The 1866 Mercersburg Liturgy (Reformed)
the 1888 Common Service (Lutheran)
Compared and Contrasted
Thomas D. Busteed
MDiv, Lancaster Theological Seminary, 2013
MAR Liturgical Studies, Yale Divinity School (anticipated May 2018)
- Appendix A: Liturgies side by side
- Appendix B: Quick summary of comparison
- Appendix C: Two Prefaces to the 1888 Common Service
Web Resource: Here
The 1866 Mercersburg Liturgy (Reformed) and the 1888 Common Service (Lutheran) Compared and Contrasted Thomas D. Busteed MDiv, Lancaster Theological Seminary, 2013 MAR Liturgical Studies, Yale Divinity School (anticipated May 2018)
Thomas D. Busteed
Professor: Melanie Ross
12 December 2016
In Pennsylvania, “union churches” were built by German immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries to house both Lutheran and Reformed congregations. They shared buildings, hymnals (das Gemeinschaftliche Gesangbuch, 1817), and they intermarried. In the 1830s, likely the only noticeable difference between the two would have been the way they began the Lord’s Prayer. As time went on, both traditions sought to reclaim their unique confessional identities through a series of schisms and mergers. By the end of the 20th century, many union churches split into separate buildings, often side by side.
When one begins to ‘dig around’ old Lutheran and Reformed hymnals in these union churches, one can find striking similarities in their historic Eucharist liturgies. This paper shall investigate commonalities and differences between two such liturgies: the 1866 Mercersburg Liturgy (Reformed) and the 1888 Common Service (Lutheran). Both of these liturgies represent pivotal moments in the history of both traditions and continue to serve as major points of reference for both of these traditions.
- Historical Context
- Some Nineteenth Century Challenges
There are many complex factors in the history of the nineteenth century that led to the desire to develop these liturgies. Two historical factors stand out as having particular relevance for this current discussion.
When Lutherans and Reformed settled in Pennsylvania, they brought their German culture, hymns, catechisms, and liturgies with them. Over time as German language and custom gave way to English language and custom, churches were faced with a dilemma of whether to retain the use of German in worship or to worship in English. Even before the adoption of the English language in worship, both Lutheran and Reformed churches had moved in the direction of a freer service format of a sermon/lecture cushioned with prayers, scripture, and hymns. Adopting the English language further removed congregations from their historical German-language liturgical formularies and they largely fell into disuse and were forgotten.
Another factor concerns the religious climate of nineteenth century Protestantism in which the Second Great Awakening with its revivals and “New Measures” seeped into all denominations, including the Reformed, but especially the Lutherans. The fear of John Williamson Nevin, and others, regarding New Measures was that it was turning Christianity into a manipulative results-driven business enterprise, concerned outwardly with numbers of “person’s saved” instead of focusing on true inward conversion by the Holy Spirit over a person’s lifetime. It seemed as though worshippers were coerced to accept Jesus in a moment of irrational, subjective, and intense passion, like a fad or infatuation, instead of being nurtured in the objective, developmental, and incarnational life of the Church through catechesis and sacraments.
- A Nineteenth Century Solution
Reclaiming the “slow-cooker” way of forming Christians through historic liturgies and catechesis was viewed as a remedy to the seemingly “flash in a fire” character of New Measures. Lutherans sought to create a liturgy based on the “common consent of the pure Lutheran liturgies of the Sixteenth Century.” The Reformed sought to create a liturgy based on ““the liturgical worship of the Primitive Church” with “special reference to the old Palatinate and other Reformed Liturgies of the sixteenth century”.” Both Lutherans and Reformed sought to recapture the sixteenth century spirit of their traditions while also acknowledging their traditions as a development of the Church catholic. These processes eventually resulted in the 1866 Mercersburg Liturgy (Reformed) and the 1888 Common Service (Lutheran).
It should be noted that this liturgical recovery was met with opposition in both traditions. Use of these liturgies within their respective traditions was not universal. Nonetheless, for churches that did use these liturgies to their fullest, there is remarkable liturgical convergence in these two liturgies, while also there remained subtle differences.
- Comparing and Contrasting the Liturgies
The method used in the following sections of this paper seeks to establish commonalities and differences between the surface levels of the text, but also go one step further to discern the meaning of the text and the “liturgical world” it seeks to convey.
There is some difficulty in establishing a universal agreement on the meaning of a particular text. Two different communities can use the exact same text and perceive different meanings. Also, a liturgy is full of several different thematic ideas and can in itself point to more than one interpretation. Nonetheless, I present here what I perceive to be two likely possibilities of meaning when considering the theological and catechetical traditions of Lutherans and Reformed.
- Initial Observations
At first blush, both the Mercersburg and Common Service liturgies look quite similar. Much of the Ordinary of the Western Mass is retained in the Lutheran Liturgy. The Mercersburg Liturgy omits the Kyrie, Alleluia, and the Agnus Dei, but adds the Te Deum. The Lutheran Liturgy includes an Introit. The Mercersburg Liturgy provides a fuller Eucharistic Prayer with an Epiclesis. The Lutheran Liturgy provides seasonally appropriate Prefaces. The Nicene Creed and the General Prayer/Intercessions take different placements in the liturgy, but are present in both.
- “Communion of” and “For You, for the Forgiveness of Sins”
The differences between the two liturgies are often subtle. For example, the Words of Institution are nearly identical between the two liturgies, but at the elevation of the cup the words “shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins” are added to the Lutheran Liturgy. Also, the Words of Distribution vary between the liturgies, Lutherans once again emphasizing the phrase “for you” in the phrases: “given for thee” and “shed for thy sins.” The Mercersburg Liturgy uses the words “communion of” in its Words of Distribution. The subtle differences between “shed for thy sins” and “communion of” play out throughout their respective liturgies.
The source of this difference is evident between the catechisms of these two traditions.
Luther’s Small Catechism is set up with the Lutheran theological hermeneutic of Law and Gospel. The catechism begins with the Ten Commandments, God’s Law. The explanation of Confession leads into Luther’s explanation of Eucharist. After iterating the Words of Institution, Luther asks: “What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?” The Answer: “The words “given for you” and “shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” show us that forgiveness of sin, life, and salvation are given to us in the sacrament through these words, because where there is forgiveness of sin, there is also life and salvation.” Luther continues:
How can bodily eating and drinking do such a great thing? Answer: Eating and drinking certainly do not do it, but rather the words that are recorded: “given for you” and “shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” These words, when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking, are the essential thing in the sacrament, and whoever believes these words has what they declare and state, namely, “forgiveness of sins.”
When the next question, “Who, then, receives this sacrament worthily?” is asked, Luther continues the theme of “for you, for the forgiveness of sins” by saying:
Fasting and bodily preparation are in fact a fine external discipline, but a person who has faith in these words, “given for you” and “shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” is really worthy and well prepared. However, a person who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, because the words “for you” require truly believing hearts.
In the Lutheran worldview of Eucharist, the sacrament conveys God’s forgiveness for the individual recipient.
Contrast this to question one of the Heidelberg Catechism. The Heidelberg Catechism is the catechism of the German Reformed Church. Question one has become the hallmark of this catechism and is often memorized and recited in churches of this tradition even to this day. Question one asks: “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” The answer:
That I belong, both body and soul and in life and in death, not to myself, but to my faithful savior Jesus Christ, who has totally paid for all my sins with his precious blood and completely liberated me from the power of the devil, and who takes care of me so well that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven. In fact, everything must work together for my salvation. Besides this, by his Holy Spirit he also assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready to live for him from now on.
