Amen and good morning.
If you will please join me in your copy of God's Word, John chapter 7, the text that follows verse 52.
!
Likely does, but I'm just not sure if it does.
You will note, if you look there at the end of chapter 7, in brackets, and then the text that follows in double brackets,
the earliest manuscripts do not include chapter 7, verse 53, through chapter 8, verse 11.
And then, in the ESV, a footnote that says some manuscripts do include 7, 53, through 8, 11.
Others add the passage here, or after 7, 36, or after 21, 25, or after Luke 21, 38, with variation in the text.
So, what are we supposed to do with these texts?
I will tell you at the outset, the portion of my Bible that I intend to read to you, found on this page,
is the only portion I intend to read, what I just read.
That was it.
My goals for us this morning are twofold, which, if you like to take notes, here's the outline for you.
They're as follows.
Two goals.
Number one, explain why I don't believe that John 7, 53 through 8, 11 belongs in our Bibles,
and therefore, why I will not be preaching it this morning.
So, you could more simply call that point exclusion.
Secondly, I would like to explain why we can have a great confidence that our Bibles are God's inspired, authoritative, inerrant word.
Texts like this ought not cause us to be concerned about the veracity of the fact that this is God's word.
So, again, if you want to abbreviate that point, you could call it confidence.
So, exclusion and confidence.
We do have some texts for today, so I'm not going to not use the Bible at all today, just not this particular text.
I'm just going to ask you to hang with me here on it, and if you'd like to turn as I go along, please join me where I go.
But before we do any of that, let's pray God's blessing on this sermon.
Father, thank you very much for this morning.
Father, we thank you for your word.
We recognize that it is inspired and therefore authoritative.
It is inerrant.
And Father, we want to come to it humbly.
We want to understand it rightly.
We want to obey it.
And so, as we come to a bit of passage that's difficult and hard to understand exactly what we ought to do with it,
I pray that you give us great wisdom.
And we pray this in Christ's name and for his glory.
Amen.
Okay, firstly, exclusion.
I want to explain why I don't believe that John 7, 53 through 8, 11 should be at least in our Bibles the way it is in most people's Bibles.
Now, I'm assuming, again, it's the way it is in mine, right?
The text is there with these double brackets and these careful notes.
There is external evidence to this end.
This text, John 7, 53 through 8, 11, is not found in any of the best or earliest manuscripts.
We have a vast number of early manuscripts, right?
Some in total, some in fragments.
But putting them all together is how we arrive at the text that we have before us today.
The work of doing this is called textual criticism.
And that is the academic discipline aimed at reconstructing the original text of the Bible with utmost accuracy.
There are brilliant people doing really careful work to this end, both past, present, and Lord willing in the future.
This endeavor relies on the manuscript's quality and its contextual consistency.
So there's comparison across these early, early manuscripts.
And it is a painstaking work.
Textual critics pore over these early manuscripts to ascertain what does and what doesn't belong.
Uncertainty that these verses belong is the reason for the double brackets found in the ESV with the comment and the additional footnote that I read for you.
Those manuscripts that do contain it, as was mentioned in the footnote, don't all place it after 752.
Sometimes it's found in other places and in variations.
So, it is most likely a story that may or may not have happened, but was passed down orally and added in at a later time.
It found its way into some of the later copies of the Bible.
We don't know if it happened.
I'm unsure.
Could have been a thing that happened in the life of Jesus.
But we're just not confident of it.
Further, the late Bruce Metzger, a well-respected textual critic of the 20th century, in his work, a textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes that,
quote,
No Greek church father, prior to Euphemius Zagabinus, I think, from the 12th century, comments on the passage,
and Euphemius declares that the accurate copies of the gospel do not contain it.
It's the 12th century, right?
1100s.
It's the first time we see a church father comment on it, and he there says, not found in the most accurate copies of the text.
This is why I am convinced, as much as one can be convinced when dealing secondhand, all of this information is coming to me through others.
I am certainly no textual critic, and I don't intend to present myself to you in that way.
That's why I'm convinced that these verses should be omitted altogether, or they should be footnoted, like John chapter 5, verse 4.
