Luther's Gospel Sermon for Reminiscere, The Second Sunday in Lent. Matthew 15:21-28. Canaanite Woman

Luther's Sermon for REMINISCERE. SECOND SUNDAY IN LENT. Matthew 15:21-28

German text: Erlangen edition 11:121; Walch 11:744; St. Louis 11:544.

TEXT:

Matthew 15:21-28. And Jesus went out thence, and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from those borders and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. And he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. But she said, Yea, Lord: for even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was healed from that hour.

CONTENTS:

THE FAITH OF THE SYROPHENICIAN WOMAN, AND THE SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS GOSPEL.
I. HER FAITH.

1. Her faith was truly perfect

2. How and whence her faith originated 2-3.

3. How Christ tries her faith.

A. The First Trial. a. The trial itself 4. b. The conduct of the woman during this trial 5.

B. The Second Trial. a. The trial itself 5-6. b. The conduct of the woman during this trial 7.

C. The Third Trial. a. The trial itself 8. b. The conduct of the woman during this trial 9.

II. THE SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS GOSPEL.

1. The first part of this interpretation 10-12.

2. The second part of this interpretation 13.

3. The conclusion of this discourse

1. This Gospel presents to us a true example of firm and perfect faith. For this woman endures and overcomes in three great and hard battles, and teaches us in a beautiful manner the true way and virtue of faith, namely, that it is a hearty trust in the grace and goodness of God as experienced and revealed through his Word. For St. Mark says, she heard some news about Jesus, Mark 7:25. What kind of news? Without doubt good news, and the good report that Christ was a pious man and cheerfully helped everybody. Such news about God is a true Gospel and a word of grace, out of which sprang the faith of this woman; for had she not believed, she would not have thus run after Christ etc. In like manner we have often heard how St. Paul in Romans 10:17 says that faith cometh by hearing, that the Word must go in advance and be the beginning of our salvation.

2. But how is it that many more have heard this good news concerning Christ, who have not followed him, and did not esteem it as good news?

Answer: The physician is helpful and welcome to the sick; the healthy have no use for him. But this woman felt her need, hence she followed the sweet scent, as is written in the Song of Solomon 1:3. In like manner Moses must precede and teach people to feel their sins in order that grace may be sweet and welcome to them. Therefore all is in vain, however friendly and lovely Christ may be pictured, if man is not first humbled by a knowledge of himself and he possesses no longing for Christ, as Mary’s Song says, “The hungry he hath filled with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away,” Luke 1:53. All this is spoken and written for the comfort of the distressed, the poor, the needy, the sinful, the despised, so that they may know in all times of need to whom to flee and where to seek comfort and help.

3. But see in this example how Christ like a hunter exercises and chases faith in his followers in order that it may become strong and firm. First when the woman follows him upon hearing of his fame and cries with assured confidence that he would according to his reputation deal mercifully with her, Christ certainly acts differently, as if to let her faith and good confidence be in vain and turn his good reputation into a lie, so that she could have thought: Is this the gracious, friendly man? or: Are these the good words, that I have heard spoken about him, upon which I have depended? It must not be true; he is my enemy and will not receive me; nevertheless he might speak a word and tell me that he will have nothing to do with me. Now he is as silent as a stone. Behold, this is a very hard rebuff, when God appears so earnest and angry and conceals his grace so high and deep; as those know so well, who feel and experience it in their hearts. Therefore she imagines he will not fulfill what he has spoken, and will let his Word be false; as it happened to the children of Israel at the Red Sea and to many other saints.

4. Now, what does the poor woman do? She turns her eyes from all this unfriendly treatment of Christ; all this does not lead her astray, neither does she take it to heart, but she continues immediately and firmly to cling in her confidence to the good news she had heard and embraced concerning him, and never gives up. We must also do the same and learn firmly to cling to the Word, even though Go with all his creatures appears different than his Word teaches. But, oh, how painful it is to nature and reason, that this woman should strip herself of self and forsake all that she experienced, and cling alone to God’s bare Word, until she experienced the contrary. May God help us in time of need and of death to possess like courage and faith!

