twentieth century.”

The absence of the sinner’s prayer as an evangelistic methodology is confirmed by another book I have recently been going through. Published in 1653, it has a long 17th century title: Spirituall experiences, of sundry beleevers, Held forth by them at severall solemne meetings, and conferences to that end. With the recommendation of the sound, spiritual, and savoury worth of them, to the sober and spirituall reader, by the Welsh Baptist minister Vavasor Powel. I am 361 pages into the book as of the time I am writing this blog post. In those 361 pages, not one of the accounts of conversion mentions the repetition of a sinner’s prayer or having someone encourage someone else to repeat the words of a sinner’s prayer, nor of anyone being lead to ask Jesus to come into his heart and then having salvation promised upon performing such a religious ritual. Lost sinners seeking the Lord–which certainly can include prayer (Luke 18:13)–until they lay hold on Christ by faith and are born again? Yes, certainly. Salvation promised to the repetition of a sinner’s prayer, or an evangelistic presentation climaxing in the repetition of such a prayer? Never. Nor is assurance of salvation ever mentioned in this book as being based on sincerely having asked Jesus into one’s heart of repeating the sinner’s prayer–for that is not how 1 John or any other book in Scripture gives assurance.

Now I have not finished the entire book yet–perhaps something will change after page 361. But at least up to this point, it looks like this record by a Welsh Baptist preacher of what takes place in conversion does not involve the modern sinner’s prayer, and provides yet another confirmation of Dr. Chitwood’s thesis that the modern sinner’s prayer is, indeed, modern–which should not surprise us, since asking Jesus into one’s heart in order to be justified and its related complex of techniques is not found in the Bible.

I would encourage those who wish to divest themselves from the Hyles or Campus Crusade type of evangelistic methodology that climaxes with the repetition of the sinner’s prayer and a promise of salvation to those who sincerely perform this ritual evaluate better methods of explaining the gospel (I like this one, but I am biased). Furthermore, those who do not know how urge the lost to immediately repent and believe without also telling them to immediately repeat the sinner’s prayer as the real final step should consider some of the resources on the older and more Biblical evangelistic methods here.

-TDR

“Judge Not”: What’s It Saying?

June 26, 2024 / Leave a comment

The Context of Matthew 7:1

Matthew chapter seven starts with a very short, memorable command in the midst of a long sermon by Jesus: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” How does that fit into His message? People turn it into a statement against judgment or judgmentalism. But that is not what He was saying.

Jesus exposes His addressed audience, that it falls short of the glory of God. And the glory of God is their standard according to Jesus. “Be ye perfect as the Father is perfect,” He says (Matthew 5:48).

The crowd for Jesus thinks it’s okay because it hasn’t murdered anybody, but it really has murdered in the heart through its contempt for others. It is proud of its giving, its prayer, and its fasting, even though it does these to be seen of men. Its worry or anxiety about what it will eat or what it will wear means it does not seek first the kingdom of God. Without the requisite poverty of spirit, it will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

How Judgment Fits the Context

Comparison

How could the crowd think it was so good? How? It compared itself to other men, that’s how. But Jesus then debunked its false, self-righteous judgment of other men. Even if His audience were held to an identical standard to which it judged others, it would still fall short. It would still find itself failing before God’s holy judgment. Evaluation of one’s self based upon the standard of other men doesn’t change God’s standard of judgment, just shows how self-deceived it is.

People’s own judgment very often becomes their standard of judgment. That’s why they think they’re good. I see this again and again in my evangelism. Most people think they are good. It doesn’t take long in comparing people to God for them to find they don’t stand up to Him.

Contrast

In the next verse, verse two, Jesus says:

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Jesus expands on verse one. The Apostle Paul later makes a similar point in Romans 2:1-2:

1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

Jesus Recommends Judgment

Jesus wasn’t saying, “don’t judge at all.” That’s easy to see. That’s not even what He was talking about. Even to make a righteous judgment of others, you can’t be or doing worse than the person you’re judging. All of this exposes the hypocrisy of pseudo-judgment intended to signal virtue and vindicate self. “I’m not as bad as the other guy, so there!”