If you want to, as I'm talking, turn there and notice that there is no John 5, 4 in the text, but there's a footnote that speaks of it.
We referenced that when we preached that text.
And there's other verses in the Bible that are dealt with this way as well.
D.A. Carson, in his commentary on John, the seminal commentary, the one that everybody should have if they're studying the book of John,
says this.
This is the quote that's in your bulletin today.
These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek minuscule manuscripts.
Those are more recent manuscripts.
But they're absent from virtually all early manuscripts that have come down to us.
Jim Hamilton, who you're probably familiar with, wrote a book on the chiastic structure of the book of John,
wrote an article making an argument to the English Standard Version that they should be putting this down as a footnote.
So just not enough early and best manuscript evidence that is there.
It's omitted in those cases.
And so it's good for us to think in those terms.
So there's some external evidences.
There's also some internal evidences.
And I won't spend much time developing my argument at this point because I know that what I'm going to say is subjective.
When I'm proposing to you, you could take it or leave it.
So I just won't spend a whole lot of time on it.
I find that the previous comments that I've made are sufficient to the argument that I'm making this morning.
But I do want to take a moment to point out the interruption of 753 through 811 in the flow of writing,
John's writing from chapter 7 and into chapter 8, I would argue, picks up in verse 12.
Earlier in chapter 7, we read verse 37.
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out,
If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.
So at the Feast of Booze, the last day, we're unsure if it's the seventh day or the eighth day.
I want to think that it was on the seventh when they're going through this water ritual that we've talked about previously.
The centerpiece of that text, Jesus stands up and he states that he is the fulfillment of the water ritual.
He's the fulfillment of that ritual.
Those who are spiritually hungry should come to him for the satisfaction of their soul.
There was also, at the Feast of Booze, a candle lighting ritual.
Also there, which we're going to discuss further as we study on into chapter 8.
In chapter 8 and verse 12, we see the record.
Again, Jesus spoke to them saying,
I am the light of the world.
Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
I think John is writing and setting this stage with some conflict that happens in between.
Jesus both saying, I'm the fulfillment of the water ritual and I am the fulfillment of the light ritual that you go through.
And so this story comes in as an interruption to that.
Now again, that's subjective.
You may not feel like it is, and I'm okay with that.
Further though, 753 through 811 are not chiastic.
I tried and tried to find any chiastic structure to it.
And it messes with the chiastic structure of the entire narrative all together.
And so I think that's another indicator.
And it's at this point.
I will digress.
All of this taken together is enough for me to decide not to preach this text.
Not include it in our preaching schedule.
That said, you are most welcome to disagree with me.
We can still be friends.
I promise.
So put your fists down.
It's okay.
If you have some other knowledge and you want to come debate with me after our time together, here's my response.
So maybe you just won't.
I'm going to go, okay.
I don't care that much.
However, I do want to be so very careful when we say, thus saith the Lord.
That he did in fact.
That we have some confidence that the text we're putting before you on a Sunday morning is God's word.
Now I know that some of you may love this story.
It's very possible that you, even as we picked up a study of John, thought forward to this and couldn't wait to hear it explained.
I've taught it in the past.
It places on display Jesus' merciful nature towards sinners.
It juxtaposes the legalism of his day with the offer of grace found in the gospel.
The issue at hand is not one of trying to avoid some teaching that is complex or contradictory.
Something that's going to undermine our understanding of what I would now do.
We might do so to avoid teaching that we should handle snakes and drink poison as a testing of our faith.
Not so in this case.
People have done objectionable things with the text we're talking about.
But I think you could teach this text and not err in any way whatsoever.
That's not what's going on here.
But rather just taking the time to be careful, to give care to what we are noting as God's word.
Confidently noting as God's word.
Before I move on, allow me to take a moment to say two things that we might have derived from the text.
But we're not going to.
But I'm going to do it from places that we are confident are God's word.
If this is not, in fact, does it not belong in John, we don't lose anything because the Bible teaches elsewhere the things that we could learn from it.
Two things quickly.
Number one.
The avoidance of judgmentalism.
A legalism that looks down its nose at others doesn't apply the same standard to yourself.