5. Secondly, since her cry and faith avail nothing, the disciples approach with their faith, and pray for her, and imagine they will surely be heard. But while they thought he should be more tenderhearted, he became only the more indifferent, as we see and think. For now he is silent no more nor leaves them in doubt; he declines their prayer and says: “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This rebuff is still harder since not only our own person is rejected, but the only comfort that remains to us, namely, the comfort and prayers of pious and holy persons, are rejected. For our last resort, when we feel that God is ungracious or we are in need, is that we go to pious, spiritual persons and there seek counsel and help, and they are willing to help as love demands; and yet, that may amount to nothing, even they may not be heard and our condition becomes only worse.

6. Here one might upbraid Christ with all the words in which he promised to hear his saints, as Matthew 18:19: “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them.”

Likewise, Mark 11:24: “All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them;” and many more like passages. What becomes of such promises in this woman’s case? Christ, however, promptly answers and says: Yes, it is true, I hear all prayers, but I gave these promises only to the house of Israel. What do you think? Is not that a thunderbolt that dashes both heart and faith into a thousand pieces, when one feels that God’s Word, upon which one trusts, was not spoken for him, but applies only to others? Here all saints and prayers must be speechless, yea, here the heart must let go of the Word, to which it would gladly hold, if it would consult its oven feelings.

7. But what does the poor woman do? She does not give up, she clings to the Word although it be torn out of her heart by force, is not turned away by this stern answer, still firmly believes his goodness is yet concealed in that answer, and still she will not pass judgment that Christ is or may be ungracious. That is persevering steadfastness.

8. Thirdly, she follows Christ into the house, as Mark 7:24-25 informs us, perseveres, falls down at his feet, and says: “Lord, help me!” There she received her last mortal blow, in that Christ said in her face, as the words tell, that she was a dog, and not worthy to partake of the children’s bread.

What will she say to this! Here he presents her in a bad light, she is a condemned and an outcast person, who is not to be reckoned among God’s chosen ones.

9. That is an eternally unanswerable reply, to which no one can give a satisfactory answer. Yet she does not despair, but agrees with his judgment and concedes she is a dog, and desires also no more than a dog is entitled to, namely, that she may eat the crumbs that fall from the table of the Lord.

Is not that a masterly stroke as a reply? She catches Christ with his own words. He compares her to a dog, she concedes it, and asks nothing more than that he let her be a dog, as he himself judged her to be. Where will Christ now take refuge? He is caught. Truly, people let the dog have the crumbs under the table; it is entitled to that. Therefore Christ now completely opens his heart to her and yields to her will, so that she is now no dog, but even a child of Israel.

10. All this, however, is written for our comfort and instruction, that we may know how deeply God conceals his grace before our face, and that we may not estimate him according to our feelings and thinking, but strictly according to his Word. For here you see, though Christ appears to be even hardhearted, yet he gives no final decision by saying “No.” All his answers indeed sound like no, but they are not no, they remain undecided and pending. For he does not say: I will not hear thee; but is silent and passive, and says neither yes nor no. In like manner he does not say she is not of the house of Israel; but he is sent only to the house of Israel; he leaves it undecided and pending between yes and no. So he does not say, Thou art a dog, one should not give thee of the children’s bread; but it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs; leaving it undecided whether she is a dog or not. Yet all those trials of her faith sounded more like no than yes; but there was more yea in them than nay; ay, there is only yes in them, but it is very deep and very concealed, while there appears to be nothing but no.

11. By this is set forth the condition of our heart in times of temptation; Christ here represents how it feels. It thinks there is nothing but no and yet that is not true. Therefore it must turn from this feeling and lay hold of and retain the deep spiritual yes under and above the no with a firm faith in God’s Word, as this poor woman does, and say God is right in his judgment which he visits upon us; then we have triumphed and caught Christ in his own words. As for example when we feel in our conscience that God rebukes us as sinners and judges us unworthy of the kingdom of heaven, then we experience hell, and we think we are lost forever. Now whoever understands here the actions of this poor woman and catches God in his own judgment, and says: Lord, it is true, I am a sinner and not worthy of thy grace; but still thou hast promised sinners forgiveness, and thou art come not to call the righteous, but, as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:15, “to save sinners.” Behold, then must God according to his own judgment have mercy upon us.