When Jesus lays out judgment of any person upon any other person, it is for helping that other person. He’s got a moat or a splinter in his eye and you can help him get it out. If he’s beyond help, which we might assume starts with evangelism, Jesus gives an illustration for that. Don’t give something holy to dogs and don’t cast pearls before swine.

In other words, Jesus recommends judgment. He gives two priorities for judgment. One, remove impediments of judgment before you start judging. Two, don’t waste time and energy judging someone whom won’t listen to or use your wise judgment. Good reasons exist for judgment. Using the comparison with other men for self-vindication is not one of them.

The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV

June 24, 2024 / 37 Comments on The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV

Another Video from Mark Ward

Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV. He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence. In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence). Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).

I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples. It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense. Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical. So there we were. Deep breath. Go back to normal life.

Changing Tune

Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here). His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video. He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?). Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred. My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper. The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.

Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators. He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic. Many of those translators still live. Why not just ask some of them? Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.

My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video

Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments. He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted. He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts. I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.

I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.

Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video. It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position. I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions. Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions. He misrepresents me in that way. I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here. I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.

Underlying Text Different

The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV. Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion. The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language. It’s just not the case. I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version. Of course I like it better than most. It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions. But the translators went ahead and did this thing. Ward should be upset at them, not at me. He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.

Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion. I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine. What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations. I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament. I’ve started to do that.

More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV

So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV. At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament. Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences. He doesn’t care.

I don’t get Mark Ward. It would take a list several pages long to explain. He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint. His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private. He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash. His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless. Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark. Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly. He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.

Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes. No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them. He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.

With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV. Know this. There is not published underlying text of the NKJV. To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV. Ironic, huh?

Matthew 9:17

I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list. Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.

KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.

ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.

The NKJV and the ESV agree. They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai. The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi. I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17. Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR. Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.

More to Come

Acts 5:30 & James White: King James Version Only Debate

June 21, 2024 / Leave a comment

As many blog readers know, I had the privilege of debating James White-who utilized Acts 5:30 as a key part of his argument–on the topic:

The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.

You can watch the debate here at What is Truth? at Faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble. A number of Christians posted debate reviews, some of which are discussed in a What is Truth? post here. I also produced a series of debate review videos accessible on my website, on YouTube, and on Rumble. It had been a while since I had made a new one, but I (finally) got around to getting out my thoughts on James White’s argument from this verse:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, KJV)

The God of our fathers braised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging Him on a tree. (LSB)

James White’s Argument on Acts 5:30

White argued:

1.) The King James Version in Acts 5:30 teaches that the ungodly first slew Christ, and after He was slain, they hanged Him on a tree or cross. This would destroy the gospel by denying that the Lord Jesus died on the cross for our sins; rather, the KJV (supposedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was first killed and then His dead body was hanged on a tree or cross.

2.) The LSB is a superior translation to the KJV because in Acts 5:30 it states that His enemies killed Christ “by hanging Him on a tree,” that is, by crucifying Him.

3.) The Greek of Acts 5:30 contains the participle kremasantes, which must indicate means and be translated as affirming that Christ was slain “by hanging.” It cannot be translated “and hanged.”

4.) The KJV translators simply “missed” that kremasantes was a participle, and not realizing that kremasantes was a participle, they translated it like a finite verb.

5.) “Every English translation” translates kremasantes as a participle of means (that is, “by hanging”). The KJV “is the only one” that translates the Greek as “and hanged.”

6.) There is no Greek word “and” in Acts 5:30. The KJV therefore mistranslates the verse by adding words not found in the Greek text.

7.) Because the KJV (allegedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was killed before He was crucified in Acts 5:30, because the translators were sloppy and missed that the verse had a participle and so disagreed with every other English translation, and because the KJV adds in the word “and” that is not contained in the text, the KJV is an inferior translation in Acts 5:30, and, so, presumably is an inferior translation overall. The LSB (and every other English translation, all of which unite to oppose the KJV in Acts 5:30) are superior, not just in Acts 5:30, but in the entire Bible.

