Steven Avery
Administrator
Matthew 6:13 (AV)
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
Magic Marker Binge
“The Gospel According to Matthew” (TR)
Gavin Basil McGrath
p. 146-150
Matt. 6:13
“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (TR & AV) {B}
The Textus Receptus (TR) doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, Greek, “oti (for) sou (‘of thee’ i.e., ‘thine’) estin (is) e (the) basileia (kingdom) kai (and) e (the) dunamis (power) kai (and) e(the) doxa (glory) eis (into) tous (the) aionas (ages) [‘into the ages’ means ‘for ever’]. Amen (Amen)” i.e., “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (AV), is supported by the majority Byzantine Text e.g., W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53), Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century) and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also found as Latin, “quoniam (since) tuum (thine) est (is) regnum(the kingdom), et (and) virtus (the power) et (and) gloria (the glory) in saecula (‘into ages’ = ‘forever’), Amen (Amen);” in the old Latin Versions f (6th century), q (6th century, adding a “tuum (thy),” after “regnum”), g1 (8th / 9th century, omitting the “Amen”); and is a variant reading within the Latin Vulgate Codices. It is further supported by the ancient church Greek writers, the Apostolic Constitutions (3rd or 4th century) and Chrysostom (d. 407); and the early mediaeval church writer, Pseudo-Chrysostom in a Latin work (6th century).
However the doxology is omitted in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4th / 5th centuries), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), b (5th century), h (5th century), aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), g2 (10th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century); as well as the Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron (9th century). It is also omitted by the ancient church Greek writers, Origen (d. 254), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444); and ancient church Latin writers, Tertullian (d. after 220), Cyprian (d. 258), Ambroisiaster (d. after 384), Ambrose (d. 397), Chromatius (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), and Augustine (d. 430). It is also omitted other than the “Amen” elsewhere by Jerome (d. 420). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592), which follows the latter of Jerome’s citations, i.e., omitting the doxology other than the “Amen,” so that unlike the Vulgate, the “Amen” from the doxology is retained in the Clementine Vulgate.
148
No good textual argument may be adduced against the representative Byzantine Text, which must therefore stand as the correct reading. It preservation by e.g., the church doctor, St. John Chrysostom, testifies to its antiquity. The origins of this variant are conjectural. Possibly it was accidental. Beginning with “tou ponerou (evil),” the copyist’s page may have looked something like the following. ......................................................... tou ponerouoti souestinebasileiakaiedunamiskaiedoxaeistousaionas. Amen. If there was a paper fade / loss making“tous (the) aionas (ages)” look something like, like “tou::::::::”, the scribe may have seen something like the following. ......................................................... tou ponerouoti souestinebasileiakaiedunamiskaiedoxaeistou::::::::::Amen. Did the scribe wrote down “tou ponerou,” and remembering he was up to the “ou” ending, was then momentarily distracted? Returning and without realizing there had been a paper fade, did he then see the “ou” ending of the “tou” and just keep writing? Thus was the original “Amen” at first have preserved (as in some manuscripts), and then later lost by a paper fade / loss? It must be said that such a combination of paper loss and ellipsis would be more likely with a continuous script, although this is not a necessary component. A great deal may also hang on the competence of the scribe. Alas, the evidence is that not all scribes were as competent as they should have been. But even if the scribe was generally competent, other factors may be relevant. Was the scribe suffering from a bad head cold at the time? Was he working late at night and suffering from fatigue? Such factors act to bring this type of error into the realm of being reasonably possible, even with a good scribe. Was this a deliberate pruning of the text? If so, it may well have been Origen. Did a scribe either originally prune the text (cf. e.g., Matt. 4:12; 5:4,5; 5:11b), or learning of its pruning by another, help to perpetuate this? If so, if the scribe was Origen, his reasoning may have been related to his heretical views. Specifically, he believed in pre-existent souls that had rebelled against God, and were now waiting to be born into human beings. Did this lead him to conclude that so long as such pre-existent souls existed i.e., before they were all born as men, then there was a sense in which he could not say, “thine (God’s) is the kingdom,” let alone “the power” or “the glory”? Alternatively, did the pruning of the doxology at Matt. 6:13, reflect a desire to assimilate its ending to the ending found in Luke 11:4? In the final analysis, we cannot know for sure why Matt. 6:13 was omitted. Was it accidentally lost by a combination of paper fade, ellipsis, and scribal ill-health or fatigue? Was it deliberately pruned away? We cannot be sure. We can only know for sure that it was omitted, in one line of manuscripts completely, and in another line retaining the “Amen.” On the one hand, the doxology of Matt. 6:13 is supported by the representative Byzantine Text, some old Latin Versions, and some ancient church writers, and has no good textual argument against it. But on the other hand, it is omitted by Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, some old
149 Latin Versions, and some ancient church writers. Taking into account these competing considerations, on the system of rating textual variants A to E, I would give the TR’s doxology in Matt. 6:13 a “B” i.e., the text of the TR is the correct reading and has a middling level of certainty.