12. King Manasseh did likewise in his penitence as his prayer proves; he conceded that God was right in his judgment and accused himself as a great sinner and yet he laid hold of the promised forgiveness of sins. David also does likewise in Psalm 51:4 and says: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight; that thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” For God’s disfavor in every way visits us when we cannot agree with his judgment nor say yea and amen, when he considers and judges us to be sinners. If the condemned could do this, they would that very moment be saved. We say indeed with our mouth that we are sinners; but when God himself says it in our hearts, then we are not sinners, and eagerly wish to be considered pious and free from that judgment. But it must be so; if God is to be righteous in his words that teach you are a sinner, then you may claim the rights of all sinners that God has given them, namely, the forgiveness of sins. Then you eat not only the crumbs under the table as the little dogs do; but you are also a child and have God as your portion according to the pleasure of your will.

13. This is the spiritual meaning of our Gospel and the scriptural explanation of it. For what this poor woman experienced in the bodily affliction of her daughter, whom she miraculously caused to be restored to health again by her faith, that we also experience when we wish to be healed of our ,sins and of our spiritual diseases, which is truly a wicked devil possessing us; here she must become a dog and we become sinners and brands of hell, and then we have already recovered from our sickness and are saved.

14. Whatever more there is in this Gospel worthy of notice, as that one can obtain grace and help through the faith of another without his own personal faith, as took place here in the daughter of this poor woman, has been sufficiently treated elsewhere. Furthermore that Christ and his disciples along with the woman in this Gospel exhibit to us an example of love, in that no one acts, prays and cares for himself but each for others, is also clear enough and worthy of consideration.

Part III - Making Disciples Began with Turning the New Testament Text Into a Wax Nose. God's Word Becomes Man's Opinion. Money To Be Made in Constantly Changing Versions Packed with Errors

There is money to be made in new Biblical paraphrases
and Lutheran hymnals, all getting worse with each improvement.

Lower Criticism Paved the Way for Dynamic Equivalency, Paraphrases Marketed as Translations

          Relatively few pay attention to lower criticism. This field describes the analysis of manuscripts, editions, and early translations - to find the right reading for a given work from the past. The Old Testament is fairly secure from the harm of these swarming pests, because the text has been carefully preserved over many centuries by the extreme and demanding Jewish rules of copying. We also have the Septuagint, the early translation of the Old Testament into Greek, which helps establish what was considered a good translation long before the hot air merchants of Bible merchandising arrive.

          The New Testament has been the playground of apostates ever since the days of Wescott and Hort, with special help offered by Count Tischendorf. The New Testament is much smaller and its Greek far easier to master than Old Testament Hebrew and its cognate languages. One could grow blind studying variants in the Old Testament and not be known by more than a handful of experts. I confess to having a passion for this field during seminary, and I enjoyed using a Greek New Testament and checking the readings noted in the footnotes.

J-001

“The Westcott Hort text, along with the new translation, dealt the final blow to the old type of text (Received Text) upon which the King James Version is based.”

Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963, p. 80.

The Rules

Many a novice text critic has been initiated in the rules of the science. It could be a science. The actual text does not need to be a philosophical issue, but we can see that people refuse to keep their skeptical agendas out of the issue. We should only ask, “What is the purest form of the original text?” Various rules of doubtful value have been promoted to determine whether one reading is better than another:

a.    The shorter reading is preferred.

b.    The more difficult reading is preferred.

c.     When in doubt, favor tradition.

When we examine these rules, we can see that they are infinitely flexible and no more scientific than examining the entrails of sacrificial animals. The rules were first applied during a time when all ancient works were considered a patchwork by many different authors and editors.

The Shorter Reading Is Preferred

One can guess the attitude behind this rule. Some people make their stories longer and longer, the more they tell them. Others abbreviate a story they have heard before, depending on the circumstances. As far as being a reliable guide for one reading or another, determining the better reading by length is no better than walking to the hardware store with arms outstretched and saying, “I need a door this wide.”

We should think over the implications of this single rule. It suggests an arbitrary attitude setting itself against the data. Implied in this rule and others is the notion that the Christian Church suppressed the true text, changing it with additions to express a Trinitarian orthodoxy foreign to Jesus and the apostles. It is more likely that heretics edited their manuscripts to fit their pet doctrines, introducing some variant readings easily detected. For example, one man was trying to prove his case at a church meeting. He read from a document in a loud and outraged tone of voice, but when he came to a section that reflected poorly on him, he skipped it entirely. Later, his friend read a transcript from an audio tape. Once again, when material came up not supporting their cause, it was omitted. In these two cases, the shorter version was the corrupt version.

The More Difficult Reading Is Preferred

This rule abandons all pretensions of science, when considered thoughtfully. One question we must ask is, “Difficult for whom?” The answer is, “Difficult for believers.” This rule is a formula for replicating false doctrine. The Christian Church has determined through the study of the Scriptures that dozens of heresies are misinterpretations of God’s Word. One example would be an attack upon the hypostatic union of the two natures (divine and human) of Christ. Some deny the human nature of Christ. Others deny His divine nature. Still others are confused about the union of the two natures, as Zwingli and Calvin were. Applying this rule would mean that a reading denying the divine nature of Christ would be preferred to one affirming it. The arrogance of this rule is amazing. It simply assumes that the very first Biblical texts taught the favorite heresies of the liberals. Then, they think, over a period of time, the copyists inserted a newly minted orthodoxy into the pure text. If we choose to believe this liberal fantasy, this plan must have been a massive and overwhelming conspiracy. Only a few manuscripts preserved the original, mixed up, heretical Christianity. Liberals can pick those few examples out, elevate them to a new status, and create another New Testament based upon them.

That is exactly what Wescott and Hort did in England. They were asked to modernize the King James Version to some extent. They created a different Greek New Testament, a two-volume work so massive that no one could easily supplant it with another. A country raised on Shakespeare, Milton, and the King James Version rejected the new translation based upon their text, but their Greek New Testament persisted. Today, all modern translations of the New Testament reject the Majority Text and follow the trends of Wescott and Hort. All modern translations, not some of them, but all of them, favor the Egyptian manuscripts and reject the Majority Text.

The New King James Version, which is really a modest revision rather than a new translation, does not follow the Egyptian texts and argues against them. The New KJV does provide variations in footnotes, but these actually help the reader see where the RSV and NIV omit verses. The omission of words and entire verses is the issue. The new editions edit out a significant amount of the New Testament. The omissions are seldom noted in the modern translations, so the verses and words are forgotten. In time they seem foreign.

Another consideration, with variations in the King James family, is the potential readership of the target audience. As Martin Jackson said about the New KJV, aimed at conservative Baptists – “They know their market.” Every translation is a commentary (Scaer).

When in Doubt, Favor Tradition

This rule may or may not be applied. The radical scholars generally work against tradition. For instance, they dismiss the reliability of the New Testament, but they anchor the dating of various events by using the Acts of the Apostles. This is a contradiction. However, if a scholar cannot fix a particular date in time, such as the trial of Paul, then he cannot date anything else in New Testament history. So, the apostates argue, the New Testament is unreliable in history except for those points of data we need to write a calendar of events.

What does “in doubt” mean? What does “tradition” mean? Obviously, if all three rules are applied at the discretion of the scholar, the resulting text may become anything he imagines it must have been. Because the Bible is ancient, many contradictory traditions exist about many different subjects.