James White has been making his claims against the King James Version’s translation of Acts 5:30 for around 30 years in the several editions of his The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), and he made them again the debate.

The Truth on Acts 5:30 and James White’s Argument

In my review video, I demonstrate:

1.) James White’ argument from Acts 5:30 does not get him even close to proving the proposition in the debate.

2.) Dr. White’s criticisms of the King James Version in Acts 5:30 are astonishingly uninformed and inaccurate.

3.) White’s claim that the KJV translators simply “missed” that Acts 5:30 contained a participle is painfully unserious.

4.) White claimed that the KJV contains a mistranslation because it supplies the word “and” before “hanged,” when the syntactical category of the attendant circumstance participle (found in Acts 5:30) requires the insertion of an “and.”

5.) To attack the KJV in Acts 5:30, White’s King James Only Controversy invents a fictional Greek grammatical category called “instrumental circumstantial modal” and makes claims about the Greek grammar of Dana and Mantey that have no connection to the actual text of their book.

6.) Failing to account for the Old Testament allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22 in Acts 5:30 is another of many examples of what is lost on account of White’s writing the King James Only Controversy in only a few months and never improving it.

7.) The favorite manuscripts of the Textus Rejectus teach the heresy that the Lord Jesus was murdered by a spear thrust before His crucifixion in Matthew 27:49. To be consistent with White’s line of reasoning, we must recognize the unambiguous superiority of the Textus Receptus because of the egregious error in the Textus Rejectus in Matthew 27:49.

Why? Watch the embedded video below, or watch the debate review video on Acts 5:30 (#15) at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.

–TDR

Baptist History and the Points of Calvinism

June 19, 2024 / 6 Comments on Baptist History and the Points of Calvinism

Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five

Baptists, Calvinistic or Arminian?

In the last post of this series, I wrote that John T. Christian said in his book on The History of Baptists, that Baptists were more Calvinistic than Arminian. When I wrote that or referenced him, I wasn’t saying that Baptists are Calvinists. At least since the advent of Calvinism, they are more Calvinistic, mainly referring to eternal security. Eternal security very often and for some is shorthand for Calvinistic, setting someone apart from Arminianism.

Even with a Calvinistic resurgence in the Southern Baptists, only 30% are Calvinist. They aren’t the majority. I know some look at the English and American Baptist Confessions to get or have the opinion that Baptists were mainly Calvinists for the last four hundred years. You would be wrong again.

Particular and General Baptists

Particular Baptists, the Calvinist wing of Baptists in England especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, wrote the London Baptist Confession. At the time of their writing of that confession, they represented slightly more of the Baptist churches in England than the General Baptists, the non-Calvinist wing. That Confession did not speak for all Baptists in England. John T. Christian writes about this:

This body (of General Baptists) constituted by far the larger portion of the Baptists of that country, and their history runs on in an uninterrupted stream from generation to generation.

The first Baptists in England were not Calvinists. The Calvinists came later as a separation from the Anglican church in 1633. Calvinism was an unnatural growth for Baptist churches. Calvinist Baptists came first from a break with the Church of England, not an adaptation on Baptist churches. They broke with the Anglicans over such doctrine or practices like infant sprinkling.

Apparently because of the doctrinal problems among the General Baptists, once the Particular Baptists came to England, the latter outgrew the former for a short period. By 1660, Particular Baptist churches outnumbered General Baptist ones, 130 to 110. Anglican England, however, persecuted both Baptist factions until the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary and the Toleration Act of 1688.

Calvinism and Arminianism Both Clash with Historical Baptist Belief

Calvinism does not characterize Baptists. Eric Hankins explains this well in his journal article, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism Toward A Baptist Soteriology:

Baptists believe in the clarity and simplicity of the Bible. We search in vain for decrees, a Covenant of Works, the distinction between a “general call” and an “effectual call,” hidden wills, and prevenient grace. We react with consternation to the ideas that God regenerates before He converts, that He hates sinners, that reprobation without respect to a response of faith brings Him the greatest glory, or that the truly converted can lose their salvation. Baptists have felt free to agree with certain emphases within Calvinism and Arminianism, while rejecting those that offend our commitments to the possibility of salvation for all and to the eternal security of that salvation based exclusively on faith in the covenant promises of God.