Textual History Outside the Closed Class of Three Witnesses.
Outside the closed class of sources the correct reading which includes the doxology at Matt. 6:13, is found in the Palestinian Syriac (c. 6th century) and Syriac Harclean h (616) Versions; together with a part of the Coptic Bohairic (3rd century) Version. It is also found in the Gothic Version (4th century); Armenian Version (5th century); Ethiopic Versions (c. 500 & Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries); and Slavic Version (9th century). The doxology, without the “Amen,” is further found in Ciasca’s Latin-Arabic Diatessaron (Arabic 12th-14th centuries; Latin 19th century).
The incorrect reading which omits the doxology, is also found in the two leading Alexandrian texts, Rome Vaticanus (4th century) and London Sinaiticus (4th century); the leading representative of the Western text, Codex D 05 (5th century); and the independent Codex Z 035 (6th century).
This erroneous reading was adopted in the NU Text et al. At Matt. 6:13, the ASV places the doxology in a footnote, as does the RSV. The words of the doxology are placed in square brackets in the NASB, i.e., “words” in square “brackets” are regarded by the NASB translators as being “probably not in the original writings” (NASB “Abbreviations” page); or the NIV places the doxology in a footnote, relegating it simply to “some late manuscripts.” The Lord’s Prayer as traditionally said in public, is that found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662). It differs slightly, but not on issues of text type, from that in the AV, which is also found with the Ten Commandments and Apostles’ Creed at the very end of the Presbyterian Shorter Westminster Confession (1648). Anglican Book of AV (1611) and (1648) Presbyterian Common Prayer (1662) Westminster Shorter Catechism. Our Father which art in heaven, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. Give us this day our daily bread.And forgive us our trespasses, And forgive us our debts, As we forgive As we forgive them that trespass against us. our debtors. And lead us not into temptation; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil: But deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, the power, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, and the glory,
150
For ever and ever. Amen. For ever. Amen. It is notable that the neo-Alexandrians have made a systematic and sustained attack on the Lord’s Prayer. And they have been joined in this attack by the Burgonites of the NKJV, who act with them in a pincer movement to prick and tear at the Lord’s Prayer. For the neo-Alexandrians, the “we forgive” (AV & TR) at Matt. 6:12 becomes, “we have forgiven.” The doxology is omitted at Matt. 6:13. And for some of the neo-Alexandrians, and for the NKJV Burgonites, “deliver us from evil (tou ponerou),” becomes “the evil one” (ASV & NKJV). The ASV puts “one” it italics to show it is added, although the same addition in their fellow neo-Alexandrian NIV, like the Burgonite NKJV, does not so put the “one” it italics, though it surely should. On the one hand, I would accept that one shade of meaning of “evil” in Matt. 6:12, is “the evil one.” As St. Peter says, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8). The Greek “tou ponerou” has this meaning of “the wicked [one]” in Matt. 13:38; Eph. 6:16; I John 3:12. But on the other hand, in the context of the Lord’s Prayer, there is no reason to so limit the meaning of“tou ponerou,” and so “evil (tou ponerou),” is broader than simply this one sub-element of the greater whole. E.g., in Matt. 5:37, Jesus says, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (tou ponerou).” So also, the Greek “tou ponerou” has a wider meaning in John 17:15 and II Thess. 3:3, where the actionsof the Lord to “keep” his children “from evil” (tou ponerou), though as in the Lord’s Prayerincluding as a component of this, keeping them from “the evil one,” in fact has a much wider orbit than just this. Thus the “evil” or “tou ponerou” of Matt. 6:12, includes “the lust of the flesh” (I John 2:16), as it does at Matt. 5:37, together with any other “evil” as at John 17:15; II Thess. 3:3; of which one component, is “the evil [one]” or “the wicked [one]” of the Devil as at Matt. 13:38; Eph. 6:16; I John 3:12. In the context of Matt. 6:12, this “evil” includes, although is not exhausted by, the type of thing referred to in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) Litany, when the Minister prays, “From fornication, all other deadly sin; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil;” and then the people pray in response, “Good Lord, deliver us” (I Cor. 6:9; II Cor. 4:4; I John 2:15-17) Therefore, I could accept that the RSV and ESV are within reasonable translation boundaries. The ESV follows the RSV in putting, “But deliver us from evil” (ESV) in the main text, and then adding a footnote stating that “evil” can also be translated as “the evil one” (ESV footnote). This however is as far as one can reasonably go. Hence to the extent that the neo-Alexandrian ASV and Burgonite NKJV make the lesser element of the evil one, the sum of the total, they deny the greater element of the evil in Matt. 6:13, and thereby badly distort the Word of God, by a most subtle and crafty device. Whether the neo-Alexandrians removing the “we forgive” (AV) and making it “we have forgiven” (ASV) (also followed in the RSV, NRSV, ESV, & NIV); the neo-Alexandrians removing the doxology (ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, & NIV); or both some of the neo-Alexandrians (ASV, NRSV, & NIV) and Burgonites (NKJV) changing the “evil” in “but deliver us from evil” (AV) into “the evil one” (ASV), the Lord’s Prayer is clearly under attack. Why do these neo-Alexandrians and Burgonites so delight in trying to pull the Lord’s Prayer to pieces?