We have very late traditions (5th century) about the Assumption of Mary. Does that mean that the silence of the New Testament about the death of Mary implies her Assumption? The Church of Rome has read the Assumption of Mary into the “First Gospel” (Genesis 3:15), making Mary’s the foot that will crush Satan. The Church of Rome has used the text of Genesis 3:15 that says, “She will crush his head.” Thus, Catholic art often shows Mary trampling the serpent. The Church of Rome has admitted the error in the translation, but I can go to any major theological library and still find the error in print. The paintings remain and a book was written on the basis of Mary being the ruling theme in South American Catholicism – Under the Foot of Mary.

Liberals will argue correctly that there are almost no complete New Testament manuscripts. Every Greek New Testament published is a composite of the ancient witnesses. However, if the available manuscripts overlap, the complete New Testament is easily assembled. The composite argument works both ways. Every single printed Greek New Testament today is also a composite. It is not simply Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, but some of each, plus Majority Text readings. Various readings are voted upon and graded, introducing even more subjective opinion into the discussion. Please note that all ancient works and many modern works have also been gathered and edited from various manuscripts with gaps, contradictions, and misspellings. The difference is that the Biblical texts are far more numerous, reliable, and precise.

Producing a reliable edition of any work is worthwhile, but the effort is easily subverted by the agenda of the experts entrusted with the editing. The cavalier attitude of the text critics has empowered the translators to do whatever they wanted with their English translations, using their own set of rules to supplant the concept of precision and conjure up what the original authors, mere human beings writing about God, meant.

Example, Textual Work – The Ending of Mark’s Gospel, Removed

Let us look at one text in Mark and see what the manuscript evidence is. An ordinary Bible will not help. Footnotes mention some ancient witnesses, as if they were people. The witnesses are manuscripts. Details explaining the changes are missing. No explanations are offered. And yet, this is not a difficult matter to discuss.

In college, I was told by my Harvard trained college professor, a Lutheran Church in America pastor, that the early Church noticed that the ending of the second Gospel was rather abrupt, stopping at Mark 16:8, so they made up another ending, Mark 16:9-20. Liberals said, “Thank God we now have better manuscripts than the King James Version had, so we can get rid of the manufactured ending and stop the Gospel at 16:8.” The liberals could not explain why anyone would end a Gospel with the word “for.” The Greek word gar (“for”) is never found at the end of a sentence, let alone at the end of a book. This adverb gar is post-positive, meaning that it is not used as the first word in a phrase. Like the contemporary question, “And?” it assumes completion.

KJV Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. (Liberals have the Gospel of Mark ending in “gar” – ephbounto gar, for they were afraid.

One theory held that the Gospel was mysteriously broken off at Mark 16:8, letting people imagine death or persecution. Given the value of written texts in the early Church, the abrupt ending is difficult to explain adequately. According to Bruce Metzger, [1]the best known textual expert in America, one 12th century manuscript of Mark broke off at Mark 16:8 with the Greek letter tau indicating the end of a lection and more text following. For this reason he rejects that particular manuscript as evidence for the abrupt ending. Nevertheless, Metzger argues very strongly for excluding the traditional ending of Mark, giving little evidence against his view, but he offers three alternative explanations for the ending at Mark 16:8 –

·       The author intended to end his work with “they were afraid.”

·       The Gospel was not finished.

·       The Gospel lost its last leaf before it was copied. (The most probable in Metzger’s opinion.)

Justin Martyr used vocabulary from the traditional ending in his Apology, written about 155 AD. Although we do not know exact dates for the New Testament Gospels, it is likely that the entire New Testament was completed before 100 AD. That makes the possible allusion to the traditional ending extremely early. A website about Justin Martyr and other saints made the observation that the early Roman emperors persecuted the Christian Church because they were trying to preserve the old Roman ways. The active persecution of an impoverished and illegal religion might explain the problem with the ending. Justin Martyr was beheaded with six of his students, one of them a woman.

My United Bible Society Greek New Testament (Aland third edition) has notes for the variant readings. Similar decisions about which words or sections to include or exclude are made about Shakespeare and all important authors, but most people are not aware of it. The Shakespeare Variorum is an enormous work with variant readings of the dramas. The Yale Shakespeare, in one volume, is the result of many different editorial decisions. Although Shakespeare belongs to the modern age, scholars still argue about the authorship of the plays. Did he write some or all of them? Or did the Earl of Oxford? Or Bacon? If a Shakespeare play began with as much uncertainty as many sermons, no one would pay attention to Shakespeare either. The actor would begin, “Scholars are not sure whether William Shakespeare wrote this play. We chose which lines we would use in performing the play, but no one agrees which words are actually his, or Oxford’s, or Bacon’s, depending on which book you read.”13

The Aland edition of the New Testament

The Aland edition of the New Testament omits the traditional ending of Mark, supporting this reading with Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and a few additional witnesses. The traditional ending is supported by Alexandrinus, Epraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, and many others. The position of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus looks very lonely, but aha, do not they agree with each other? Are they not better and earlier? Can we not find it in our hearts to forgive that forgotten scribe who added a few verses to Mark, just to improve the Gospel?

Vaticanus does not include the traditional ending of Mark, but the copyist left more than a column of space blank. That was long before the days of “this page intentionally left blank.” At the very least we can assume that the scribe knew of the traditional ending. That leaves Sinaiticus stranded. It is one thing to say that Mark’s Gospel ended abruptly, for no known reason, and that an ending was added. But, if two major witnesses against the traditional ending do not even agree completely with each other, then snipping off verses nine through twenty seems arbitrary, arrogant, and deceitful. St. Jerome knew about manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9-20, but he was convinced of the authenticity of the traditional ending. W. R. Farmer concluded: “In fact, external evidence from the second century for Mark 16:9-20 is stronger than for most other parts of that Gospel.”[2]

Now we have a great dividing line on this subject. Most of the conservatives have surrendered to Westcott and Hort, abandoning the Majority Text. And yet, an author who accepted the modern theories about the New Testament text, said this about the ending of Mark:

J-002

“In favor of Mark 16:9-20 there are a host of witnesses: the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Ephraem Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early uncials, all late uncials and cursives, a number of old Latin authorities plus the Vulgate, one Old Syriac manuscript, the Syriac Peshitta version, and many other versions. Besides, there is a plain statement from Irenaeus (early Christian writer) which clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in the second century and the belief that Mark was its author. In brief this is the negative and positive data on the question. On one hand is the unparalleled reliability of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts; on the other hand is almost all of the other evidence. J. W. McGarvey wrote a capable defense of Mark 16:9-20 in his Commentary on Matthew and Mark. It was first published, however, in 1875, before the great work of Westcott and Hort on the Greek text was completed. Yet McGarvey’s, with a few minor modifications, can stand with credit today.”

Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963, pp. 74f.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have “unparalleled reliability,” except in one of the most important passages of the New Testament—the ending of Mark. If the claim does not match up with the data, then the claim is wrong. In light of the concessions made by Lightfoot above, the treatment of the traditional ending of Mark in the New International Version is worth noting. After Mark 16:8, a line appears in the text, indicating a break. The following heading appears above Mark 16:9-20: “[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]”

Someone who has not read the research on the ending of Mark—and this material is fairly difficult to find—would conclude from the NIV that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible. He would not know that the only major manuscript unambiguously omitting the ending is Sinaiticus and that this “most reliable manuscript” suddenly appeared without a so-called family of copies to back it up. Since Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod professors participated with the liberals and tongue-speakers of the NIV translation team, a conservative Lutheran would assume that the bracketed information is in harmony with orthodox Lutheran doctrine. In fact, no other Bible translation is so brassy in disdaining the traditional ending of Mark.

If a modern scholar’s training goes against the traditional ending of the Second Gospel, and he still supports the Majority Text conclusion of Mark, then the untrained person can see that the case against Mark 16:9-20 is very weak indeed. For the sake of comparison, consider what Westcott and Hort have done to millions of Christians. The Beck Bible published by Christian News has also omitted the traditional ending of Mark with a footnote, following Westcott and Hort. When a faithful Lutheran reads this Bible, after being exposed to the King James Version, he is led to believe that the Christian Church was deceived for centuries. Luther was wrong. Tyndale was wrong. All the Reformers were wrong.

How can the average Christian check the facts? In front of him is the latest Bible printed by a conservative Lutheran. He has no way of discovering, apart from a theological library, that the manuscripts favored in the new edition have no history at all. If a farmer bred cattle or pigs without knowing their genetic heritage, he would be considered lazy or foolish. The ultimate result of Westcott and Hort enthusiasm has planted doubt about the entire New Testament text. Ironically, the Majority Text is rejected by liberals today because of its heritage, its careful preservation in the Christian Church, its thousands of manuscript witnesses, its consistency, its harmony in many different forms. Even the mysterious Vaticanus tips its hat to the Majority Text, by making room for the traditional ending of Mark. “We must conclude that fidelity to the New Testament text has been abandoned since the publication of the Revised Version in 1881.”[3]

---

[1] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, German Bible Society, 1971, p. 122. This work was used in the textual criticism class at Bethany Lutheran Seminary. Metzger has been extremely influential through his teaching position at Princeton Seminary, his publications, and his work with the United Bible Societies.

[2] W. R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, Society for New Testament Studies, Cambridge: University Press, 1974, p. 31. Cited in Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 131.

[3] Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 132.

The Most Horrible Translation Errors of the New NIV - Now Standard for WELS. From 2011

Valleskey, the last Mequon seminary president, went to Fuller Seminary,
so Paul Wendland is continuing the trend toward anti-Lutheran, mainline apostasy.

marco has left a new comment on your post "Sausage Factory President Paul Wendland's NNIV Cam...":

I was wondering and would very much appreciate if you could give your own version of the top ten verses that argue for the KJV to be used over that of the NNIV. And give your reasoning for each of the 10 verses you choose.

***

GJ - I am happy to help out, Marco. I selected eight easy examples, with my explanations in purple,  below each set.

Genesis 4:1

NNIV
 ¹ Adam^[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.^[b] She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth^[c] a man.”
Genesis 4:1 a - Or The man

KJV
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

GJ - The NNIV has created two major problems with Genesis 4:1. The first is the corruption of a perfectly good verb - to know. This verb is used exactly the same way in Hebrew, Greek, and English. The deeper meaning of the verb has been trivialized to mean the act itself. This is a Bible for ninnies - the Ninny-veh edition. This problem emerges again in Luke 1:34, where Mary says, "³⁴ “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” But Mary said, KJV and Greek, "Since I know not a man."
The second problem comes up in the footnote and in many subsequent footnotes. They change the meaning of the Word of God, to make the verse repudiate what the verse plainly reveals. Adam and Eve were actually people, not symbolic myths, but the footnote tells the reader that Adam, as a pun on "man," really stands for humankind evolved from the primates. Therefore, humankind and womenfolk conceived the symbolic Cain. The inventor of NNIV dynamic translation (sic) was Nida, a pea-brained liberal. 

Oh yes, WELS is hotter than Georgia asphalt for inerrancy, as SP Schroeder claims, except when it comes to picking Bibles.

Isaiah 7:13-14

NNIV
¹³ Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? ¹⁴Therefore the Lord himself will give you^[a] a sign: The virgin^[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and^[c] will call him Immanuel.^[d]
Isaiah 7:14 a - Or young woman

KJV

 ¹⁴Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ¹³And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 

GJ - Some may remember the scandal of the RSV (created by the left-wing National Council of Churches) denying the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7. The NNIV denies the Virgin Birth in a footnote, claiming that the Hebrew word simply means "young woman." This rendering, though false, has great appeal for mainline apostates, who reject the Virgin Birth and the divinity of Christ. "Error loves ambiguities," so now the plain meaning of Isaiah 7 could be this or that. Could this be why the Southern Baptists voted against the NNIV, against displaying it in their own bookstores?