Notice the emphasis on “belong”-ing to Christ in “both body and soul and in life and in death.” This belonging is so powerful that God cares about every hair that falls from our heads. Christ is for us and we in return are “wholeheartedly willing and ready to live for him[.]” For the Mercersburg theologians, this belonging to Christ constitutes our mystical union with Christ’s very life. And by virtue of being incorporated into Christ’s body, we have all of Christ’s benefits, including the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. The Heidelberg Catechism’s “personal, existential orientation” assures us that “God is sufficiently powerful to ensure that all will ultimately be well with us[.]”
Lutheranism would not deny this “belonging to” or “communion of” Christ, nor would Mercersburg deny “given for you, for the forgiveness of sins.” But, these traditions emphases play out in their respective liturgies, often in profound ways.
- 1888 Common Service and “for you, for the forgiveness of sins”
The 1888 Common Service sought to be a Lutheran liturgy, though this was understood to be a particular expression of the Church catholic. The most drastic departure from the Roman rite was in the Eucharistic Prayer which removed all sacrificial language. In the process, all that was retained between the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei was the Words of Institution and Lord’s Prayer and an optional “Exhortation.”
The service begins with a confession of sin that highlights how the individual has sinned against God, “in thought, word, and deed.” The Declaration of Pardon assures the believer of forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake: “ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father hath had mercy
upon us, and hath given his only Son to die for us, and for his sake forgiveth us all our sins.” After this point in the liturgy, it is fairly similar to the Mercersburg Liturgy until “The General Prayer.” In the General Prayer, the emphasis of forgiveness of sin reappears:
And although we have deserved thy righteous wrath and manifold punishments yet, we entreat thee, O most merciful Father, remember not the sins of our youth, nor our many transgressions; but out of thine unspeakable goodness, grace and mercy, defend us from all harm and danger of body and soul.
The General Prayer and petitions are made through Christ’s merits:
These, and whatsoever other things thou wouldest have us ask of thee, O God, vouchsafe unto us for the sake of the bitter sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, thine only Son, our Lord and Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.
Later in the liturgy, preceding the Proper Preface, the word “salutary” is used where the Mercersburg Liturgy uses “bounden duty.” Salutary implies that the act is healthful, but not required/duty bound. This is perhaps another example of the Lutheran Liturgy attempting to shift the emphasis off us and onto Christ’s action.
An optional “Exhortation” follows the Sanctus. The theme of “for you for the forgiveness of sin” reappears:
DEARLY Beloved! Forasmuch as we purpose to come to the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, it becometh us diligently to examine ourselves, as St. Paul exhorteth us. For this Holy Sacrament hath been instituted for the special comfort and strengthening of those who humbly confess their sins, and who hunger and thirst after righteousness. But if we thus examine ourselves, we shall find nothing in us but only sin and death, from which we can in no wise set ourselves free. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ hath had mercy upon us, and hath taken upon himself our nature, that so he might fulfill for us the whole will and law of God, and for us and for our deliverance suffer death and all that we by our sins have deserved. And to that end that we should the more confidently believe this, and be strengthened by our faith in a cheerful obedience to his holy will, he hath instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper, in which he feedeth us with his Body, and giveth us to drink of his Blood.
The Agnus Dei further emphasizes Christ’s mercy for us and prays that Christ will “grant us peace.”
The Thanksgiving after Eucharist gives one final nod to “for you for the forgiveness of sins”:
O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good. And his mercy endureth forever. WE give thanks to thee, Almighty God, that thou hast refreshed us through this salutary gift; and we beseech thee, that of thy mercy thou wouldst strengthen us through the same in faith toward thee and in fervent love toward one another, through Jesus Christ, thy dear Son, our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.
The thread of “for you, for the forgiveness of sins” is in the 1888 Common Service from its opening Confession of Sins to the Thanksgiving prayer after the Eucharist. The liturgy serves to assure the believer of Christ’s gift of forgiveness. Lutherans agree that this is the essential thing in the church:
For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere.
