“Servant” or “Slave”? Part II

After I had posted my earlier message about John MacArthur’s sermon on “Servant” vs. “Slave,” I discovered that that video had been heavily edited and abridged. That video was 26 minutes long. His original sermon (seen above) is 56 minutes long. After watching it to the end, I discovered that there are lots more theological and exegetical errors in it than the previous edited version showed. I don’t intend to comment on all of it, but just briefly discuss some highlights. At around 12 minutes into the video he says the following:

“Slavery was common in the ancient world; it was common even in the history of Israel. But it was common in the ancient Middle East; common in the Mediterranean world; and for many people it could be the best of all relationships. It could! In fact, there were some conditions of slavery that were so wonderful, so fulfilling, and so rich a blessing to the slave, that the slave would choose never to be turned loose.”

There are two issues with that statement. The first is, no matter how “good” slavery might have been to some (not all) in those days; that has no bearing on whether the English word “slave” is still the right word to translate it with into English or not. If the English word “slave” does not carry the right connotations that the original word for “slave” did in the original languages, then it is still not going to be the best word to use to translate it with into English, if a better one exists. The second problem with that is that it reveals a serious misreading of biblical text, as shown below. He then continues:

“Exodus 21, listen to what scripture says, verse 5: ‘If a slave plainly says, I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out as a free man. I don’t want to go anywhere else, because I love my master, and I love my family, so I want to keep all of us under the care of my master. Then his master shall bring him to God; then he shall bring him to the door, or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an aul, and he shall serve him permanently.’

“I will tell you what, that is virtually a perfect relationship, to have a loving master that you want to serve the rest of your life, because you love him, and you know he cares for those you love. That same statement is repeated again in deuteronomy 15 verses 16 and 17.”

That is a gross misreading of the biblical text. He has completely overlooked verse 4. Under the Law of Moses, which is the context of the discussion, if a man who was serving as a “slave” was provided with a wife by his master (the only way that he could have got married), and had children; if in the year of Jubilee he wanted to be released, and become free, he was not allowed to take his wife and children with him. Those remained the property of his master. If he loved his wife and kids (and who wouldn’t!), and wanted to keep them, he had no choice but to remain permanently a slave to his master. So if he chose to remain in slavery, it was not because he was crazy about his master; it was because he had no other choice, if wanted to retain his wife and kids. That was the Law of Moses. Jesus came to do away with the Law of Moses, so that those injustices would not continue. He didn’t come to extol the virtue of slavery under the Law of Moses, as John MacArthur is now doing. He then continues:

“So there is no stigma necessarily on slavery. The Bible doesn’t condone it, it doesn’t condemn it. It recognizes it as a social construct; but it does regulate it.”

Sure, but firstly, what has that got to do with what is the best choice of English word to translate it into English with? That is the ultimate question being discussed. Does the word “slave” in English carry the right connotations for it to be used to translate the original Hebrew and Greek words into English, or is there a better option? That is the ultimate question; not whether slavery was condoned or condemned in ancient times and in the Bible. Secondly, the fact that slavery was common in ancient times, and even tolerated and regulated in the Old Testament; it does not mean that it was approved by God. Lots of things were tolerated in ancient times, but not condoned or approved. Jesus tells us in the NT that divorce was tolerated in the Law of Moses because of the “hardness of their hearts,” but not condoned or approved (Matt. 19:8). Slavery falls into the same category. It was tolerated in the Old Testament because of the “hardness of their hearts,” but not condoned. John MacArthur then continues:

“And the slave in Israel would be freed at the Jubilee year which was every seventh year, if that is what he wanted. But there were some masters who were so loving, and kind, and generous that the slave would want to be a slave for life; and he would have a hole in his ear to signify that commitment.”

See above. I am sure there were good “masters” as well as bad ones. Under the old Mosaic law, an abused slave had the right of protection and asylum (Deut. 23:15–16); so they couldn’t all have been good “masters”. But none of that makes “slavery” conceptually a good thing, or even a neutral thing. Slavery is conceptually and intrinsically wrong, because it is the ownership of one man by another. God made man in his own image, and made him free. If anyone “owns” man, it is God. No man has the right to “own” another human being. The fact that it was practised in ancient times, and tolerated in the Old Testament, does not mean that it was approved by God. Divorce was also tolerated, but not approved. Skipping several more minutes into his sermon, at around the 21:38 minutes mark he says the following:

“Now I am going to say something you probably don’t know. The most common term in the New Testament for Christians is slave. That is right, it is the most common term in the New Testament for Christians. And by the way, Jesus has more slaves than anyone, so we better start tearing down the statues!”