WELS - Old Lizard-hands gave you the Bible a bad the Southern Babtists do not
even display it in their bookstores. Bleh.

Matthew 26:28

NNIV
²⁸ This is my blood of the^[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
a - Matthew 26:28 Some manuscripts the new

KJV
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

GJ - A testament is a one-sided promise. I can give all my money and property, to an heir - without the knowledge or consent of that person. That is called a Last Will and Testament.

A covenant is two-sided, so the non-Lutheran Protestants have favored the term covenant. Testament emphasizes that Christ's atoning sacrifice is payment for the sins of the world, whether anyone believes or not. WELS pretends to be against synergism but accepts this implied synergism. Synergism means that God acts but man "completes the transaction."

Matthew 28:18-20

NNIV
¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

KJV



18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven 


and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

GJ - Fuller Seminary, which is a mainline school, and most Protestants love the false rendering of the Great Commission. The original text clearly says, "Go teach all nations." The Fuller-mainline-Baptist version reads "Go make disciples." The original meaning is in harmony with the Biblical efficacy of the Word, teaching rather than making. "Making disciples" puts the burden on man, turning a Gospel imperative into Law. The Fuller disciples in the Synodical Conference go crazy when someone tries to take away their "make disciples" passage, so they love the NNIV. The Means of Grace are central in the three verbs - Go, teach, baptize. The three verbs also harmonize with the naming of the Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:8-20

NNIV

 ⁸ Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.^[a]
   [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]   

   ⁹ When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. ¹⁰ She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. ¹¹When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

   ¹² Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. ¹³ These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

   ¹⁴ Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

   ¹⁵ He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. ¹⁶ Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. ¹⁷ And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; ¹⁸ they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

   ¹⁹ After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. ²⁰ Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

KJV

8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of
them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs
shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

GJ - Tischendorf promoted two ancient manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) of the New Testament as the best possible ones, far better than the thousands of copies from the Greek, Christian Byzantine Empire. Tischendorf's favorites do not always agree with each other. They also depart from the traditional texts preserved from the earliest days of the Christian faith, which grew first in the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire. When the new translations began dropping the ending of Mark into a footnote, it was the next stage of apostasy. Rationalism first disputed the miracles of the Bible, then the canon of Bible. Tischendorf, Wescott, and Hort sound like a law firm, but this particular trio placed the text of the Bible in doubt, so an anything goes translation was sure to follow.

Here is a lot of statistical evidence about the ending of Mark.

Romans 3:21-25
NNIV²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,^[b] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

KJV

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

GJ - WELS was dying for Biblical support of Universal Objective Justification, which was entirely lacking until the NNIV was invented. Halle University, as it moved from Pietism to Rationalism, gave birth to double-justification via Professor Knapp, whose turgid work is still in print. UOJ passed into mainline Protestantism and the Synodical Conference at the same time, but UOJ had a rough time until 1932. Notice that the second all in the NNIV takes the Apostle Paul by the shoulders and tells him what he should have written in the first place.

1 Corinthians 10:16
NNIV¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
KJV

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

GJ - Lutherans teach the Sacraments - or they used to - and the others do not. Communion is an odious word to the anti-Sacrament crowd. They like other words, neutral words, meaningless words. WELS is anti-Sacramental. They begin their Emergent Church embarrassments without the Sacraments and hate to host Holy Communion. See The CORE and CrossWalk in Phoenix for examples. CrossRoads in S. Lyons, Michigan, called the Sacraments "ordinances" when they began. Now that parish is honestly not Lutheran instead of dishonestly Lutheran. WELS will follow CrossRoads in the same direction with the NNIV.

1 Peter 3:20-21

NNIV
²⁰ to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, ²¹ and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.^[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21 a - Or but an appeal to God for a clear conscience


KJV

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


GJ - This wild-hair NNIV reading is similar to other mainline evasions. Why not remove both Sacraments from the Bible? That is not really possible, but one step is mixing up a clear statement of the efficacy of the Word in Holy Baptism.