Jesus teaches in Matthew chapter 7, verse 1 through 5.
Judge not that you be not judged.
For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged.
And with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Is he excluding careful correction?
Absolutely not.
Because he goes on.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye, when there is a log in your own eye?
You hypocrite.
First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
So there is instruction here for how we ought to view our own sin.
To see it as big and massive.
A log in the analogy here.
That we would properly deal with our own sins so that we can be a help to others.
Removing a thing that does need to be removed, a speck.
It's agitating and not good for the brother.
There's a way that we ought to go about correcting one another.
We should avoid this kind of judgmentalism that you might teach from the text.
Second, the loving kindness of Christ for sinners.
I said this previously.
Jesus welcomes to himself people who are sinful.
He's got big, broad arms for people who come to him for the forgiveness of their sins.
Again in Matthew chapter 11, verse 28 and following.
Jesus says,
Perhaps this is what he may have said to this adulterous woman, assuming that she existed.
So we don't lose anything if we say,
Perhaps not.
We're not confident this is God's word.
I wish my copy had it relegated down to a footnote at the bottom.
I think this would serve us better.
But what do we do then if we say,
Well, there's some places that we're not sure are the Bible,
and yet they find their way in.
What do we do with this?
This brings me to my second point.
I want to explain why we can have a great confidence that our Bibles are God's word.
This doesn't have to shake our confidence.
In fact, I think it should increase our confidence
that our Bibles are God's inspired, authoritative, inerrant word.
The Bible is unlike any book ever written.
At the most fundamental level, it is both authored by human beings and by God.
The word Christians have commonly used to describe this process is inspired.
This means that the Bible is the product of God inspiring and using human authors
to write his perfect, holy words without error or defect.
No problems with it at all.
And yet, here we find ourselves with copies handed down,
translations given to us,
finding a possible error here.
We're talking about God's inspiration.
We're talking about that original text that was given that we have now received.
And we've received it with some challenges to it.
Two passages that explicitly tell us the Bible is God's inspired word.
2 Timothy 3, verse 16.
I hope you're familiar with this.
That phrase in the Greek, breathed out by God,
is more literally translated, God breathed, or expired.
Expired.
You expire when you breathe out.
So breathed out by God,
breathed into the human author.
That's where we get this word inspired.
Breathed out by God,
so that it was breathed into the human author.
He is the source using the human author to accomplish his ends.
Second text, 2 Peter chapter 1, verse 20 and 21.
Knowing this, first of all,
The Bible originated not with the will of its human writers,
but with the will of God, the Holy Spirit.
Over 3,000 times, biblical writers claim to have received their messages from God.
God the Holy Spirit inspired, right?
Breathed out, breathed into the scriptures through these human writers.
To be clear, this does not mean that God dictated the Bible to its human authors.
That they took on some kind of robotic form and just pinned down the text.
Rather, they wrote with their own creativity,
in their own styles,
with their own vocabulary,
accomplishing all along exactly what God wanted them to accomplish.
He used all of those means to accomplish his ends.
That word, carried along,
it's a single word in 1 Peter,
is the same word that describes Paul's ship and axe
that's carried along by the storm.
A ship has sails to catch the wind.
It has a keel to prevent it from tipping over,
a rudder to steer it,
but ultimately,
a ship goes
where the wind carries it.
So, we believe that God's word,
original text,
is inspired by God.
So, it is
inerrant,
and it is
authoritative,
but how about the thing we have?
How do we know this is God's
word?
Let me make an argument for you first
for the Old Testament.
Now, if you are already really confident
that this, in fact,
is God's word,
and then just take this as an apologetic,
a way to help others
who may struggle
with these truths.
So, argument for the Old Testament.
Jesus himself,
the Lord Jesus Christ,
validated the Old Testament's inspiration
by quoting from all three sections,
the Law,
the Prophets,
and the Writings.
You can see this in Luke 24,
in verse 44.
He endorsed the inspiration
and authority of the Old Testament
in detail.
Matthew chapter 5,
verse 17 and 18.
The Bible of Jesus' day,
what he's referring to,
was our Old Testament.