Wrong! They are “servants,” “disciples,” “friends,” but not “slaves”! What is the difference? The difference is that servants, friends, and disciples have the freedom and ability to walk away if they want to, and stop being servants, friends, or disciples; whereas slaves have no such right or power. Jesus’ servants, friends, and disciples had the ability to walk away, and some of them did (John 6:66). If they had been “slaves,” they wouldn’t have been able to. So why does Jesus use the word for “slave” to refer to them, instead of “servant”? That is because that was the only word that existed at that time that came closest to what he wanted to say. “Slaves” were also servants. They served. The only difference is that in those days they were owned, whereas nowadays they are paid. If Jesus wanted to say “servant” as we understand the term today, he would have had no other way of saying it than the way he did. Skipping several more minutes into his sermon, at the 23:43 minutes mark he says the following:

“To say someone has a personal relationship with Jesus is just too vague; what you need to say is, Jesus is Lord, and I am his slave …”

I prefer to say that Jesus is Lord, and I am his servant; because being a “servant” is voluntary; whereas being a “slave” is not. I serve him because I want to, not because I have no other choice to, or am forced to. Jesus wants servants who serve him because they want to; not against their will, if they don’t want to. “Servants” serve because they want to; “slaves” serve because they have to. Jesus wants the former kind, not the latter kind (John 6:67–69). Then skipping several more minutes into the video, at the 30:40 minutes mark he says the following:

“Jesus is Lord. If he is Lord, and sovereign, and absolute master, what does that Make us? Slaves! The Greek word is doulos, doulos. It is used 130 times in the New Testament. It only means one thing, slaves. Not ambiguous. Doesn’t mean servant!”

Wrong! “Slaves” are also servants. That is what they do, they serve. The only difference is that in those days they were owned, whereas nowadays they are paid. He continues:

“There are six other Greek words that mean servant; they nuance the idea of service in different ways. It means slave, and it never means anything else. What do we mean by slaves? Someone who is owned, someone who has no rights of his own, but somebody else has to plead his cause.”

If Jesus was talking about a domestic servant (which he was), that was the only word that he could have used. No other word existed that conveyed the same meaning. The only difference was that in those days they were owned, whereas nowadays they are paid. He continues:

“In the Roman Empire a slave could not give testimony in court. He had no legal rights, no legal standing, could own no property, had no freedom and no autonomy. That is a perfect definition of a Christian. You have no rights of your own to lay any claim on God.”

So his idea of the kingdom of God is the Roman Empire! He thinks that the kingdom of God is modelled after the Roman Empire! That may fit the Calvinistic model of the kingdom of God, but not the biblical one. In the kingdom of God people are not slaves, they are servants. They serve because they want to, not because they have to. Then skipping several more minutes into the video, at the 35:06 minutes mark he says the following:

“By the way, the language scholars of the Masters University and Seminary have finished the New Testament, Proverbs, and Psalms on a brand new translation called the Legacy Standard Bible that will translate doulos, slave every time. They are working now in the Old Testament, incredible task!”

LOL! That will be the craziest and dumbest Bible translation ever made! He continues:

“Our lord said in Matthew 6:24: ‘No man can be a slave to two masters.’ Now if we just say, ‘No man can serve two masters,’ Yes you can! Some of you have two jobs, some of you have 10 bosses, some of you … everybody is a boss. Everybody in your building is a boss. You can serve lots of people. But you can’t be owned by more than one. A servant works for someone; a slave is owned by someone. That is what it means to follow christ.”

That is eisegesis, not exegesis! What Jesus actually said was, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matt. 6:24). So according to Jesus, it is possible to have two masters; except that you will end up hating one, and loving the other. The servant-master relationship is used as a metaphor to describe whom you want to serve and pay your allegiance to—God or mammon. It is not an ownership issue; it is an allegiance and service issue. The decision, the choice, is yours whom you want to serve and commit yourself to—God or mammon. God is not going to force that on anyone. “choose you this day whom ye will serve …” God or mammon (Josh. 24:15). You choose; you get to decide. God is not going to force that decision on anyone. He then continues:

“Deny yourself; take up your cross. What does that mean? Be willing every day to die for your master. ‘Take up your cross’ does not mean, ‘bear difficulty in life’. Really, Jesus was saying, It may cost you your life. So you have to calculate whether it is worth it, and then follow me; which means, ‘Do what I say.’”