The free offer of an eternal, life-changing covenant with the Father through the Son by the Spirit to all sinners by the free exercise of personal faith alone has been the simple, non-speculative but inviolable core of Baptist soteriological belief and practice. Baptist soteriology (specifically including the doctrines of the sovereign, elective purposes of God, the sinfulness of all humans, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the security of the believer) is not in jeopardy and does not need to be reinforced by Calvinism or Arminianism. It can be successfully taught, maintained, and defended without resorting to either system.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Infant Sprinkling

Hankins continues:

It has been typical of Baptists to believe that anyone who reaches the point of moral responsibility has the capacity to respond to the gospel. While all persons are radically sinful and totally unable to save themselves, their ability to “choose otherwise” defines human existence, including the ability to respond to the gospel in faith or reject it in rebellion.

God initiates the process; He imbues it with His Spirit’s enabling. When people respond in faith, God acts according to His promises to seal that relationship for eternity, welding the will of the believer to His own, setting the believer free by His sovereign embrace. Our assurance of salvation comes not from a “sense” that we are elect or from our persistence in holy living. Assurance comes from the simple, surrendered faith that God keeps every one of His promises in Christ Jesus.

Baptist Insistence on Believer’s Baptism

Baptists’ historical insistence on believer’s baptism is a solid indicator of our soteriological instinct. Historically, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism had a correct word for infant baptism because both were burdened with the justification for total depravity, original sin, and individual election. For many Arminians (like those in the Wesleyan tradition), infant baptism functions with reference to original sin and prevenient grace and plays a role in the faith that God “foresees.” For many Calvinists, infant baptism has become an extremely odd vehicle by which they deal with the fate of infants, an issue that is illustrative of the fundamental inadequacy of the system.

If Calvinism is true, then its own logic demands that at least some infants who die before reaching the point of moral responsibility spend eternity in hell. By and large, Calvinists do not want to say this and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Covenant Theology and infant baptism have been the preferred method for assuring (at least Christian) parents that they can believe in original guilt and total depravity and still know that their children who die in infancy will be with them in heaven. While Baptist Calvinists and Arminians do not allow for infant baptism, the fact that their systems allow for and even advocate it is telling.

Baptist Rejection of Covenant Theology

Prevenient grace and Covenant Theology have never played a role in Baptist theology. This frees us to deal biblically with the issue of infant baptism: it is simply a popular vestige of Roman Catholic sacramentalism that the Magisterial Reformers did not have either the courage or theological acuity to address. Privileging election necessarily diminishes the significance of the individual response of faith for salvation, thus creating room for infant baptism and its theological justification. But with faith as the proper center of Baptist soteriology, infant baptism has never made any sense. Our distinctive understanding of the ordinance of baptism celebrates the centrality of the individual’s actual response of faith to the free offer of the gospel.

Hankins gets at the crux of the doctrinal conflict between true Baptist doctrine, actual New Testament doctrine and practice, and the innovation of Calvinism and Arminianism. The doctrinal and practical deviation from scripture of Calvinists and Arminians both clash with the doctrinal and practical sensibility of Baptists. They are a diversion off the true line or trajectory of Baptist churches from their beginning, almost a mutation.

Baptists Not Protestant

Sadly, many professing Baptists embrace Protestantism as their history through Roman Catholicism. This is a new historical revisionism that arose in the late 19th century. Here is what C. H. Spurgeon wrote in the Sword and the Trowel concerning the History of English Baptists in a review of J. M. Cramp’s History:

The history of English Baptists is full of interest. From the first they were peculiarly offensive to “the powers that be.” Henry the Eighth – who did so much for the Anglican Establishmentarians that he ought to be regarded by them as a pet saint, even as he was befooled and belarded by the intriguing Cranmer – when he assumed the headship of the Anglican church which never acknowledged Christ to be its only Head, proclaimed against two kinds of heretics, viz., those who disputed about baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and such as were re-baptised. These Anabaptists were commanded to withdraw from the country at once. Cranmer ordered some to be burnt, and burnt they were.

