If you grew up reciting the Lord’s Prayer, you likely ended it this way:
“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
— Matthew 6:13 (KJV)
It is a beautiful ending.
It brings worship into the prayer.
It lifts the heart upward.
It reminds us who God is.
But in many modern translations, those words are either:
Missing from the main text.
Placed in a footnote.
Or bracketed as doubtful.
And once again, believers are left wondering:
Was this part of the original Gospel of Matthew?
What Is the Issue?
The question follows the same pattern as our previous case studies.
Some early manuscripts do not contain the doxology at the end of Matthew 6:13.
Because of that, modern critical editions often exclude it or treat it as secondary.
The reasoning is consistent:
Earlier manuscripts carry greater weight.
Later majority readings may reflect liturgical additions.
So the doxology is sometimes described as something added during public worship.
But that conclusion rests on a particular model.
The Historic Reception
For centuries, the church concluded the Lord’s Prayer with this doxology.
It appears in the Byzantine textual tradition.
It appears in the Textus Receptus.
It appears in the King James Bible.
It has been prayed by believers for generations.
It was not treated as optional.
It was received as Scripture.
That continuity matters.
The Pattern Is Now Clear
Notice what we’ve seen across all five case studies:
A passage included in the dominant textual tradition.
A passage received and used by the church for centuries.
A passage present in the Textus Receptus.
A passage included without hesitation in the King James Bible.
A passage questioned in modern critical editions based primarily on early manuscript absence.
The pattern is consistent.
This is not random.
It reflects two different approaches to preservation.
Is It Merely Liturgical?
Some argue that the doxology was added because it resembles language from the Old Testament (such as 1 Chronicles 29:11).
But that resemblance does not prove addition.
Scripture often echoes Scripture.
Biblical writers regularly draw from earlier wording.
And if the church had been adding liturgical expansions freely, we would expect to see widespread variation.
Instead, we see stability in the received stream.
The Pastoral Effect
When you pray the Lord’s Prayer from a modern translation and it ends abruptly at:
“But deliver us from evil.”
Something feels incomplete.
Not because we demand tradition.
But because for centuries, believers concluded with praise.
The doxology directs our hearts upward.
It reinforces God’s kingship.
It grounds the prayer in worship.
And when it is removed or bracketed, it introduces hesitation into one of the most beloved passages in Scripture.
Again, the question is not:
“Does doctrine collapse?”
The question is:
“Were these words preserved?”
What These Case Studies Show
Across Mark 16, John 7–8, Acts 8, 1 John 5, and Matthew 6, we see the same structural difference:
The King James Bible reflects a historically received, continuous textual stream.
Modern critical editions reflect a reconstructed text based heavily on early manuscripts.
One model produces continuity.
The other produces revision.
One produces stability.
The other produces ongoing reassessment.
For believers seeking a Bible they can build their lives on, that difference matters.
Where We Go Next
We have now:
Examined Scripture’s promises.
Traced historical continuity.
Explored the 19th-century shift.
Addressed common objections.
Walked through specific case studies.
Now it is time to bring everything together.
Not combatively.
Not defensively.
But clearly.
Next:
A Bible You Can Build Your Life On