He is right about that bit. Mercifully he is not wrong about everything! But he is more wrong than right. “Servant” is still a better translation for the Greek word doulos into English than “slave”.

As a side-note, Jesus’ admonition against divorce in Matt. 19:8 has been grossly misunderstood by Christians throughout Christian history. In the Catholic Church for example, a sacramental marriage is literally impossible to divorce. It can be annulled only if it can be proved that the original marriage had not been sacramental. Jesus’ admonition against divorce, however, was never meant to be understood in that way. He didn’t mean that if a couple are completely incompatible with each other and cannot get along, or that if they are living in an abusive relationship, that they should never attempt to divorce. If a man is beating his wife every day, and threatening to kill her every five minutes, it doesn’t mean that she has to put up with it for the rest of her life, and never get a divorce. That is not what Jesus meant. What he meant by his admonition against divorce in Matt. 19:8, was divorce under the Law of Moses, which was a completely different thing from what we understand by divorce in our day.

Under the Law of Moses, a wife had absolutely no rights. If a man did not like his wife for any frivolous reason (even if it was his fault and not hers), he could just give her a “bill of divorcement,” and kick her out of the house with no rights, not privileges, no compensation whatsoever. She had less rights than a slave did. If she was lucky enough to have a family or close relatives who would look after her, she could survive; otherwise she would have to go and beg, or become a prostitute, or sell herself as a slave, or some such thing in order to survive. (Under Islamic Shariah law, a woman being divorced enjoys far greater rights and privileges than she did under the old Mosaic law.) That is the kind of divorce that Jesus was condemning.

John MacArthur is making the same kind of mistake about slavery in the OT, that Christians have made throughout history about divorce. He thinks that just because slavery was tolerated and regulated in the OT, that therefore it was divinely approved. The answer of course is that it wasn’t. It was tolerated because of the hardness of their hearts, in the same way that divorce (under the Law of Moses) was tolerated; but it was not divinely approved. And it certainly is not a correct description of a Christian’s relationship to Christ. We are his friends, servants, and disciples; not slaves.

“Essential” or “non-Essential,” Who Decides?

 

Who gets to decide what is “essential” and what is “non-essential” for me, or for anybody else? Surely that is a decision that everyone should be able to make for himself. What right has the government to decide what is essential and non-essential for anyone? Is not that an example of government overreach? If I decide that going to church is “essential” for me, surely that is a decision that I have a right to make. What right has anyone else to argue? 

“Servant” or “Slave”? Part I

[It looks like this video has since been deleted. The video, however, was simply a condensed or abridged version of a longer sermon preached by John MacArthur. The complete sermon can be seen here.] The word that is usually translated as “servant” in most Bible translations, including the KJV, in the original Greek and Hebrew literally means a “slave”. That is the literal meaning of the words in the original languages. The KJV has rendered these in most instances as “servant,” and most later translations have followed suit; although some modern translations have broken ranks with that tradition, and used the word “slave” instead.

The word “servant” (including “servants”) occurs 885 times in the KJV Bible; 741 times in the Old Testament, and 144 times in the New. The word “slave” is used twice in the KJV Bible, in Jer. 2:14 and Rev. 18:13. So which is the better translation, “servant” or “slave”? The translators of the KJV (and most later translators) evidently have felt that “servant” is a better translation. There are several modern Christian apologists, however, who have felt that “slave” is a better translation. John MacArthur for example in the above video argues in favor of using “slave” rather than “servant” to translate those words. He has also written a book called Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ, in which he argues in favour of the word “slave” rather than “servant”. He has also a promotional video for his book which can be seen here. Here is a quote from the introduction to the book:

“After more than fifty years of translating, studying, teaching, preaching, and writing through the New Testament, I thought I had its truths pretty well identified and understood—especially in the realm of the New Testament theology of the gospel. In fact, clarifying the gospel was the most important and constant emphasis of my writing—from The Gospel According to Jesus, Ashamed of the Gospel, Hard to Believe, and The Truth War to countless sermons and articles through the years. But through all those efforts, a profound and comprehensive perspective, one that dominates the New Testament and is crucial to the gospel, escaped me and almost everyone else.