1357 Date for English Baptists

Mr. Kenworthy, the present pastor of the Baptist church at Hill Cliffe, in Cheshire, has stated that if the traditions of the place are to be trusted, the church is five hundred years old. “A tombstone has been lately dug up in the burial ground belonging to that church, bearing date 1357. The origin of the church is assigned to the year 1523.

It is evident that there were Baptist communities in this country in the reign of Edward VI, since Ridley, who was martyred in the following reign, had the following among his “Articles of Visitation:” “Whether any of the Anabaptists’ sect or other, use notoriously any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they do use doctrines or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the parish?” A fearful crime which many Anglicans of the present day would be as ready to punish were it not that other notions of religious liberty exist and powerfully influence public opinion.

We can trace the same spirit, though in embryo perhaps, in the ritualistic prints of the present age, and indeed in the two delightfully amiable Evangelical newspapers whose unbounded hatred of all outside the pale of their theology and clique is as relentless and unscrupulous as the bitterest feelings of Papal days. All history teaches that state-churchism means persecution, in one form or another, according to the sentiments of the age; and the only cure for the evil is to put all religions on an equality.

True History of Baptists Not Protestant

Spurgeon did not believe the Protestant view of English separatism. He with his mammoth library and well-read wrote the following:

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.

Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

Spurgeon made statements like this many times in sermons through the years, not from the seat of his trousers, but from what he read of prime sources and other history. He also talked among many English men for years as to the truth of Baptists.

A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Five)

June 16, 2024 / Leave a comment

Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four

The last point of Calvinism is

5. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

He That Overcometh

That language sounds right to me, but especially like “total depravity,” the first point, it depends on how one explains it. Why it seems good is because of certain scriptural language, chiefly two in particular. One, the New Testament describes the truly saved person as him or he “that overcometh” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). In an explicit way, 1 John 5:4-5 say:

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

True believers will overcome or persevere. One of the ways you know a person is not a true believer or who possesses saving faith is that he will not overcome. If it’s true, real, or living faith, it will persevere or overcome. What does someone overcome? Scripture would most characterize it as trials, temptations, snares, or tests, brought by Satan or the world system that Satan orchestrates. Jesus explained it in the parable of the soils as the sun beating on the soil, the stony or rocky does not have root and cannot endure.

Abiding in the Vine

Two, Jesus used the metaphor of abiding in the vine (John 15). Often, because of a wrong view of sanctification, evangelicals messed up this doctrine. “Abide” (meno) comes from a simple Greek word that means “remain.” Truly saved people, people with true saving faith, will abide or remain. They will not defect like Judas or Demas (2 Tim 4:10).

The reason true believers remain, that is, don’t lose their salvation, is that God keeps them. Once in His hand, no man can pluck them out of His hand (John 10:27-30). He keeps them by His power (1 Peter 1:5). Paul expresses it this way in Philippians 1:6:

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.

God began the work of saving grace and He will complete it. Despite the testing of Satan, Job persevered, which testified of His saving righteousness.

Perseverance contrasts with a form of eternal security doctrine that eliminates an enduring or steadfast faith. True and saving faith through the New Testament does endure all the way into eternity. The eternal life of eternal security resulting through faith in Christ continues as more than just a quantity of life, but also a quality of life. The eternal life received by saving faith proceeds from the nature of God. That life of God will characterize the one who possesses it according to His moral attributes.

Regeneration and Perseverance

Is everything that I have described the actual doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? I’m afraid not. For Calvinists, unless regeneration preceded faith, then man’s contribution would have mixed with God’s in a non-saving way. Regeneration as a consequence of faith, Calvinists say, will not persevere. Man thus contributes to and fails at staying saved.

Endure to the End, Shall Be Saved

In other words, every point of Calvinism fits with all the others, so that if one is wrong, all are wrong, no matter how much each one is right. Some thing or many things are right within each point, but enough is wrong to make the point itself in general wrong. Perhaps no point is more right of the points of Calvinism than the perseverance of the saints. Jesus said in Matthew 24:13:

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

“Shall be saved” is a future tense verb. This is ultimate salvation, what some call “eschatological salvation.” It takes in justification, sanctification, and glorification. If God truly justifies someone, he will endure to the end. Even though it is God keeping and sanctifying, the New Testament describes the cooperation of the believer in this. Paul commands the believer to ‘work out his own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Philip 2:12). Peter explains this as ‘giving diligence to make your calling and election sure’ (2 Pet 3:10).