The 39 books
that are canonized
as our Old Testament.
Listen to what Jesus says
in Luke chapter 11,
verse 49 and following.
Therefore also,
the wisdom of God said,
I will send them prophets and apostles,
some of whom they will kill
and persecute,
so that the blood
of all the prophets
shed from the foundation
of the world
may be charged
against this generation.
I'm going to get wrapped up
in the details
of what's going on here,
but he's indicting those
who are going to kill
him and his apostles,
just like they killed
the prophets.
And then verse 51 says,
from the blood of Abel
to the blood of Zechariah
who perished between the altar
and the sanctuary.
Yes, I tell you,
it will be required
of this generation.
Okay, so he's referring to
prophets who had been killed
and he bookends Abel
to Zechariah,
a specific Zechariah,
one who perished between
the altar and the sanctuary.
So Abel,
in the text,
is not called a prophet,
but here Jesus calls him
a prophet.
Genesis chapter 4,
verse 10.
It's that Abel.
The Lord said to him,
What have you done?
The voice of your brother's blood
is crying to me
from the ground.
Abel,
dead Abel,
slain by his brother,
cried out as a prophet,
Jesus says.
Genesis 4,
in verse 10.
So the first prophet,
Abel.
Zechariah,
found in 2 Chronicles chapter 24,
why is he the bookend?
Why is he at the other end of this?
Let me just show you,
this is the Zechariah,
2 Chronicles chapter 24,
verse 20 and 21.
Then the Spirit of God
clothed Zechariah,
the son of Jehoiada,
the priest,
and he stood above the people
and said to them,
Thus says God,
Why do you break the commandments
of the Lord
so that you cannot prosper?
Because you have forsaken the Lord,
he has forsaken you.
But they conspired against him,
and by command of the king
they stoned him with stones
in the court of the house
of the Lord,
the one who perishes
between the altar
and the sanctuary.
Chronologically,
the last martyr
was Uriah.
If you put her on a calendar,
chronologically,
the last martyr,
we go from Abel
to Uriah,
whose death is described
in Jeremiah chapter 26.
So why does Jesus say
Abel
to Zechariah?
It's because
the Jewish Bible
of Jesus' day
was ordered
differently
than ours.
I think ours should be ordered
the way theirs was,
personally.
But,
it's not ordered
in that way.
Our Old Testament
is grouped
by literary type.
Jesus' Bible
not grouped
this way.
1 and 2 Chronicles
were one book,
Chronicles,
and was written
as an overview
of Israel's history
with a particular emphasis
on David
and the temple.
It was placed
at the end
of Jesus' canon
to help God's people
look forward
to a better David
and a better worship.
That's a neat way
to read through
the Old Testament.
So in Luke 11,
when Jesus says,
from the blood of Abel
to the blood of Zechariah,
he's indicting
the generation
for the death
of the prophets
of his Bible.
Notice what he's doing.
He's affirming
that everything
from that prophet
to the last prophet
as they would have read it
is the scripture.
Those people
were all the prophets.
So that,
we can have great,
great,
great confidence
that our Old Testament,
although now coming to us
in a different order,
was Jesus' Bible
and he affirms
that it is
God's word.
So now,
how about an argument
for the New Testament?
I will say to you
that the New Testament
does sit,
those 27 books
that we call
the New Testament,
do sit on the foundation
of the Old Testament,
right?
They reference back
to the Old Testament
constantly.
But what else?
What else might we think
about how we arrived
at the New Testament?
Did Jesus have anything
to say about it?
Well,
he did prepare his disciples
for the coming of it.
John chapter 16
and verse 12,
right?
The Spirit was going
to lead them
in the truth.
And so,
he endorsed it
in principle.
There will be
some further writing.
Paul received revelation
pertaining to redemption.
We read in Galatians
chapter 1,
verse 11 through 17.
And he expected
his writings
to be received
as from God.
2 Thessalonians
chapter 2,
verse 13
and verse 15.
Peter classified
Paul's writings
with the inspired
Old Testament.
2 Peter chapter 3
and verse 16.
So we get some hints
within,
right?