Lutheran liturgical life is rooted in the proclamation of the Gospel, through Word and Sacrament, of “for you, for the forgiveness of sins.”
- 1866 Mercersburg Liturgy and “Communion of”
The 1866 Mercersburg Liturgy, like the 1888 Common Service, begins with Confession of Sins. The exhortation uses similar language to the Common Service, addressing the congregation as “beloved” siblings and God as “Father.” Note, however, the image of God “our heavenly Father” sitting on the “throne.” The Mercersburg Liturgy from its opening exhortation to the Confession of Sins paints the picture of God’s heavenly majesty. This parallels the story of Isaiah’s confession in Isaiah 6:1-5 (NRSV):
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”
The pivots on the thresholds shook at the voices of those who called, and the house filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Even if the worshipper was unaware of this connection to Isaiah, the language of “heaven” and “throne” would surely have conveyed a sense of God’s majesty.
Continuing with the congregation’s part in the spoken Confession of Sins, we begin to see the language of “communion”:
ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who dost admit thy people unto such wonderful communion, that partaking of the body and blood of thy dear Son, they should dwell in Him, and He in them; we unworthy sinners, approaching to thy presence, and beholding thy glory, do abhor ourselves, and repent in dust and ashes.
Also in the confession, not only does the worshipper seek God’s forgiveness, but the worshipper’s attention is drawn to the need to forgive one’s neighbor: “enable us heartily to
forgive others, as we beseech Thee to forgive us[.]” And so in addition to the Lutheran emphasis on “for you, for the forgiveness of sins” we have here an emphasis on that forgiveness as tied to communion with Christ and neighbor at the foot of our Father’s heavenly throne.
After the Confession of Sins and Declaration of Pardon, the service continues with the Nicene Creed, the creed of the “one holy catholic Church.” At first, it seems odd given the historic order of the Western Church that the Creed should come so early in the order of the liturgy. John Williamson Nevin and Phillip Schaff stressed throughout their careers the catholicity of the Church over and against sectarianism. The Church is the Church of all ages, a family of Christ from the early days to the present and into the future. The Creed takes on the character of a Christian family “mission statement” of Christ’s incarnation and serves as the lens through which Scripture and Tradition are interpreted. Moving from pardoning of sins, as forgiven and forgiving people in communion with Christ, we unite with the profession of faith of the Church family on earth, immediately followed by joining in a song of the family of heaven: Gloria in Excelsis!
Fast forwarding a bit in the liturgy, we come to the Sursum Corda, which is identical to the Lutheran Common Service. Instead of a seasonal Proper Preface, there is one (long!) Preface. It begins before the Creation, recounts the Creation of the world, and the Fall of humankind “through the malice of Satan.” The worshipper is invited to identify as part of this larger narrative of God’s creating and sustaining work, especially in the saving work of Christ who “came down from heaven, and became man, for us men and for our salvation.” And in the spirit of a great cosmic family reunion, the Preface ends:
Thee, mighty God, heavenly King, we magnify and praise. With patriarchs and prophets, apostles and martyrs; with the holy Church throughout all the world; with the heavenly Jerusalem, the joyful assembly and congregation of the first-born on high; with the innumerable company of angels round about thy throne, the heaven of heavens, and all the powers therein; we worship and adore thy glorious name, joining in the song of the Cherubim and Seraphim: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory. Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!
Immediately after this, follows the Words of Institution. The Words of Institution does not contain the phrase “shed for you for the remission/forgiveness of sins.” An Epiclesis follows the Words of Institution. Then an Oblation follows that.
The Oblation is an interesting addition to the liturgy. Lutherans at the time probably would have been allergic to its sacrificial language:
AND be pleased now, O most merciful Father, graciously to receive at our hands this memorial of the blessed sacrifice of thy Son; in union with which we offer and present unto Thee, O Lord, the reasonable sacrifice of our own persons; consecrating ourselves on the altar of the Gospel, in soul and body, property and life, to thy most blessed service and praise.