To emphasize some modification of Calvinism, I will rename this point

5. GOD’S PRESERVATION OF HIS SALVATION GUARANTEES MAN’S COOPERATION WITH IT

Many Calvinists wouldn’t disagree with that point. Many non-Calvinists, who claim belief in eternal security, would reject it. Man cannot cooperate without the will and work of God in saving him. If God does save him, he will cooperate with what God does. This fulfills the teaching in Romans 8:29. Whom God foreknew, He predestined to conform to the image of His Son. Every man God justifies, He also sanctifies.

From my reading of Calvinists, I contend that the points of Calvinism do not change the plan of salvation. I hope you noticed that I didn’t say, “the doctrine of salvation.” A Calvinist would receive and would not reject that (1) every man is a sinner, (2) he deserves a penalty for sin, (3) Jesus paid that penalty, and (4) he must believe in Jesus Christ. I’m saying that Calvinism itself does not change the gospel. The points of Calvinism in themselves do not result in a false gospel or salvation by works. According to historians, Baptists have been more Calvinist than Arminian. I write that, less an endorsement of Calvinism, but as it is a repudiation of Arminianism.

I reject a lot that Calvin believed, his ecclesiology, eschatology, infant sprinkling, and more. The corrupt doctrine in the points of Calvinism, although I’m saying is not a false gospel, has bad consequences. The points of Calvinism as taught by historical Calvinism leads people astray on numbers of doctrines. All false doctrine causes problems. Every problem for every church and every Christian comes to some misalignment with or deviation from the true teaching of the Word of God. This includes several various aspects of the points of Calvinism.

A BETTER LIST

You don’t need Calvinism or Arminianism. Certain aspects of both you’ll find in the Bible. I call on everyone to reject both. Either will send you a wrong direction. Instead latch on to what scripture really teaches, which I hope you will see in the alternative points I provided.

Maybe you don’t even need a list or five points. I’m not saying you do. However, if you’re going to have a list of points, I contend mine is better than Calvinism or Arminianism. It will allow for whatever truth either of those doctrinal positions provide. Instead of conforming to a system, perhaps mine will conform to the full counsel of the Word of God. Let’s review them (look back through the series as all of these points were longer there).

SPIRITUAL BANKRUPTCY
ELECTION ACCORDING TO FOREKNOWLEDGE
AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE
SUFFICIENT GRACE TO SAVE
PRESERVED SAINTS COOPERATE

You’re not going to get the fun acrostic T.U.L.I.P. here. I didn’t even try (SEASP?). I warn you, don’t anyone call these the “five points of Brandenburgism.” Okay? And despite not having a pretty flower to remember, just stop and smell some roses while you review these five instead.

John 5:4 KJV/TR: Inspired Scripture or Inserted Invention?

June 14, 2024 / Leave a comment

John 5:4 appears in the Greek Textus Receptus, the English King James Version or Authorized Version (KJV / KJB / AV), and in other Received Text – based Bibles. However, it is omitted in many modern Bible versions. The verse reads:

John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.

The variant actually concerns John 5:3b-5:4. The section in bold is what is omitted:

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος πολὺ τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. 4 ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.

Should we receive John 5:4 (or rather, John 5:3b-5:4) as part of God’s holy Word? Yes, we should. Why?

1.) In God’s singular care and providence it has been included in the Textus Receptus, and received by the churches. Scripture promises maximal certainty about its own text.

2.) John 5:4 has great support in Greek manuscripts. It appears in 99.2% of all Greek manuscripts. The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament, which is biased against the Textus Receptus, nevertheless lists as supporting witnesses in favor of John 5:4 the following: A C3 K L Xcomm Δ Θ Ψ 063 078 f1 f13 28 565 700 882 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita,aur,b,c,e,ff2,j,r1 vgcl syrp,pal copbomss arm Diatessarona,earm,i,n Tertullian Ambrose Didymus Chrysostom Cyril.

Thus, for example, Tertullian explicitly comments on John 5:4 in his On Baptism (Tertullian, “On Baptism,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885], 671.) with no indication that anyone was questioning it. Undoubtedly, the testimony in favor of John 5:4 is both very extensive and very ancient. Its “appearance in an overwhelming number of surviving Greek manuscripts, its diffusion into the Latin and Syriac traditions (plus even some manuscripts of the Egyptian Bohairic version), along with its citation by fathers in both East and West … serve to underscore its age[.]” (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 29.)

3.) John 5:7 does not make sense without John 5:4:

The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

If John 5:3b-5:4 is omitted from the Gospel of John, John 5:7 does not make any sense. What is the impotent man talking about?

4.) The Copper Scroll from Cave 3 at Qumran establishes that the spelling of the name as “Bethesda,” as found in the Textus Receptus and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, is correct, while the alternative spellings that are featured in the tiny minority of MSS that omit John 5:4 (Bethsaida; Belzetha; Bethzatha) are incorrect. If the witnesses for omission are clearly wrong here, while the Textus Receptus is right, we should not be surprised if the Received Text is also right in including the passage.

5.) The theology of the passage fits with the rest of Scripture, although some have unreasonably questioned it. How can John 5:4 accurately record real events? I do not see why we should think that, in that period of time before there was a completed canon of Scripture and when the Jews, who desire a sign, were God’s nation and institution in a pre-Christian dispensation, that He could not have at unspecified intervals (John 5:4 does not say how often this happened) have miraculously healed people who came to this location through the instrumentality of angels. If demons contribute to at least some sicknesses and disease, why should we be surprised if God’s angels are associated with health? The area was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, and so this miraculous action would have ceased by that point (if not earlier with the inauguration of the church as God’s institution, or even with Christ’s actions in John 5). Such miraculous healing could have been a sign that God’s special presence remained with His nation and people, even in the times of the Gentiles. Indeed, we should see that God even designed the entire place to point forward to Christ and to the manifestation of His glory as seen in John 5, after which the miracles likely ceased to take place there. The fact that, in this age when sign miracles (semeion) do not occur (although God works powerfully [dunamis] in His providential care and in many other wonderful ways) this verse can seem odd, and (in this dispensation) we are rightly highly skeptical about miracle claims, could easily explain why someone wanted to take the passage out and why a small number of people who were fine “correcting” the Bible were able to get the verse out of less than 1% of Greek MSS. One writer comments:

[I]t must be said that the miraculous intervention of angels in human life is so well established in the Bible, and so variegated, that only those who are uncomfortable with supernaturalism itself are likely to be genuinely troubled by the content of the verses under consideration. Indeed it may even be proposed that the reference to the angel is functional for Johannine theology. Already the Fourth Evangelist has pointed to the subservience of angels to the person of Christ by citing the Lord’s memorable words to Nathaniel, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (1:51). But here too the angelic ministration at the pool of Bethesda is markedly inferior to the ministry of God’s Son. Indeed, the seasonal and limited character of the healings the angel performed—and which were of no avail to the invalid described in this passage—are an appropriate backdrop for the instantaneous deliverance which Jesus brought to a man who had virtually lost all hope (cf. v. 7) while he lay forlornly in a place where God’s mercy seemed always to touch others, but never himself. The concept that Messiah is greater than the angels—despite the reality of their divinely appointed activities—lies implicitly in the background of the Johannine text. That this was an important theme for early Christianity no one will doubt who has read the opening chapters of the Book of Hebrews. Its appearance here, therefore, is hardly surprising. (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 [1979]: 38–39).

It is also unfortunate that anti-Received Text presuppositions lead to the exclusion of any consideration of John 5:4 in many modern books on the doctrine of angelology.

In conclusion, John 5:4 (John 5:3b-4) is part of God’s Word, just as inspired as the rest of the text. We should receive it with fear and trembling, reverence and love, as we do the rest of holy Scripture.