That would lead us
to at least conclude
that there ought
to be some books
that make up
the New Testament.
So how do we end up
with these 27 books?
Well,
there was careful
criteria applied
to how to canonize
these books.
Number one,
they had to be written
by a recognized prophet
or apostle
like Isaiah,
Jeremiah,
Moses,
Paul,
or Peter.
that had to be written
by those associated
with a recognized prophet
or apostle
like the book of Luke
or Acts.
They were measured
on their truthfulness.
Deuteronomy 18,
verse 20 through 22.
God says,
if a prophet claims
to be speaking
from me
and what he said
is not true,
then he has not
spoken from me.
Faithfulness
to previously
accepted
canonical writings
was important.
Those things
seen as operating
as God's word,
were they faithful
to those books?
If they had been
confirmed by Christ,
prophet,
an apostle,
Luke 24,
verse 24,
2 Peter chapter 3,
verse 16,
I mentioned previously,
and church usage
and recognition.
These are the criteria
that were applied.
The church used
these writings
and was deeply
edified by them.
They were believed
over time
that they were
from God
and so the final
acceptance
of the recognition
of the 66 books
of the Bible
as scripture
took place
at the Senate
of Carthage
in A.D. 397.
Now there could be
much criticism
of the Bible
at this point,
the New Testament
at this point.
The claim is always
that the church
made the Bible.
It selected
what it did
and didn't want
to be contained
within it.
But we like
rather to think
that the church
did not make
the Bible
but rather
the Bible
made the church
and they merely
verified
its use
and its veracity.
So Christians
gathered
at the Senate
of Carthage
and said
using these criteria
what do we believe
God has been using
to work in the life
of his church?
Bring some veracity
to it.
And to that end
we can also think
in terms of
our own experience.
experience.
It's something
worth mentioning.
The longer I spend
studying the Bible
and the more
flawlessly I see
it all fit together
even pieces
written thousands
of years apart
the more it
seems to me
like the work
of God.
Isn't it an
astounding
book?
A bunch of men
couldn't have colluded
to pull this thing
off.
Now I know
that that's not
an argument
that you can
bank your life
on but for me
in addition
to the more
objective arguments
I have to say
that it feels
like what it
claims
to be.
God illuminates
the text to me
he makes it
come
alive.
I hope he does
the same
for you.
Paul wrote
in 1 Corinthians
chapter 2
and verse 14
the natural person
does not accept
the things
of the Spirit
of God
for they are
folly to him
and he is not
able to
understand them
because they
are spiritually
discerned.
So we contend
that the Bible
is God's
inspired word
to mankind
and if so
if it's inspired
then it follows
that it is
inerrant
it doesn't have
any error in it
because God
cannot lie
and it is
authoritative
because he is
God
and so
we should
in closing
I want to
quote
two scholars
Gary Phillips
and William
Brown
they say
quote
it is true
however
that the quality
of the New Testament
manuscripts
is less than
that of the
Old Testament
ones
more variant
readings do
exist
although these
are usually
matters of
spelling
or word
order
not matters
of doctrine
however
because there
are so many
manuscripts
of the New Testament
available
by comparing
the readings
the original
can be
reconstructed
the result
of the science
of textual
criticism
is an almost
pure
text
and most
of the remaining
textual problems
have reasonably
sure
answers
that's so good
so good
that the careful
work
has been
and is
being
done
and so
it's
carefully
noted
for us
when there
is
something
a tad
odd
the Bible
translators
and textual
critics
are not
trying to
hide
anything
from us
that's why
I think
these variances
should give
us even
more
confidence
no one's
trying to
pull anything
over
on you
double
brackets
they're
trying to
draw your
attention
although I
still think
it should
be a footnote
they're
trying to
draw your
attention
that the
earliest
manuscripts
do not
include
chapter 7
verse 53
through chapter
8
and verse
11
so
with minds
toward
the great
mercy that
Christ
shows to
sinners
that's
there in the
text but it's
all over
the rest
of the
Bible
I hope
you'll look
forward with
me to
concluding our
study of
John 7
at verse
52
and then
picking up
in chapter
8
and verse
12
next time
we're together
let's pray
together