151
Prayer is an important and integral part of the Christian’s life. Through Jesus Christ, we have access to the God the Father. The Lord’s Prayer is featured in all the Reformation Catechisms, together with the Apostles’ Creed and Ten Commandments, and in general also the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. This perhaps is what has made it a special focal point for needless and cruel attack, as men take pleasure in gratuitously criticizing the piety of centuries of Protestant Christians, together with numerous saints today who use the traditional Lord’s Prayer. They like their minions to think things like this, “Gee, we’re smart. We know that the Lord’s Prayer really says, ‘the evil one,’ not ‘the evil’ like in the King James Version. That’s why we don’t use the AV, it’s not as accurate as our new version.” So why do these neo-Alexandrians and Burgonites so hate the traditional Lord’s Prayer? Why do they consort and conspire together against the Lord’s Prayer? We cannot be sure, and perhaps it is that some of them are simply deluded into thinking that unnecessary change marks them out as “smart” and “thinking” people. But I think that at least in some instances, it is that they do not much know the sweet fellowship of prayer themselves, for it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “even his prayer shall be abomination” (Prov. 28:9).
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
Magic Marker Binge
“The Gospel According to Matthew” (TR)
Gavin Basil McGrath
p. 146-150
Matt. 6:13
“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (TR & AV) {B}
The Textus Receptus (TR) doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, Greek, “oti (for) sou (‘of thee’ i.e., ‘thine’) estin (is) e (the) basileia (kingdom) kai (and) e (the) dunamis (power) kai (and) e(the) doxa (glory) eis (into) tous (the) aionas (ages) [‘into the ages’ means ‘for ever’]. Amen (Amen)” i.e., “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (AV), is supported by the majority Byzantine Text e.g., W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53), Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century) and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also found as Latin, “quoniam (since) tuum (thine) est (is) regnum(the kingdom), et (and) virtus (the power) et (and) gloria (the glory) in saecula (‘into ages’ = ‘forever’), Amen (Amen);” in the old Latin Versions f (6th century), q (6th century, adding a “tuum (thy),” after “regnum”), g1 (8th / 9th century, omitting the “Amen”); and is a variant reading within the Latin Vulgate Codices. It is further supported by the ancient church Greek writers, the Apostolic Constitutions (3rd or 4th century) and Chrysostom (d. 407); and the early mediaeval church writer, Pseudo-Chrysostom in a Latin work (6th century).
However the doxology is omitted in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4th / 5th centuries), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), b (5th century), h (5th century), aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), g2 (10th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century); as well as the Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron (9th century). It is also omitted by the ancient church Greek writers, Origen (d. 254), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444); and ancient church Latin writers, Tertullian (d. after 220), Cyprian (d. 258), Ambroisiaster (d. after 384), Ambrose (d. 397), Chromatius (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), and Augustine (d. 430). It is also omitted other than the “Amen” elsewhere by Jerome (d. 420). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592), which follows the latter of Jerome’s citations, i.e., omitting the doxology other than the “Amen,” so that unlike the Vulgate, the “Amen” from the doxology is retained in the Clementine Vulgate.
