Today I preached on John 5:1-16. In my opinion, (and I say with a completely clear conscience) the best evidence indicates that John 5:3b-4 was not originally in the text. Having come to that conclusion, how should I have handled the passage when I preached it. The choices I came up with were: A. Ignore the fact that I don't think it should be there and preach it anyway since the congregation uses the KJV (though they are not KJV only and frankly probably wouldn't know what that means). ButI have a problem with this because the verse is clearly outside the bounds of what we know about angels from the rest of scripture. B. Tell the congregation that I don't think it should be there and proceed to preach around it. Butthis will shock the audience because they will think I am deleting a part of the Bible, causing a quiet but audible murmer in the congregation which distracts them from the rest of the sermon. C. Don't tell the congregation that I don't think it should be there, but, in the sermon, interpret the verse in such a way that I subtly indicate that I think it is spurious and does not mean what, at face value, it clearly says. Butthis tecnique will be caught by the more critically minded in the audience who will draw the same conclusion as in "B" and call the other members this coming week and tell them that I am a heretic. D. Skip this passage and preach on something easier! Butdo I really belong behind the pulpit if I am a coward?!?