“It wasn’t until the spring of 2007, on an all-night flight to London while reading Slave of Christ by Murray J. Harris, that I realized there had been a centuries-long cover-up by English New Testament translators that had obscured a precious, powerful, and clarifying revelation by the Holy Spirit. Undoubtedly, the cover-up was not intentional—at least not initially. Yet its results have been dramatically serious.

“A cover-up in the English New Testament translations? Was that true? Why? And with what consequences? Had no one uncovered this before Harris in 1999?

“It didn’t take long to find one who had—Edwin Yamauchi in his 1966 Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society article entitled “Slaves of God.” Why had there been no response to his work? And how could a truth related so essentially not only to translation integrity but also to New Testament teaching about our relation to Christ be purposely hidden and the cover-up ignored?”

So which is the better translation, and who is right? I believe that “servant” is the better translation, and for a good reason. That is because the word “slave” in English carries with it the connotation of an unwilling servant. He serves because he has no other choice—the implication being that if he had the choice, he wouldn’t! That is what “slave” means in English. In ancient Hebrew and Greek, however, the word carried exactly the opposite connotations to what it does in English. It meant an exceptionally willing and obedient servant!

The English word “slave” also connotes an abusive relationship between the master and his slave; whereas in ancient Greek and Hebrew, it carried no such connotations. Joseph for example was sold in Egypt, and purchased by Potiphar as a slave; but his relationship with his master was not an abusive one. On the contrary, his master was so pleased with his service that he was greatly honored, and put in charge of his master’s entire house. The English word “slave” simply does not carry the right kind of connotations to convey that kind of relationship.

In ancient cultures, such as Greek and Hebrew (and many others), if somebody needed a domestic servant, such as a cook, a house maid, or a gardener for example, he would go and buy one! There was no such thing as “employing” a domestic servant, and paying them a “salary,” or a monthly “wage”. No such thing existed. There was only one way to obtain a domestic servant, and that was to go to the marketplace and buy one! If Jesus wanted to say “servant” as we understand the word in English, he wouldn’t have been able to, because such a word didn’t exist in any of the cultures and languages of the time and place. The word “slave” is the only word that he could have used that came closest to it—except that the word “slave” in English carries exactly the opposite connotation to what he meant by it. The word that comes closest to it in English is “servant,” not “slave”.

There were also such thing in those days as hired servants (Mark 1:20; Luke 15:17–19), who were daily labourers, and often worked on agricultural land, or as construction workers etc. They were employed on a daily basis, and received an hourly wage. In the New Testament Jesus refers to those in Matthew 20:1–15. But there was no such thing as hiring or employing a domestic servant. Those were only bought and sold. 

Now if you want to translate such words into English, with the connotations intended by the original authors such as Jesus, the nearest word in English that comes closest to it is servant not slave. So the KJV translators get it right once again!

_____________________

P. S.

After I had posted the above, I looked up “servant” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and found that one of the definitions for the word “servant” that it lists is as follows:

“3. In North American colonies in the 17–18^th c., and subsequently in the U.S., servant was the usual designation for a slave 1643.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if in Old English too the word “servant” had more or less the same kind of meaning. “Slaves” are also servants. That is what they do, they serve. The only difference is that nowadays they are paid, whereas in those days they were owned. So translating the Greek word doulos (δοῦλος) as “servant” in English is by no means an unreasonable or unexpected translation. It comes closest to the original intent of the biblical writers, including Jesus.

As Far as Translated Correctly!

The statement made in Article 8 of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated Correctly,” has been at the center of much criticism by the critics. I found the above interesting video in which the presenter attempts to counter the implied suggestion that the Bible may not be “translated (transmitted) correctly,” without paying much attention to what the Church’s claim actually is, and what the Bible itself actually says. (The video on the original channel can be seen here.) Firstly, the Bible is part of the canonized scriptures of the Church, meaning that it is trusted as such. It is not considered “unreliable” or “untrustworthy,” as he claims (see D&C 42:12).

Sometimes the critics ask the leading question, “If you think the Bible is not translated (transmitted) correctly, show us where it isn’t!” The underlying assumption is that we believe that the Bible is somehow unreliable and untrustworthy, which is not the case. As canonized scripture, we assume the Bible is translated (transmitted) correctly—unless we have reason by revelation to know otherwise. The Prophet Joseph Smith was once commissioned by the Lord to make an “inspired” translation of the Bible (by revelation), known as the Inspired Version, or the Joseph Smith Translation. In the current edition of the KJV Bible published by the Church, the significant bits of that translation are printed as alternatives in the footnotes, prefixed with JST. (Longer passages are placed in the appendix.) Those interested in making a comparison can get hold of a copy of this edition of the Bible published by the Church (very cheaply), and compare the KJV text with the JST alternatives in the footnotes (and in the appendix). That is the answer to the question, “If you think the Bible is not translated (transmitted) correctly, show us where it isn’t!” The most extensive changes were in fact made in the New Testament. To get a good idea, just studying the New Testament portion is sufficient. The best way to make a comparison is to highlight all the JST references in the footnotes with a highlighting pen, and then read the KJV text, and compare it with the highlighted alternatives in the footnotes.

In the above video, the presenter wastes a lot of time referencing survived manuscripts, as if that is somehow in dispute; while ignoring how those manuscripts have survived and come down to us; and the numerous references made in the Bible itself to missing scripture in the Bible. One of the objections made to Church’s claims has been the “sufficiency of the Bible” theory. The idea is that the canon of scripture is closed, and the Bible contains all the revelation and scripture that need be given. The Bible itself, however, makes many references to missing scripture in the Bible, both in the Old Testament as well as the New. Here are some references from the Old Testament:

1 Kings 11:

41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

There are 6 sacred books of scripture mentioned in these verses (book of the acts of Solomon, book of Nathan the prophet, prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, visions of Iddo the seer, book of Shemaiah the prophet, book of Iddo the seer) that are no longer found in our Old Testament. In the past when I have discussed this subject with the critics, their response has typically been, What evidence do we have that these books formed part of the original scriptural canon? The answer is, Because there is a recognizable pattern of expression used within the Bible to reference books which the original writers considered sacred and canonical, and to which they deferred. The following verses refer to sacred books that currently exist in the biblical canon. Note the common expression used in all of them:

1 Kings 14:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

1 Kings 15:

7 Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.

1 Kings 15:

23 The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.

1 Kings 15:

31 Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 16:

5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 16:

14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 16:

20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 16:

27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 22:

39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 22:

45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 1:

18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 8:

23 And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 10:

34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 12:

19 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 13:

8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 13:

12 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 14:

15 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 14:

18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 14:

28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 15:

6 And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 15:

21 And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 15:

36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 16:

19 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 20:

20 And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 21:

17 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 21:

25 Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 23:

28 Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 24:

5 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Chronicles 25:

26 Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel?

These verses all refer to books that currently exist in the Bible. In these verses the authors of the sacred writings are effectively referring the reader to those other writings for a more complete account of the events described, using a standard kind of idiomatic phraseology to do so. Now contrast that with the following verses where exactly the same phraseology is used, referencing books that no longer exist in the Bible:

1 Kings 11:

41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

We conclude that these are all sacred books which were considered by the writers of the original sacred texts to be inspired and scriptural, or of the same standing with the rest, but which no longer exist in our current Bible. The evidence for missing scripture from within the biblical text is overwhelming. For a further example consider the following:

2 Chronicles 32:

32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.

This obviously refers to the writings of the great prophet Isaiah, whom we are familiar with. How great a loss would it be if this great book had not survived, and was missing from the Bible? Now contrast that with the following:

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

These verses clearly refer to whole books or writings of equally great prophets and seers and visionary men of Israel in ancient times whose books have not survived, and which the sacred writer considered of equal standing with the rest. Who can doubt that these writings must have been just as inspired, scriptural, canonical, and revelatory in nature as the other prophetic books we already have in the Bible, and therefore would have been equally valuable to us today?

The Book of Mormon also confirms this loss. 1 Nephi 13:23 informs us that the book of Old Testament scripture which Lehi and his family took with them to the promised land, known in the Book of Mormon as the “brass plates of Laban,” had a much larger content than the volume that we have today; and 1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16; also mention three other Old Testament prophets by name, Zenos, Zenock, and Neum (and quote from them), that are no longer found in our current Bible. 2 Nephi chapter 3 also quotes from the prophecies of Joseph (son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt) recorded in the brass plates that are no longer found in our Bible.

Moving on into the New Testament, there is equally compelling internal evidence that the scriptural canon of the New Testament that we have today is not as complete as it had been originally. All the four Gospels are in fact abridgements of larger records, the originals of which have not survived. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were compiled from a common set of records, which is why they are called the “Synoptic Gospels”. It is possible to create a “synopsis” (a side-by-side comparison) of the three books, which shows passages that are practically identical with each other, and which could only have come from a common source; while at the same time there are sufficient differences between them to prove that they could not have just been copied from each other; because each contains material not found in any of the others. This can only be explained on the basis that they were copied from other larger sources the originals of which have not survived. A Google search for the “Synoptic Gospels” will provide much useful and interesting information.

The Gospel of Luke is particularly interesting in this regard, because at the beginning of his Gospel he actually tells us that there were other larger sources from which he has compiled his record. The Book of Acts is a continuation of the Gospel Luke; and both contain information relevant to this subject, so I will quote them both together:

Luke 1:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, [i.e. writing is implied] which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word [Apostles being implied];

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order [i.e. make a compilation or abridgement], most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1:

1 The former treatise [i.e. Gospel of Luke] have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

In these verses Luke is making it clear that he is using other sources available to him at that time to write a “treatise” about the life of Christ. He is acting as an editor to compile a short treatise from a larger source. That larger source has not survived.

The Gospel of John originates from a different source than the Synoptic Gospels; but internal evidence indicates that that too is an abridgement from a larger source. That is suggested by the following verses:

John 20:

31 But these are written [i.e. the Gospel of John as we have it—being an abridgement of a larger work], that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 21:

24 This [John] is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

From these verses we learn two things: Firstly, we learn that the Apostle John was not the author of the Gospel of John as we now have it. Secondly, we learn that it is an abridgement of the original record of John made by someone else. That original record has not survived.

The general conclusion that we arrive at from this analysis is that none of the four Gospels we have today are in fact the original records that were prepared by the original “eyewitnesses” of the events (i.e. the Apostles). They are abridgements of them made by others at a later period. Print was not available in those days. Manuscripts had to be copied by hand, which was a tedious and laborious thing to do. Therefore people tended to make abridgements, rather than copy entire manuscripts. Those original documents have not survived. Therefore what we have today is not the perfect or complete record. They contain omissions, deletions, and abridgements. It does not make what we have “unreliable” or “untrustworthy;” but it does make it incomplete. The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) supplies many of the missing bits; but not all of them. That too is not complete. The complete record will be revealed by the Lord at some future date, when the time for it is right (D&C 93:6, 18). 

The “manuscripts” that the above video keeps harping on about only provide us with what has survived. They don’t provide us with what hasn’t survived. It is absurd logic to conclude from what has survived that it is the only thing that ever existed—when those same manuscripts testify of the prior existence of even greater and more complete sources which haven’t survived. Christianity during the first 300 years was under constant (though intermittent) persecution in the Roman Empire. That persecution included, among other things, the destruction of churches, and burning of manuscripts. I agree that we are lucky to have what has survived. But it is absurd reasoning to conclude that it is the only thing that ever existed—especially when those same sources tell us of greater manuscripts which haven’t survived.

At around 13 minutes into the video he says, “… these Jews went home with the gospel, and so the gospel is proliferating from Spain to the west, to India, to the east and southeast, to Arabia, into Africa, to Ethiopia; … and so the gospel is being disseminated throughout the known world at the time at which Paul wrote his epistles.” That is great! How many manuscripts have survived from Arabia, Ethiopia, or India?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on revelation, as the primitive Church had been. People can choose not to believe; but it doesn’t invalidate the claim. Unbelievers have existed in every age, whenever the gospel was revealed; but that has never invalidated the prophetic claim. It is the sign of a false and apostate religion to claim that the canon of scripture is closed, and that God no longer speaks, nor gives additional revelation or scripture to be added to the canon. Whenever there has been a true church and religion of God on earth, this power has always been given, to receive revelation, and add scripture to the canon.
_____________________

P. S.

After I had posted the above, an article was brought to my attention on CARM website, written by Luke Wayne, in criticism of the Joseph Smith Translation, as though it somehow poses a challenge to what I have written, which of course it doesn’t. The article can be seen here. In that article he argues that the JST can’t be genuine because it doesn’t match any known manuscripts, which is a meaningless criticism, because Joseph Smith does’t claim to be translating from any known manuscripts. The underlying assumption of the JST is that it is a revelation from God, and is based on more complete manuscripts the originals of which have not survived. In this post I have convincingly argued that there is a case to be made for missing scripture in the Bible, and for incomplete or abridged manuscripts on which the current New Testament is based. When Luke Wayne has successfully addressed those, he can then start raising criticisms against the JST.