ACTS 8 VERSE 37
And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts 8:37.
The above quotation is the A.V. Translation of this disputed verse. J.N.D. omits the entire verse in his Translation and adds this footnote: "Ver. 37 in the Authorised Version is recognised as not genuine." A dogmatic statement made by a man of incredible linguistic skill, immense knowledge of the Word of God, and a teacher of the foremost spiritual ability. One, of a number of godly, erudite teachers to whom I owe an incalculable debt, indeed along with one other, viz. William Kelly, I perhaps owe him the most!
But with all this in mind, and owning my inferior abilities, I am persuaded that J.N.D. and other "mighty men" of faith are wrong in their omission of this verse!
The weight of "external" evidence does indeed lie with them. The verse is not found in many of the oldest manuscripts! But it is found in some! If it was omitted in every manuscript there would be nothing to debate. but while conceding that the external evidence favours J.N.D.s' omission, I am persuaded that the "internal" evidence is significantly in favour of its inclusion in the text of Holy Scripture.
Throughout this precious narrative we have a record of much of the conversation between Candaces' servant and the servant of the Lord. Omitting verse 37 causes an abrupt break in the intercourse between them. Furthermore the Ethiopian eunuch had previously asked Philip two pertinent questions and both answers are in the scripture record, verses 31 & 34.
William Kelly argues that the internal evidence supports the omission of this verse stating, "For "the Son of God" would have been a wonderful step in advance..."* But if we examine this statement we will see that it is unfounded. On hearing the eunuch believed; on believing he received the indwelling Holy Spirit; Philip had preached to him "Jesus" verse 35. He would have had to speak of His incarnation and thus must speak of His Deity, two infinite and inseparable truths as to His person. Thus, the incarnate son of God! Furthermore, on baptising the eunuch, Philip would have baptised him into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, meaning nothing to one who apparently knew no distinctions between Persons of the Godhead!
The internal evidence weighs heavily towards the inclusion of the omitted verse!
* "An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles;" page 121 footnote 2."
The weight of "external" evidence does indeed lie with them. The verse is not found in many of the oldest manuscripts! But it is found in some! If it was omitted in every manuscript there would be nothing to debate. but while conceding that the external evidence favours J.N.D.s' omission, I am persuaded that the "internal" evidence is significantly in favour of its inclusion in the text of Holy Scripture.
Throughout this precious narrative we have a record of much of the conversation between Candaces' servant and the servant of the Lord. Omitting verse 37 causes an abrupt break in the intercourse between them. Furthermore the Ethiopian eunuch had previously asked Philip two pertinent questions and both answers are in the scripture record, verses 31 & 34.
William Kelly argues that the internal evidence supports the omission of this verse stating, "For "the Son of God" would have been a wonderful step in advance..."* But if we examine this statement we will see that it is unfounded. On hearing the eunuch believed; on believing he received the indwelling Holy Spirit; Philip had preached to him "Jesus" verse 35. He would have had to speak of His incarnation and thus must speak of His Deity, two infinite and inseparable truths as to His person. Thus, the incarnate son of God! Furthermore, on baptising the eunuch, Philip would have baptised him into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, meaning nothing to one who apparently knew no distinctions between Persons of the Godhead!
The internal evidence weighs heavily towards the inclusion of the omitted verse!
* "An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles;" page 121 footnote 2."
No comments:
Post a Comment