# Luke 11:2 - sermon on a text that wasn't there for most of us



## Eoghan (Apr 20, 2015)

[BIBLE]Luke 11:2[/BIBLE]

The text of the sermon was "Thy will be done" from Luke 11. My problem was that it simply is not there! It is missing from the NIV, ESV and NASV yet the preacher took no pains to explain this, despite many if not most of his congregation not using the KJV. I found the words in Mathew 6 and thought that you could say that the words were in a parallel passage. I then checked the chronology and noted that the Mathew text was from the first year of Jesus ministry, the Luke text the third year of His ministry. Then I noticed that the context of Mathew was Jesus unprompted teaching, the Luke text was at the request of the disciples!

I know that expository preaching should be from the text giving due weight to context, so I feel let down on this occasion. Due diligence would have required some observations on the text and context, contrasting the two versions of the Lord's Prayer surely?

Maybe it just shows a pattern in which sermons have their origin in the preachers head more than the text before them. I find this sort of thing most unsatisfactory and instead of relaxing and giving my assent to an exposition of the Word I have to try and follow the flight and trajectory of a sermon which is anything but expository.

Is this a trend others see?


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2015)

Eoghan said:


> [BIBLE]Luke 11:2[/BIBLE]
> 
> The text of the sermon was "Thy will be done" from Luke 11. My problem was that it simply is not there! It is missing from the NIV, ESV and NASV yet the preacher took no pains to explain this, despite many if not most of his congregation not using the KJV. I found the words in Mathew 6 and thought that you could say that the words were in a parallel passage. I then checked the chronology and noted that the Mathew text was from the first year of Jesus ministry, the Luke text the third year of His ministry. Then I noticed that the context of Mathew was Jesus unprompted teaching, the Luke text was at the request of the disciples!
> 
> ...



Is this a lay preacher or a trained preacher? A good preacher will usually relate the text to parallel passages, speak about the context and clarify any basic issues before launching into exposition proper.

It's going too far to say that there is a "pattern in which sermons have their origins in the preacher's head". Do the sermons you are hearing accord with the rest of Scripture (the analogy of faith)? 

In liberal and neo-evangelical churches sermons will be out of the preacher's head, but if you're in one of these churches you should find another one.

Some preachers may be aware of textual differences but don't go into them. Also, usually the congregation is using the same version as the preacher, or he assumes they are i.e. congregation and preacher are in agreement on the NT text.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 20, 2015)

I had a situation like this yesterday from 1 John 5:13. 

The Alexandrian text (which translations you mention are based off of [also known as the Critical Text]) did not have a particular phrase in it, and it is the same in your text: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε· Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· 

The Byzantine text (majority - that is basically the text the KJV and NKJV use) for my passage had another phrase that is exactly what is taught in Romans 1. For your passage it is the same, there is more there in the Byz. text: Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε, Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. Ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου. Γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 

"Thy will be done" is in the Byzantine Text, so you find it in the KJV, NKJV, Geneva, and Young's Literal. I preach the Byzantine Text because I am convinced that it is faithful to the original moreso than the Alexandrian. I explain why the text is missing from people's bibles, and I also tell them at the end of the day...if they are not convinced it is there in (in my example) 1 John 5:13, then it is still there in Romans 1. That things like this are minor and no reason to doubt the inerrancy or infallibility of God's Word.





Eoghan said:


> I then checked the chronology and noted that the Mathew text was from the first year of Jesus ministry, the Luke text the third year of His ministry. Then I noticed that the context of Mathew was Jesus unprompted teaching, the Luke text was at the request of the disciples!



The context is different he should or should not have brought that out. In this case it doesn't matter. it is found in both places (i.e. Thy will be done). Should we not pray that the Lord's will be done? After all, like my passage we are called to pray according to His will. How could we not desire the Lord's will be done? So I'm not seeing why your feather's are ruffled here.





Eoghan said:


> I know that expository preaching should be from the text giving due weight to context, so I feel let down on this occasion.



The text is there, and it is in Matthew. Matthew is part of the context, the context of the whole of the Scriptures. Or parallel statements in Scripture. 



Eoghan said:


> Due diligence would have required some observations on the text and context, contrasting the two versions of the Lord's Prayer surely?


 Perhaps or not. 'Required' is a strong word since you (a layman?/expert on preaching?) are bringing this about concerning an elder/minister (1 Ti. 5:19). I think we all would say it may be a good idea, but maybe for the context he was preaching to (i.e. the people he was preaching to) he found it much more needed to not use up his time talking about context and more time to preach to people who need to learn how to pray and people who need to trust the Lord's will. Maybe that isn't you, but maybe in his visitation he has found quite a few or one member who struggles with these things and preached it with them in mind (which is not a bad thing).



Eoghan said:


> Maybe it just shows a pattern in which sermons have their origin in the preachers head more than the text before them. I find this sort of thing most unsatisfactory and instead of relaxing and giving my assent to an exposition of the Word I have to try and follow the flight and trajectory of a sermon which is anything but expository.



Instead of coming here and critiquing, go and talk to the preacher. AND glean from not the preacher but THE PREACHER. This is the Word of God, gain something from what you hear. Yes, be discerning, but did the minister speak falsely? It doesn't seem so from your description. If not, then he spoke the word of God, which means God spoke to you. Perhaps it pricked your heart and you may be trying to excuse how you were rebuked or excuse how you were called to pray by focusing on the preacher instead of the Word of God itself. 


Not saying that is true, but pointing out what may be. Search your own heart.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 20, 2015)

Eoghan said:


> Maybe it just shows a pattern in which sermons have their origin in the preachers head more than the text before them.



If he was using the KJV, it _was_ in the text before him. I think it's fair to say that a preacher in that setting would do well to realize that many in the congregation might not have that line in the Bibles they're looking at, and to address this. But if he didn't realize this, or chose not to address it, that alone doesn't necessarily show that he gave little thought to the text.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 20, 2015)

Can I just say that expository preaching should be the norm. As you listen to the exposition it opens up the passage to you and the Holy Spirit speaks inside us to confirm the message. Most sermons that I seem to hear do not expound a chapter, this one did not even address the whole verse but confined itself to one part on one verse. I have even listened to a sermon on a word from the Psalms, denoting a musical pause "selah". When someone moves away from the chapter to a single verse, a phrase or in extreme cases one word it becomes increasingly difficult to judge whether what is said is Biblical. 

When it reaches the stage that it requires a working knowledge of the Westminster Confession to determine whether someone is "speaking falsely" or not (because they are all over the place)  I think we need to go back to expounding bigger chunks of scripture than single verses or phrases.


----------



## KMK (Apr 20, 2015)

If the title of the Sermon was "Thy will be done", then, obviously, he was preaching from the KJV.



> Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.



Every liturgical use of the Lord's Prayer I have ever heard includes the phrase "Thy will be done." That was the form we used in the Methodist Church I grew up in even though the pastor preached from The Living Bible.

Also, if he subscribes to the Reformed confessions, then he is well within the bounds in preaching such a sermon from such a text.

The Baptist Catechism:



> Q. 114. What do we pray for in the third petition?
> A. In the third petition, which is, "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven," we pray that God by His grace, would make us able and willing to know, obey, and submit to His will in all things, as the angels do in heaven. (Matt. 6:10; Ps. 103:20,21; Ps. 25:4,5; Ps. 119:26)


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 20, 2015)

Eoghan said:


> Most sermons that I seem to hear do not expound a chapter



I fail to see in Scripture or even from the example of general history where a sermon must expound upon a whole chapter.




Eoghan said:


> this one did not even address the whole verse but confined itself to one part on one verse. I have even listened to a sermon on a word from the Psalms, denoting a musical pause "selah". When someone moves away from the chapter to a single verse, a phrase or in extreme cases one word it becomes increasingly difficult to judge whether what is said is Biblical.



Ever read sermons of the Puritans?

You say it becomes increasingly difficult to judge if they were to preach on, let's say, a word. Sure if they were to only read that one word, "will". I've preached on the word "Blessed" before (Ephesians 1:3) or "Therefore" (Ephesians 4:1). If I were to just read the word someone could possibly think, he is preaching health/wealth, prosperity, etc. But it isn't just reading the Word, there's more, there's preaching the Word. So at your disposal now is a whole exposition through a sermon. So it isn't as difficult to judge, now having heard the Word whether from a chapter or one single word you are to go back and see if what you heard is in accordance with the Scriptures (i.e. be like the Bereans). 

I'm really beginning to think you are sitting a high horse looking down upon all/most preachers. Do any preachers meet your standard?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 20, 2015)

Hello Eoghan,

I'd say the preacher (is he also the pastor?) should have been aware of the variant readings in the modern versions and alerted the congregation to the discrepancy between them and the Received Text; if he was the regular pastor, he also probably should have known that many in his congregation used modern Bibles. If he was just a visiting preacher he still ought to have alerted the folks.

On the other hand, those who use said modern versions ought to be aware of the many omissions and changes from the Received Text in their Bibles. The confusion sown by this state of affairs is sad.


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2015)

A good cook leaves the pots and pans in the kitchen; and a good preacher will leave his criticism in the study so that the flock may feed on the word alone.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2015)

Eoghan said:


> Can I just say that expository preaching should be the norm. As you listen to the exposition it opens up the passage to you and the Holy Spirit speaks inside us to confirm the message. Most sermons that I seem to hear do not expound a chapter, this one did not even address the whole verse but confined itself to one part on one verse. I have even listened to a sermon on a word from the Psalms, denoting a musical pause "selah". When someone moves away from the chapter to a single verse, a phrase or in extreme cases one word it becomes increasingly difficult to judge whether what is said is Biblical.
> 
> When it reaches the stage that it requires a working knowledge of the Westminster Confession to determine whether someone is "speaking falsely" or not (because they are all over the place)  I think we need to go back to expounding bigger chunks of scripture than single verses or phrases.



Textual preaching - preaching on a text or two - has an honourable history. Check out e.g. Spurgeon's sermons to see how he did it biblically.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 21, 2015)

"The topical sermon begins with a particular matter the preacher wants to preach about. The topic could be prayer or justice or parenting or holiness or even expositional preaching. Having established the topic, the preacher then assembles various texts from various parts of the Bible and combines them with illustrative stories and anecdotes. The material is combined and woven together around one topic. The topical sermon is not built around one text of Scripture but around the one chosen theme or idea."

"The Old Testament prophets were given, not a personal commission to go and speak, but a particular message to deliver. Likewise Christian preachers today have authority to speak from God only so long as they speak His message and unfold His words." 

"You can pick your Bible up right now, close your eyes, open to a certain place, put your finger down on a verse , open your eyes and and read that verse and you can get a great blessing from it for your soul but still not necessarily learn what God intended to say through that passage. What they say about real estate is true under standing the Bible: the three most important factors are location, location, location. You understand a text of Scripture where it is. You understand it in the context in which it was inspired."

I think we are perhaps talking at cross purposes.


----------