For the Mercersburg theologians, being God’s family through communion in Christ requires that we make sacrifices of “soul and body, property and life” for the “service and praise” of God. It is not that these sacrifices merit forgiveness of sins; rather, because of the forgiveness of sins by virtue of our mystical union with Christ and Christ’s benefits ,we are invited into the costs and joys of discipleship.
One of the most curious orderings of the Mercersburg Liturgy is the decision to place the Prayers of Intercession in the context of the Eucharist. Though, to continue the logic of the cosmic family reunion through communion in Christ, it seems quite appropriate actually that the prayers would be done with the family on earth and the family of heaven gathered around bread and wine, as Christians have gathered throughout the ages. The Intercessions begin with prayers for the unity of the Church on earth (the Church militant). The Intercessions continue with petitions for the congregation and its ministries, the country and its government, the land and its resources, and evangelism of the light of the Gospel “unto the ends of the earth.” The Intercessions become more person focused after this, and continue with a petition for those who suffer temptation and affliction. Then follows a petition for those on their death beds. The final petition begins with the worshipper’s identity as part of God’s cosmic family: “O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” The petition continues by giving thanks for “the blessed communion of all thy saints, wherein Thou givest us also to have part” and assures the worshipper of the presence of “those who have gone before us in the way of salvation, and by whom we are now compassed about, in our Christian course, as a cloud of witnesses looking down upon us from the heavenly world.” The cosmic family then joins together in the Christian family prayer: The Lord’s Prayer.
The Prayer of Thanksgiving after the Eucharist continues the theme of communion and belonging to Christ, “assuring us thereby, that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, and heirs through hope of thine everlasting kingdom[.]” The cosmic family reunion ends with a song of victory, the Te Deum, where all of creation, heaven and earth, past present and future, praises God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, forever and ever.
The Mercersburg liturgy is not merely a proclamation of the communion of the Body of Christ, it is in its very act a communion of cosmic proportions. Forgiveness of sins is not absent from this liturgy, but that forgiveness is lived out in the liturgy in holy communion with the Body of Christ, in heaven, in the Church, past present and future.
We have here two examples of liturgies that attempted to overcome the seemingly “flash in a fire” character of New Measures and reclaim a “slow-cooker” way of forming Christians through historic liturgies and catechesis. These liturgies, wary of grounding worshippers’ in their personal subjective experiences, sought instead to ground worshippers in the age-old practices of an objective and historic Church. Lutherans sought to do this through their historic emphasis of forgiveness of sins through Christ’s merits (“for you, for the forgiveness of sins”). Mercersburg theologians sought to root worshippers in an ongoing cosmic family reunion that is the “communion of the Body of Christ.” The Mercersburg Liturgy’s emphasis on family is able to emphasize costly discipleship and sacrifice in a way of which the Lutheran tradition would be wary. The danger of the Lutheran liturgy is to fall into a cheap grace in which the believer is not compelled to make any sacrifices in life for the sake of the Gospel. The danger of the Mercersburg liturgy is that “family” has the potential to be interpreted too narrowly at the exclusion of others. “We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture”  risks being understood at the exclusion of “other people.” At their best, both traditions resist falling into these dangers; at their worst, Lutherans become lazy and Mercersburgians become tribal.
Finally, when considered together, one can combine the emphasis of both of these traditions to develop a rich Eucharistic theology that simultaneously sees the sacrament as forgiveness of sins for the believer AND participation in the Body of Christ and the cosmic family reunion, a reunion founded in the reality of Christ’s forgiving and reconciling Body.
 According to Dr. Karl Moyer of Lancaster, PA, some union churches also included a Moravian Congregation, such as the North Heidelberg church north of Robesonia in Berks County, PA.
 Paul Westermeyer. What Shall We Sing in a Foreign Land? Theology and Cultic Song in the German Reformed and Lutheran Churches of Pennsylvania, 1830-1900, PhD Dissertation University of Chicago, 1978, p. 7.
 “The Reformed began “Unser Vater,” while the Lutherans said “Vater unser.”” Westermeyer, p. 12.
 For a side by side comparison of these two liturgies, see Appendix A.
 The city of Lancaster Pennsylvania demonstrates this split in both Lutheran and Reformed contexts. Holy Trinity Lutheran (English-speaking) began worshipping in English; Zion Lutheran Church split off in 1828 to be German-speaking (closed in 1983, http://www.trinitylancaster.org/descendants/). St. Paul’s Reformed (English-speaking; later merged with St. John’s to become Church of the Apostles U.C.C. in 1975; http://apostlesucc.org/who-we-are/) split off of First Reformed in 1850 (German-speaking; http://visithistoriclancaster.com/pdf/02LP109_HOW-FR-UCC_Brochure.pdf). All websites accessed 7 December, 2016.
 Westermeyer, p. 12.
 Westermeyer, p. 31.
 See John Willliamson Nevin, The Anxious Bench, 2nd ed. (Chambersburg: Publication Office of the German Reformed Church, 1844; reprinted by Wipf and Stock).
 From the Prefaces to the 1888 Common Service. See Appendix C.
 Westermeyer, pp. 61-62, quoting from “Eastern AP, Baltimore, Md., 1852,” pp. 83-85.
 Nathan D. Mitchell is critical of the “verbal inventory” method used by Jack Maxwell and James Hastings Nichols as not going far enough: “It is not sufficient merely to accumulate data about the text: its sources, its historical background. Such data, while significant, does not suffice to disclose the meaning of a text: it simply tells us how the text was produced. This, it seems to me, is precisely the problem found in the interpretations of Mercersburg Liturgy offered by James Hastings Nichols and Jack Maxwell. Both these men provide valuable information about how and why the Mercersburg theologians went about their work of creating liturgical forms. But neither of them delves into the deeper problem of what those forms mean precisely as liturgical texts.” Church, Eucharist, and Liturgical Reform at Mercersburg, 1843-57, PhD Dissertation University of Notre Dame, 1978, pp. 558-559.
 For example, Mitchell and I reach slightly different conclusions on the meaning of the Mercersburg Liturgy.
 A side by side comparison of the two liturgies is available in Appendix A. Throughout the course of this paper I will highlight certain text from these liturgies to emphasize my point with italic print.
 I use the term “Eucharistic Prayer” in the broad sense, beginning with the Sursum Corda and including everything until the end of the Agnus Dei. Thus, the Mercersburg “Eucharistic Prayer” includes: Sursum Corda, Preface, Seraphic Hymn/Sanctus, Words of Institution/Verba/Dominical Words, Epiclesis, Oblation, Intercessions, Lord’s Prayer, Peace of the Lord/Pax Domini, and “Sacramental Hymn” (Agnus Dei in the 1941 revision of the Liturgy).
 See Appendix B.
 “The Small Catechism,” in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000) pp. 345-375.
 The Heidelberg Catechism: A New Translation for the 21st Century, translated by Lee C. Barrett, III (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2007).
 See p. 25 of Lee Barrett’s “Introduction” to The Heidelberg Catechism[…]
 Sursum Corda, Proper Preface, Sanctus, Words of Institution/Verba/Dominical Words, Lord’s Prayer, Peace of the Lord/Pax Domini, and Agnus Dei.
 Unless one were to consider the “Agnus Dei” as having sacrificial overtones. Also, the one set of Offertory sentences uses the word “sacrifice.”
 Article VII. “Concerning the Church” in “The Augsburg Confession” pp. 42-43 in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). Emphasis mine.
 Emphasis mine.
 See John Williamson Nevin, “Catholic Unity,” in Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism as Related to the Present State of the Church (Chambersburg, PA: Publication Office of the German Reformed Church, 1845).
 Psalm 100:3 NRSV