148
No good textual argument may be adduced against the representative Byzantine Text, which must therefore stand as the correct reading. It preservation by e.g., the church doctor, St. John Chrysostom, testifies to its antiquity. The origins of this variant are conjectural. Possibly it was accidental. Beginning with “tou ponerou (evil),” the copyist’s page may have looked something like the following. ......................................................... tou ponerouoti souestinebasileiakaiedunamiskaiedoxaeistousaionas. Amen. If there was a paper fade / loss making“tous (the) aionas (ages)” look something like, like “tou::::::::”, the scribe may have seen something like the following. ......................................................... tou ponerouoti souestinebasileiakaiedunamiskaiedoxaeistou::::::::::Amen. Did the scribe wrote down “tou ponerou,” and remembering he was up to the “ou” ending, was then momentarily distracted? Returning and without realizing there had been a paper fade, did he then see the “ou” ending of the “tou” and just keep writing? Thus was the original “Amen” at first have preserved (as in some manuscripts), and then later lost by a paper fade / loss? It must be said that such a combination of paper loss and ellipsis would be more likely with a continuous script, although this is not a necessary component. A great deal may also hang on the competence of the scribe. Alas, the evidence is that not all scribes were as competent as they should have been. But even if the scribe was generally competent, other factors may be relevant. Was the scribe suffering from a bad head cold at the time? Was he working late at night and suffering from fatigue? Such factors act to bring this type of error into the realm of being reasonably possible, even with a good scribe. Was this a deliberate pruning of the text? If so, it may well have been Origen. Did a scribe either originally prune the text (cf. e.g., Matt. 4:12; 5:4,5; 5:11b), or learning of its pruning by another, help to perpetuate this? If so, if the scribe was Origen, his reasoning may have been related to his heretical views. Specifically, he believed in pre-existent souls that had rebelled against God, and were now waiting to be born into human beings. Did this lead him to conclude that so long as such pre-existent souls existed i.e., before they were all born as men, then there was a sense in which he could not say, “thine (God’s) is the kingdom,” let alone “the power” or “the glory”? Alternatively, did the pruning of the doxology at Matt. 6:13, reflect a desire to assimilate its ending to the ending found in Luke 11:4? In the final analysis, we cannot know for sure why Matt. 6:13 was omitted. Was it accidentally lost by a combination of paper fade, ellipsis, and scribal ill-health or fatigue? Was it deliberately pruned away? We cannot be sure. We can only know for sure that it was omitted, in one line of manuscripts completely, and in another line retaining the “Amen.” On the one hand, the doxology of Matt. 6:13 is supported by the representative Byzantine Text, some old Latin Versions, and some ancient church writers, and has no good textual argument against it. But on the other hand, it is omitted by Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, some old
149 Latin Versions, and some ancient church writers. Taking into account these competing considerations, on the system of rating textual variants A to E, I would give the TR’s doxology in Matt. 6:13 a “B” i.e., the text of the TR is the correct reading and has a middling level of certainty.
Textual History Outside the Closed Class of Three Witnesses.
Outside the closed class of sources the correct reading which includes the doxology at Matt. 6:13, is found in the Palestinian Syriac (c. 6th century) and Syriac Harclean h (616) Versions; together with a part of the Coptic Bohairic (3rd century) Version. It is also found in the Gothic Version (4th century); Armenian Version (5th century); Ethiopic Versions (c. 500 & Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries); and Slavic Version (9th century). The doxology, without the “Amen,” is further found in Ciasca’s Latin-Arabic Diatessaron (Arabic 12th-14th centuries; Latin 19th century).
The incorrect reading which omits the doxology, is also found in the two leading Alexandrian texts, Rome Vaticanus (4th century) and London Sinaiticus (4th century); the leading representative of the Western text, Codex D 05 (5th century); and the independent Codex Z 035 (6th century).
This erroneous reading was adopted in the NU Text et al. At Matt. 6:13, the ASV places the doxology in a footnote, as does the RSV. The words of the doxology are placed in square brackets in the NASB, i.e., “words” in square “brackets” are regarded by the NASB translators as being “probably not in the original writings” (NASB “Abbreviations” page); or the NIV places the doxology in a footnote, relegating it simply to “some late manuscripts.” The Lord’s Prayer as traditionally said in public, is that found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662). It differs slightly, but not on issues of text type, from that in the AV, which is also found with the Ten Commandments and Apostles’ Creed at the very end of the Presbyterian Shorter Westminster Confession (1648). Anglican Book of AV (1611) and (1648) Presbyterian Common Prayer (1662) Westminster Shorter Catechism. Our Father which art in heaven, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. Give us this day our daily bread.And forgive us our trespasses, And forgive us our debts, As we forgive As we forgive them that trespass against us. our debtors. And lead us not into temptation; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil: But deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, the power, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, and the glory,
150
For ever and ever. Amen. For ever. Amen. It is notable that the neo-Alexandrians have made a systematic and sustained attack on the Lord’s Prayer. And they have been joined in this attack by the Burgonites of the NKJV, who act with them in a pincer movement to prick and tear at the Lord’s Prayer. For the neo-Alexandrians, the “we forgive” (AV & TR) at Matt. 6:12 becomes, “we have forgiven.” The doxology is omitted at Matt. 6:13. And for some of the neo-Alexandrians, and for the NKJV Burgonites, “deliver us from evil (tou ponerou),” becomes “the evil one” (ASV & NKJV). The ASV puts “one” it italics to show it is added, although the same addition in their fellow neo-Alexandrian NIV, like the Burgonite NKJV, does not so put the “one” it italics, though it surely should. On the one hand, I would accept that one shade of meaning of “evil” in Matt. 6:12, is “the evil one.” As St. Peter says, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8). The Greek “tou ponerou” has this meaning of “the wicked [one]” in Matt. 13:38; Eph. 6:16; I John 3:12. But on the other hand, in the context of the Lord’s Prayer, there is no reason to so limit the meaning of“tou ponerou,” and so “evil (tou ponerou),” is broader than simply this one sub-element of the greater whole. E.g., in Matt. 5:37, Jesus says, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (tou ponerou).” So also, the Greek “tou ponerou” has a wider meaning in John 17:15 and II Thess. 3:3, where the actionsof the Lord to “keep” his children “from evil” (tou ponerou), though as in the Lord’s Prayerincluding as a component of this, keeping them from “the evil one,” in fact has a much wider orbit than just this. Thus the “evil” or “tou ponerou” of Matt. 6:12, includes “the lust of the flesh” (I John 2:16), as it does at Matt. 5:37, together with any other “evil” as at John 17:15; II Thess. 3:3; of which one component, is “the evil [one]” or “the wicked [one]” of the Devil as at Matt. 13:38; Eph. 6:16; I John 3:12. In the context of Matt. 6:12, this “evil” includes, although is not exhausted by, the type of thing referred to in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) Litany, when the Minister prays, “From fornication, all other deadly sin; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil;” and then the people pray in response, “Good Lord, deliver us” (I Cor. 6:9; II Cor. 4:4; I John 2:15-17) Therefore, I could accept that the RSV and ESV are within reasonable translation boundaries. The ESV follows the RSV in putting, “But deliver us from evil” (ESV) in the main text, and then adding a footnote stating that “evil” can also be translated as “the evil one” (ESV footnote). This however is as far as one can reasonably go. Hence to the extent that the neo-Alexandrian ASV and Burgonite NKJV make the lesser element of the evil one, the sum of the total, they deny the greater element of the evil in Matt. 6:13, and thereby badly distort the Word of God, by a most subtle and crafty device. Whether the neo-Alexandrians removing the “we forgive” (AV) and making it “we have forgiven” (ASV) (also followed in the RSV, NRSV, ESV, & NIV); the neo-Alexandrians removing the doxology (ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, & NIV); or both some of the neo-Alexandrians (ASV, NRSV, & NIV) and Burgonites (NKJV) changing the “evil” in “but deliver us from evil” (AV) into “the evil one” (ASV), the Lord’s Prayer is clearly under attack. Why do these neo-Alexandrians and Burgonites so delight in trying to pull the Lord’s Prayer to pieces?
151
Prayer is an important and integral part of the Christian’s life. Through Jesus Christ, we have access to the God the Father. The Lord’s Prayer is featured in all the Reformation Catechisms, together with the Apostles’ Creed and Ten Commandments, and in general also the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. This perhaps is what has made it a special focal point for needless and cruel attack, as men take pleasure in gratuitously criticizing the piety of centuries of Protestant Christians, together with numerous saints today who use the traditional Lord’s Prayer. They like their minions to think things like this, “Gee, we’re smart. We know that the Lord’s Prayer really says, ‘the evil one,’ not ‘the evil’ like in the King James Version. That’s why we don’t use the AV, it’s not as accurate as our new version.” So why do these neo-Alexandrians and Burgonites so hate the traditional Lord’s Prayer? Why do they consort and conspire together against the Lord’s Prayer? We cannot be sure, and perhaps it is that some of them are simply deluded into thinking that unnecessary change marks them out as “smart” and “thinking” people. But I think that at least in some instances, it is that they do not much know the sweet fellowship of prayer themselves, for it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “even his prayer shall be abomination” (Prov. 28:9).
Last edited:
