Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The critical text shortens this fourfold command to two parts: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
No distinct NA28 reading has been entered; the received and NA28 texts may agree at this unit.
Translation or explanation
The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Matthew 5:44
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 5:44, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text shortens this fourfold command to two parts: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Since Luke carries the fuller list, critics can explain Matthew’s received wording as a copyist’s attempt to make the two sermons agree.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 5:44 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
The full text has broad and ancient support and gives practical content to the command that opens it.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Since Luke carries the fuller list, critics can explain Matthew’s received wording as a copyist’s attempt to make the two sermons agree. The omissions also occur in units with similar endings. A scribe can move from one “you” phrase to the next and leave a balanced member behind.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus also says to bless those who curse and do good to those who hate. A magistrate may punish, a church may discipline, and a household may establish distance.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 5:44. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
The critical text shortens this fourfold command to two parts: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Since Luke carries the fuller list, critics can explain Matthew’s received wording as a copyist’s attempt to make the two sermons agree.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 3 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 122
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 5:44. The local discussion treats internal and transcriptional considerations as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IV. Omission. by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned blessing those who curse,—doing good to those who hate,—and praying for those who despitefully use.’ Since there are but two alternative readings of the passage,—one longer, one briefer,—every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest. 148 This result of ‘comparative criticism’ is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 9–10
At Matthew 5:44, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”” and associates the passage with WLC 99.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 1–2
Matthew 5.44: It sets “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. [This is the universal reading of the Byzantine Text.…” against “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44 NASB).” Its stated doctrinal argument is that As we see above, the patristic citations of Athenagoras and the Didache, which support the Byzantine Text, well predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by nearly two centuries. Doctrinally, the words of our Lord and Saviour in the Byzantine Text greatly strengthen our obligation to do good to them who deal despitefully with us. It is true that the Alexandrian Text itself in the parallel verse in Luke 6.28 does include these words. That said, the deletion of it here in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 weakens the force of this doctrine in this passage, and it gives us an inaccurate picture in this account of what Christ actually said in this sermon.… The compilation appeals to The Nestle-Aland text, which deletes the phrases 'bless them that curse you' and 'pray for them that despitefully use you', is supported by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and the early church father Origen. The Byzantine Text, which includes the words, is supported by Athenagoras of Athensiii, who was a 2nd century Church Father; by the Didache of the Twelve Apostlesiv , which was also written in the 2nd century…
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
That does not require the same outward act in every case. Giving an abuser access to another victim is not doing good. A magistrate may punish, a church may discipline, and a household may establish distance. Enemy-love seeks the neighbor’s true good under God’s law, which includes restraint of evil and a sincere desire for repentance.
The fuller reading therefore deepens rather than sentimentalizes the command. It gives no room for revenge, and it gives no room for calling indulgence mercy. The Father’s perfection in verse 48 is whole-hearted goodness joined to truth. His children show it when hostile treatment cannot recruit them into the enemy’s likeness.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Matthew 5:44, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 5:44, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44”. The assessed critical form is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Matthew 5:44, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 122 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 9–10 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 1–2 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
The critical text shortens this fourfold command to two parts: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The Textus Receptus also says to bless those who curse and do good to those who hate. Luke 6:27–28 contains all four actions in a related order.
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44
The shorter form has strong early support. Since Luke carries the fuller list, critics can explain Matthew’s received wording as a copyist’s attempt to make the two sermons agree.
Yet the phrases are not copied in a rigid block. Their order and wording differ, and Matthew’s list has a deliberate rise. Love names the governing duty. Bless turns hostile speech into prayerful speech. Do good makes love visible. Pray carries the enemy before the Father.
The omissions also occur in units with similar endings. A scribe can move from one “you” phrase to the next and leave a balanced member behind. Once a shorter form circulates, Luke’s agreement is easily recast as suspicion rather than corroboration.
Love with hands and a voice
The full command prevents love from becoming a private feeling. An enemy curses: bless. He hates: do good. He abuses and persecutes: pray. Christ does not command approval of evil or removal of lawful boundaries. He forbids personal hatred and retaliation.
Prayer for an enemy may ask God to stop his sin, bring him to repentance, protect the weak, and establish justice. Blessing is not calling evil good. It is refusing to use one’s mouth as a second weapon.
The Father sends sun and rain upon the unjust. His common gifts do not declare them righteous; they display goodness that his children must imitate. Publicans can love those who love them. The family likeness of heaven appears when love crosses the line of return.
The full text has broad and ancient support and gives practical content to the command that opens it. The resemblance to Luke is real because the teaching is the Lord’s. Matthew need not be shortened merely to make each Gospel sound less like the others.
The four verbs also answer four common limits on love. A person may claim inward goodwill while returning a curse, withholding needed help, or refusing to pray. Christ takes the claim apart. Love must govern speech, hand, and secret petition as well as emotion.
That does not require the same outward act in every case. Giving an abuser access to another victim is not doing good. A magistrate may punish, a church may discipline, and a household may establish distance. Enemy-love seeks the neighbor’s true good under God’s law, which includes restraint of evil and a sincere desire for repentance.
The fuller reading therefore deepens rather than sentimentalizes the command. It gives no room for revenge, and it gives no room for calling indulgence mercy. The Father’s perfection in verse 48 is whole-hearted goodness joined to truth. His children show it when hostile treatment cannot recruit them into the enemy’s likeness.
Further reading
- Exodus 23:4–5; Matthew 5:43–48; Luke 6:27–36; Romans 12:14–21.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 5:44.
- John William Burgon, The Revision Revised.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-1021
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Matthew 5:44 — Love, Bless, Do Good, and Pray: The Full Command Concerning Enemies,” VAR-1021, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas