Gamaliel and Theudas, Acts 5

Verse 36: “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.”

Modernists seek to use Gamaliel’s mention of Theudas to question the historical reliability of Luke-Acts.[1] For example:

“A well known historical error has Gamaliel speak of the rebel Theudas, whom the first century Jewish historian assigns to the time of the procurator Cuspius Fadus (44-46 CE) several years after the death of Gamaliel.”[2]

This is in fact “well known,” but it is not an historical error.[3] The “first century Jewish historian” is Josephus, who mentions a Theudas who lived after the time of Gamaliel.[4] The speech made by Gamaliel, recorded in Acts 5, occurred in the reign of Tiberius Caesar (AD 14 to AD 37), about ten years before the rebellion of Josephus’s Theudas. The Theudas mentioned by Josephus lived under Claudius Caesar (AD 41 to AD 54). The discrepancy is created by the assumption that both Luke and Gamaliel, as well as Josephus, intend the same Theudas, and further, if they do, that Josephus and not Luke must be correct![5]

Contrasting the two Theudases

• the Theudas of Gamaliel was boasting himself to be somebody
• the Theudas of Josephus was a magician a (false) prophet
• the Theudas of Gamaliel led about four hundred men
• the Theudas of Josephus led a great multitude of the people
• the Theudas of Gamaliel was slain and all his followers were scattered
• the Theudas of Josephus was captured in battle and later beheaded; had many followers slain in battle, and many taken alive as prisoners
• the revolt of Theudas of Gamaliel took place before the birth of Jesus [6]
• the revolt of Theudas of Josephus took place around AD 45

Writing circa AD 62, Luke could not have been dependent on and misreading Josephus – as some suppose – because Luke’s writing is earlier than Josephus. In order to fulfill their designs, modernists must revise the dating of Luke backward – which they often do even to as late as AD 130. In this scenario, they must also deny that Luke is the author of the book of Acts. This they do on their own recognizance, assuming as fact that a later writer of Acts read and used The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, which he completed circa AD 94. There is no reason to suppose there could not be two men who led rebellions within some fifty years. Theudas is a form of the Aramaic Thaddæus or the Greek Theodorus, and was a common enough name. From Matthew 10:3 and Luke 6:16 it appears the names Judas and Thaddaeus (or Theudas) might be interchangeable (if not two different names for the same person). Even Josephus said, “at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea,” most of which he did not undertake to record.[7] A simple fact apparently not considered by the convolutors is that a later writer using Josephus as a source would not have put those words in Gamaliel’s mouth! Josephus said his Theudas lived “while Fadus was procurator of Judea.” This would have been an easily detectable error for a later writer using Josephus as a reference. On the other hand, Luke had no reason to worry over such a misunderstanding, since the second rebel Theudas had not yet led a rebellion at the time Gamaliel spoke.

---

[1] Liberals use the identity of Theudas to attack the historicity of Acts. Nevertheless, it appears that Eusebius may be the first to conflate as one the two men with the same name. Ecclesiastical History, p. 46.
[2] “Does Acts Portray Paul Fairly,” by Dick Harfield, p. 2. https://www.academia.edu/s/3953e9edc1 Accessed 27 October 2020 8:45 am.
[3] Around AD 248 in writings answering the pagan philosopher Celsus, Origen mentions Theudas living before the birth of Christ. “But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed.” Contra Celsus (or Against Celsus) Book I, Chapter 57. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html Accessed 27 October 2020 10:12 am.
[4] “Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government.” “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book XX 5:1, translated by William Whiston, p. 418. See also: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146%3Abook%3D20%3Asection%3D97 Accessed 27 October 2020 9:30 am.
[5] The design of this objection is to discredit the Bible, since the attackers always attack Luke’s credibility rather than Josephus’s.
[6] Before the uprising of Judas the Galilean in the days of the taxing (Acts 9:37; cf. Luke 2:2).
[7] “Antiquities of the Jews,” Complete Works, Whiston, Book XVII 10:4, p. 371.

Text critics opening the canon

Bible-believing Baptists teach and preach a “closed canon.” In regards to the Bible, a closed canon means that God inspired Scripture up to a certain point of time and text, and then concluded. All scripture is inspired; all written in finished. The canon of Scripture closed when God gave the last word of the New Testament (which we believe was the last word in the book of Revelation). At this point God stopped giving Scripture. Every book of the Bible from the first to the last is written. The Scriptures are complete. 39 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, making 66 books in the entire Bible – no more and no less.

In modern times, textual critics – especially or most particularly the editors of the NA-UBS Greek NT – are opening the canon and adding Scripture. Surely not, you say? How so?

Here’s how. I noted in a post on August 15, 2023 that in a debate Thomas Ross said:

There are mere handfuls of words hundreds of times in the UBS that look like no manuscript on the face of the Earth…As for whole verses, groups of verses, or larger sections of text, the portion of the UBS/NA text that looks like exactly zero manuscripts on the earth grows exponentially.

What is Ross talking about? This – these critical text editors mine this manuscript and that manuscript, pulling words from this one and that one to create new sentences, new verses, new sections of text that have never existed in any known manuscript. They are writing Scripture themselves, even though God has closed Scripture!

On October 4th I linked to a video in which Adam Boyd focuses on one text and demonstrates how this “new inspiration” [my words, not his] creates a new text with wording that does not appear in any extant manuscript.

This phenomenon that some are calling “Frankentext” is opening or has the effect of opening the closed canon and giving us new Scripture – scripture readings that have never before existed. God stopped giving scripture. Text critics have not!

Relics and Writings

Introduction

The inspired writings of the 1st century apostles and apostolic witnesses are the closest to us in time of any of the writings that God inspired. They are the last before God closed his canon. How long did the actual media on which these inspired words were written survive? 1st century? 2nd century? 3rd? 4th?

It has been suggested that the reason God did not allow the autographa (original media of the inspired writings) to survive is so that we would not elevate them to items of worship. That is likely true in God’s providence. Is it possible that the rise of veneration of relics speaks to the possibility of how long the original media of the apostolic authors survived? 

Veneration of relics

The veneration of relics cropped up early in the superstitions of Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy. Relics such as pieces of wood supposedly from the “True Cross,” the Shroud of Turin, the Cincture of the Theotokos (a belt, sash, or girdle supposedly worn by Mary the mother of Jesus), the bones or ashes of marytrs, as well as various pieces of clothing or other personal possessions (e.g., books) of “saints,” have been and are venerated (usually honored with some type of outward gesture, such as kissing, touching, bowing).

This veneration of martyrs and their relics seems to have been well in place by the late 4th century. Around 404, Jerome wrote to Riparius in Spain, after Riparius has informed him that Vigilantius of Gaul condemned the worship of relics. Jerome’s answer suggests that at least Jerome though veneration of relics was a common practice.

“We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, the Cherubim and Seraphim and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Jerome of Stridon, Letter 109, To Riparius (Ad Riparium)

Early statements on apostolic autographa

Writing around AD 180, in The Prescription Against Heretics (De Praescriptione Haereticorum) Chapter 36, Tertullian suggests the original writings of the apostles could be found by those willing to look for them.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).”[i]

Another such reference is in a fragment of a writing by one Peter, a Bishop of Alexandria, indicating he believed the original of John’s Gospel still existed in Ephesus in his lifetime. Writing before AD 311 (the year he died), Peter states, “Now it was the preparation, about the third hour, as the accurate books have it, and the autograph copy itself of the Evangelist John, which up to this day has by divine grace been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.” It is likely that Peter was wrong not only about how the text read (he says third hour), but also of the autograph’s survival at Ephesus. He may have been trying to bolster his opinion by appealing to an unavailable autograph. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to accept that he believed the writing was there in Ephesus.

Tentative conclusion

It may be likely that autographs were still extant in Tertullian’s day (2nd century). My thought is that by the 4th century the original autographs were no longer extant. One reason to think so is that by that time superstitious churches and Christians were already venerating relics. Most assuredly they would have raised the autographs to the level of veneration if they still existed. This itself is not conclusive, but deserves thoughtful consideration in the investigation of the matter of how long the autographs were available to the early churches.

---

[i] In reference to documents, authenticae (authentic) normally means an original, autograph.

Bible Baptists

“Brethren, no page of the Book divine can be delegated to a secondary place. Every page of the sacred writ must be equally authoritative or else no page is authoritative. If the writings of both Old and New Testament authors are not to be received on par with the Words of our Lord then we have no authoritative revelation. As touching our faith, it is ours to believe the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, or else to reject it all. To maximize the words of Christ and minimize the rest of the Bible is a breach of honor which in the end can but destroy the whole structure of our faith. Accordingly, we cannot expunge a single page from the sacred writ without thrusting a poniard into the heart of our God. Without both Old and New Testament we have no authority but with both we have absolute authority. As orthodox Baptists we have but two alternatives; namely, we can stand for the whole Bible, holy and inerrant, and live, or else we can cut it to pieces and die. We shall live and conquer only as Bible Baptists.”

-- excerpt from “Not New Testament Baptists,” by W. Lee Rector, Word and Way (Kansas City, Missouri), Thursday, March 21, 1929, p. 8

Sing Praise to God Who Reigns Above

Johann Jakob Schütz wrote “Sing Praise to God Who Reigns Above” (Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut). He was born in Germany September 7, 1640. Schütz trained at Tübingen and became a lawyer/advocate in Frankfurt, Germany. He was a close friend of Lutheran pastor Phillip J. Spener, and helped him establish prayer meetings and Bible-study groups. Later Schütz became a Separatist and left the Lutheran Church. He died at Frankfurt, May 22, 1690.

Schütz wrote this hymn, also called “Praise and Thanksgiving” and “Hymn of Thanksgiving,” by 1675. It is found in Christliches Gedenkbüchlein, zur Beforderung eines anfangenden neuen Lebens, published in that year. (Frances Cox says the hymn first appeared anonymously in 1673; see Hymns from the German, page 251.)

The original contained nine stanzas. The translation (below) was made by Frances Elizabeth Cox, included in her Hymns from the German (London: Rivingtons, 1864, pp. 234-239). It omits Schütz’s ninth stanza. It is simply called “Hymn of Praise” in her book, and associated with Psalm 96:8 (Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name). By some “Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut” is identified as a hymn written during a time of revival in the church in Frankfurt.  The hymn proclaims the greatness of the God who reigns above and the glory due unto him. It praises God for creation, love, salvation, healing, wisdom, mercy, his keeping, his presence, and his power – and many other things. Each of Schütz’s stanzas end with “Gebt unserm Gott die Ehre” (Give our God the glory)! In the English translation metered and rhymed by Cox, this becomes the refrain “To God all praise and glory!”

This hymn, set in 8.7.8.7.8.8.7. meter, is often sung with the tune Speratus. In Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, Shape Note Edition (Knoxville, TN: Melody Publications, 2020, No. 28), this hymn paired with Mit Freuden Zart, a tune from the Bohemian Brethren’s 1566 Kirchengesänge.

Schütz founded his hymn on Deuteronomy 32:3. The recurring phrase is a metrical adjustment of the last sentence in Deuteronomy 32:3 in the Luther German Bible translation – “Gebt unserm Gott allein die Ehre!.” In the King James Bible, this verse is “because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.” Another appropriate verse to connect to this hymn is Psalm 40:3 – “And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.” 

1. Sing praise to God who reigns above,  
The God of all creation,  
The God of power, the God of love,  
The God of our salvation; 
With healing balm my soul he fills, 
And ev’ry faithless murmur stills;  
To God all praise and glory!  
 
2. The angel host, O King of kings, 
Thy praise for ever telling, 
In earth and sky all living things 
Beneath thy shadow dwelling, 
Adore the wisdom which could span, 
And power which formed creation's plan; 
To God all praise and glory! 
 
3. What God’s Almighty power hath made  
His gracious mercy keepeth;  
By morning glow or evening shade,  
His watchful eye ne’er sleepeth:  
Within the kingdom of his might,  
Lo! all is just, and all is right:  
To God all praise and glory! 
 
4. I cried to God in my distress—
In mercy hear my calling—
My Saviour saw my helplessness, 
And kept my feet from falling; 
For this, Lord, thanks and praise to thee! 
Praise God, I say, praise God with me! 
To God all praise and glory! 
 
5. The Lord is never far away, 
Throughout all grief distressing 
An ever-present help and stay,  
Our peace, and joy, and blessing.  
As with a mother’s tender hand, 
He leads his own, his chosen band;  
To God all praise and glory! 
 
6. When ev’ry earthly hope has flown 
From sorrow’s sons and daughters, 
Our Father from his heavenly throne 
Beholds the troubled waters; 
And at his word the storm is stayed 
Which made his children’s hearts afraid; 
To God all praise and glory! 
 
7. Then all my gladsome way along, 
I sing aloud thy praises, 
That men may hear the grateful song 
My voice unwearied raises: 
Be joyful in the Lord, my heart! 
Both soul and body bear your part! 
To God all praise and glory! 
 
8. O ye who name Christ’s holy name,  
Give God all praise and glory! 
 All ye who own his power, proclaim  
Aloud the wondrous story!  
Cast each false idol from his throne,  
The Lord is God, and he alone; 
To God all praise and glory!

The ninth stanza, as translated into English by Johann Christian Jacobi, is as follows:

All glory to the sovereign God 
Then come before his holy face
With joyful acclamation;
Extol the wonders of his grace,
In your submissive station;
The Lord has ordered all things best,
Ye convert souls in East and West,
Give to our God the Glory.

An arrangement I made for the hymn:

In other words, arithmancy to via media

• arithmancy, noun. Divination by the use of numbers, especially by the number of letters in names.
• Big Eva, noun. A name standing for the network of large evangelical organizations and conferences that seeks to shape the thinking and strategy of evangelical churches (especially American churches).
• charlatan, noun. A person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than they possess; fraud; quack.
• chirograph, noun. A contrivance for holding a beginner’s hand in a prescribed position while he is learning to write.
• consistent, adjective. Acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate; unchanging in nature, standard, or effect over time; non-contradictory.
• groceteria, noun. A grocery store at which customers select the goods themselves and pay the cashier as they leave, rather than being attended to by a member of staff (portmanteau of grocery and cafeteria).
• interlocutor, noun. A person who takes part in a conversation or dialogue.
• itacism, or iotacism, noun. (Grammar) the pronunciation of the Greek letter eta, especially in Modern Greek, as \ē\.
• misocapnist, noun. A person who hates tobacco smoke.
• narcigesis, noun. The studying of scripture to find or insert yourself into it, in a very personal way; (portmanteau of narcissism and eisegesis).
• narcistorian, noun. One who interprets history in order to insert a personal or selfish agenda (portmanteau of narcissist and historian).
• non sequitur, noun. An inference that does not follow from the premises; a statement that is not clearly related to anything previously said.
• pare, verb. (used with object) To cut off the outer coating or layer; to remove (an outer coating or layer) by cutting; to reduce or remove by or as by cutting; diminish or decrease gradually.
• parsimonious, adjective. Characterized by or showing parsimony; frugal or stingy.
• raconteur, noun. A person who is skilled in relating stories and anecdotes interestingly.
• recusant, noun. A dissenter, a nonconformist; (capitalized) a Roman Catholic in England who incurred legal and social penalties in the 1500s and afterward for refusing to attend services of the Church of England.
• spumescent, adjective. Foamy; foamlike; frothy.
• surpass, verb. To go beyond in amount, extent, or degree; excel; exceed; transcend.
• sacra sui ipsius interpres, phrase. Scripture interprets Scripture (Latin, “Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter”). 
• via media, noun. A middle course or way; a mean between two extremes. (Latin, “middle road” or “middle way,” i.e., between two extremes).

More things I think I thought of

But possibly not first.

“Time flies the older you get, whether or not you are having fun!”

“Which came first, the ‘Doctor’ or the ‘Doctor’s Degree’?”

“If folks with great academic credentials cannot discern the validity or invalidity of a theological argument that I (with lesser or no credentials) make, do we not have a valid reason to question how much good their credentials are doing them?”

“It is well that God can speak through an ass, else He would have little use for many preachers.”

“If baptism is commanded and only immersion is baptism, then immersion only is commanded.”

“Death is not preventable.”

“Many people are not looking for answers. Instead, they are looking for problems. Rather than being under biblical authority, they like being their own authority.”

“Among the worst enemies of the Bible are ‘used-to-be’ and ‘supposed-to-be’ Baptists.”

“Many times we attend to personal comfort and personal preference without any reference or regard to God’s Word.” (I found this written on a piece of paper and could not find a source. Maybe I thought of it and wrote it down, or otherwise just jotted down what someone else said.)

Polemical Theology, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• The Necessity and Danger of Polemical Theology -- “In short, while polemical theology is just about unavoidable in theory and should not, as a matter of faithfulness, be skirted, one worries about those who make it their specialism.”
• The Historical Background of the King James Bible -- “…the KJV prevailed not by demolishing its predecessors, but by learning from them and ‘inhaling’ all the best that could be detectable in older translations.”
• The Bondage of the Word: Copyright and the Bible -- “My interest is in the matter of copyright in regard to ancient religious texts which de facto should be in the public domain, especially in regard to any religious work which its advocates claim to have been derived from direct revelation and inspiration such as the Bible.”
• Texas Baptist History: the Journal of the Texas Baptist Historical Society -- “Volume XXXII 2012, containing historical articles and book reviews.”
• On the SBC Amicus Brief Controversy -- “As the calendar now inches toward Thanksgiving, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) finds itself embroiled in yet another leadership controversy.”
• Kid Stuff -- “Hico’s historic downtown is booming these days, and the Billy the Kid Museum is right in the middle of it.”
• Critique of Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Denials -- “The thesis that scribe B left these gaps precisely where the original was interrupted by an added block of text and marked them with distigme-obelos symbols explains all this data perfectly.”
• Bible Publishers - Stewards or Gatekeepers? -- “It is instead up to the church to stop promoting these restricted translations, to ensure a future where God’s Word is free to be shared.”
• Baptism and a Gait Belt -- “A Gait Belt is a wide belt (about 2"-4" wide) that is placed around the waist and over the clothes of someone who might be in danger of falling.”
• Appraising the Texas Landscape -- “With his brother, Frederick Law Olmsted traveled a couple thousand miles around Texas on horseback, chronicling his experiences for the New-York Daily Times.”
• An Iconic Church Building on I-75 -- “Clearly visible from the highway and surrounded by the legendary agricultural fields of Dooly County, it is a striking example of rural church architecture.”
• A Google Engineer’s Journey to Clarity on What Scripture Teaches about Money and Ministry -- “This passage presents it so clearly. Ministries should be supported. Which ones? Those who don’t charge the recipients of their ministry.”

1623 Thanksgiving Proclamation

1623 Thanksgiving Proclamation -- “To all ye Pilgrims: Inasmuch as the great Father has given us...”

Ruckman’s seven times purified, et al

“Happy Birthday, God’s Bible! You were born in 1611; you were born as the seventh in the lists of Bibles that preceded you (see Psa. 12:6-7). You were the culmination of God’s word in history: 1) a Hebrew received text (1780–400 B.C.), an Aramaic received text (603–515 B.C.), a Greek received text (A.D. 35–96), a Syrian received text (A.D. 120–180), a Latin received text (A.D. 140–150), a German received text (Martin Luther, A.D. 1520-1600), an English received text (the AV, A.D. 1526–1611). It was the culmination of the Bible in the English language: Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Great (1539), Geneva (1539 [sic]), Bishops’ (1568), King James (1611). You were seventh on the lists of two sevens.” Happy Anniversary KJV: a Collection of Articles from the 2011 Bible Believers’ Bulletins Honoring the Authorized Version, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2011

The idea that the King James Bible has been purified seven times has become a popular theory in King James circles. I do not know whether it originated with Peter Ruckman (quoted above), or elsewhere. It probably does not matter. There are a number of differing theories vying to be the correct one. (Although, fascinatingly, this seems to be one area folks do not get incensed about, as long as you agree that it has in some way or every way been purified seven times.)

I am a staunch KJV supporter and defender. I do not hold the idea that Psalm 12:6 somehow applies to the right Bible having to be purified seven times. One of the primary proofs against this is the various ways people achieve making the King James Bible in some way be Number 7 in a series, which appear contrived, in my opinion. For some it is pinnacle Bible in the seventh language. There are other ways to achieve the goal, all different in method and purpose, to make it be the seventh Bible. If I were going to do so, I would keep it simple. The King James translators’ rule number 14 mentions six predecessors – Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva, and Bishop’s – making the 1611 translation the seventh. Duane Bryant uses this system also. Why not stop there, if you are going there in the first place?

One problem seldom seems settled on, which should be settled before beginning, is what do we mean in terms of the groups of seven Bibles? Does it mean complete Bibles that contain all the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Tyndale only translated the NT and Pentateuch)? (Some, in fact, include Wycliffe rather than Tyndale because Wycliffe was complete and Tyndale was not.) Does it mean translations made from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims are based on the Latin Vulgate). Does it only mean translations made from the Textus Receptus? Lots of things need to be asked and answered before the discussion even starts.

[Other connections to the number 7 are made as well. For example, the King James Bible uses the term Jehovah only seven times and only in the Old Testament; the King James Bible is the product of seven years of translation work, the English purification process took seven decades, etc.] 

Geoffrey Grider says Psalm 12:6 means the Bible “shall be preserved from that 7th generation forever. It’s probably just an amazing coincidence, but, the Bible has undergone 7 main iterations and they are as follows:”

1. The Aramaic Received Text: 603 – 515 BC
2. The Hebrew Received Text: 1780 – 400 BC
3. The Greek Received Text: 35 – 96 AD
4. The Syriac Received Text: 120 – 180 AD
5. The Latin Received Text: 140 – 500 AD
6. The German Received Text: 1520 – 1600 AD
7. The English Received Text: 1525 – 1611 AD

The Help Through Hope website uses a seven-fold division with the same languages (above, though with some differences in order and dating).

Afterward, they posit the purification of the Scriptures in English is seven-fold also:

1. The Gothic
2. The Anglo-Saxon
3. The Pre-Wycliffe
4. The Wycliffe
5. The Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva
6. The Bishops
7. The King James Bible

The English Bible’s seven-fold purification in the above list is equivalent to that proposed by the popular author Gail Riplinger.

In two “Line Upon Line” lessons (Gathering Into One and Standing for Purity), Matthew Verschuur spells out the seven times without (prior to), and within the King James Bible.

When the King James Bible was translated, their instructions were to follow the following versions:

1. Tyndale’s (1525, 1534),
2. Matthew’s (1537),
3. Coverdale’s (1535),
4. The Great (1539),
5. The Geneva (1560),
6. The Bishops’ (1568).

The Scripture which indicates seven times of purification can also be applied to the editions of the King James Bible. There are seven major editions. They are:

1. The First 1611,
2. The Second 1611,
3. The 1613,
4. The 1629,
5. The 1638,
6. The 1769,
7. The Pure Cambridge Edition from around 1900.

Summarized, the most common theories seem to be:

1. The King James Bible is the seventh major translation into major world languages.
2. The King James Bible is the seventh major early English translation.
3. The King James Bible itself has gone through a seven-fold purification process.

Many seem to see these three theories as complementary rather than exclusive.

Would the idea that purified seven times in Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy that must be fulfilled mean that: 

1. the Bible translated into each language must eventually have a seven times translation process (of some sort) in order to be the pure word of God? 
2. the Bible in the English language only, specifically the King James Bible, is the pure word of God?

I know there are those who believe No. 2. I am not sure how many arrive at the No. 1 position.

Psalm 12:6 says “The words of the Lord are pure words.”  They in the past and in the present are pure. They always have been pure. They always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 does not say “The words of the Lord have been, are, or will be purified seven times.” “Purified seven times” modifies “silver” rather than “words.” Then the figure of speech (beginning with “as”) suggests by analogy a similarity of the purity of an observable temporal process (silver) with an eternal spiritual force (words of the Lord). Silver – intensely, expertly, and purposefully purified – gives us a manner of comparison to the word of God, which is pure always and forever. See Psalm 119:89. (Note that both “tried” and “purified” both grammatically modify “silver.” Only by the extension of the simile do they relate to “The words of the Lord.”) I am suggesting to us, then, that we interpret the meaning of Psalm 12:6 by what the King James Bible says rather than what people say about the King James Bible.

While I know good solid Christians who hold the idea of the Bible being purified seven times, this seems to me—boiled down to its essence—actually to be a “low” view of the Bible and its preservation rather than a high one. I cannot get around the fact that, though it may not mean to, this theory actually denies that God preserved his word to all generations.

Catholicity and Separation

I just read an article in which a conservative Calvinistic Southern Baptist trashed separatism and promoted catholicity. He reserved special attention for the “fundamentalist” brand of separatism. The author is not someone who moved from Fundamentalism to Liberalism, but rather someone who has moved from Fundamentalism to a Reformed position.

He makes some good points. Fundamentalism can exalt carnality, pride, and an “us four, no more” attitude. Their gospel is not broad enough or deep enough to save and sanctify anyone who does not dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Division over extremely exacting eschatological theories becomes the norm.

There is a right sort of “catholicity”[i] that chronologically sees across time and generations, knowing we belong to the same church institution as and adhere to the same gospel preached by the apostles.  It geographically reaches across continents, nations, and communities.[ii] It linguistically embraces different tongues and peoples. “…I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, this sort of “catholicity” often embraces “Catholicism” as representative of the “true church” up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It flies in the face of a New Testament Christianity that separated itself from infidelity, heresy, and immorality (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 3:10; Ephesians 5:1-4). It distinguishes itself from and denies the poor and afflicted faithful martyrs of Jesus (e.g., Revelation 2:10, 13; 17:6). It recognizes the unorthodox majority and rejects the orthodox remnant.[iii] 

There is a right sort of “fundamentalism” that loves, seeks for, and adheres to the fundamental principles of the Bible, and the Christian religion based on it. It rejects compromise of those principles, while enthusiastically and evangelistically sowing those principles in the field of the world.

Unfortunately, strains of fundamentalism promote individuality to the detriment of the corporate nature of gathered believers (Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), as well as the fellowship of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17; 14:33). It minimizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5-6).[iv] It elevates private interpretations as the norm to determine orthodoxy, fellowship, and separation (Mark 7:9; 2 Peter 1:20). It becomes a haven for little dictators.[v] 

Where does the middle way begin? Perhaps: The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Autonomous churches that are guided by this belief about the Bible. A gospel that is to be preached to every creature. And strong doses of humility.

Both “Big F” Fundamentalism and “Big C” Catholicism miss the mark, in different directions. Let us take up our Bibles and learn the Bible way of the unity of the faith and separation unto the gospel of God.

---

[i] Recognizing that the words “catholic” and “catholicity” have a broader more generic meaning, I nevertheless generally avoid them as more likely to help rather than hurt the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.

[ii] Human beings and local churches are limited by geography, but connect with other congregations across the globe through fellowship of the word and Spirit.
[iii] I am unable to read the Bible, see the New Testament church there, research church history, and then pretend that the only church that existed for 15 centuries was Roman Catholic! I have sadly heard too many Reformed brethren say so. Away with such.

[iv] “A keen awareness of where the church has always stood” is needed, if we also have the biblical insight to understand what the church is, biblically.
[v] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy (and at least some species of Reformed churches) are havens for big dictators!

Close with the gospel for my own soul

“When I was threatening to become cold in my ministry, and when I felt Sabbath morning coming and my heart not filled with amazement at the grace of God, or when I was making ready to dispense the Lord’s Supper, do you know what I used to do? I used to take a turn up and down among the sins of my past life, and I always came down again with a broken and a contrite heart, ready to preach, as it was preached in the beginning, the forgiveness of sins. I do not think I ever went up the pulpit stair that I did not stop for a moment at the foot of it and take a turn up and down among the sins of my past years. I do not think that I ever planned a sermon that I did not take a turn around my study table and look back at the sins of my youth and of all my life down to the present; and many a Sabbath morning, when my soul had been cold and dry, for the lack of prayer during the week, a turn up and down in my past life before I went into the pulpit always broke my hard heart and made me close with the gospel for my own soul before I began to preach.”

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), writing to his son (as quoted by William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Daily Bible Study Series), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1975, pp. 46-47)

Praise for Conversion - O may I ne’er forget

As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me. Psalm 55:16

Baptist preacher Samuel Stennett (1727–1795) wrote the hymn below. Samuel was born at Exeter, in 1727, to Joseph Stennett, Jr. His father was pastor of a Baptist Church in Exeter at the time. Later Joseph became pastor of the Baptist Chapel at Little Wild Street in London. In 1758 Samuel followed his father as pastor of that church. Samuel died in 1795 and is buried at Bunhill Fields Burial Ground in London. His grandfather Joseph Stennett, Sr. was also a Baptist preacher and hymn writer. Samuel Stennett wrote well-known hymns such as “As on the cross the Saviour hung,” “How charming is the place,” “Majestic sweetness sits enthroned,” and “On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand.”

This poetry appears as hymn number 437 under the heading “Praise for Conversion” with the text Psalm 55:16 in John Rippon’s 1787 A Selection of Hymns from the Best Authors, intended to be an Appendix to Dr. Watts’s Psalms and Hymns. This is likely the first time the hymn was published.

Stennett’s original hymn is seven stanzas composed in short meter and might be used with most good short meter tunes. The Hymn and Tune Book by Durand and Lester provides this hymn under the tune Idumea (177/438), The Primitive Baptist Hymnal by Sears & Ausmus pairs it with St. Thomas (44), and Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, Shape Note Edition with Golden Hill (458). It follows the biblical and Baptist doctrine of giving our testimony of salvation – and emphasizes our enduring praise because of God’s work in salvation, because the work is his alone. We have no historical account regarding the composition of this hymn. It seems likely it was written later in life with Stennett alluding to his conversion which occurred earlier in his life.

1. Come, ye that fear the Lord,
And listen while I tell,
How narrowly my feet escap’d
The snares of death and hell.

2. The flatt’ring joys of sense
Assail’d my foolish heart,
While Satan, with malicious skill,
Guided the pois’nous dart.

3. I fell beneath the stroke,
But fell to rise again:
My anguish rous’d me into life,
And pleasure sprung from pain.

4. Darkness, and shame, and grief
Oppress’d my gloomy mind;
I look’d around me for relief,
But no relief could find.

5. At length, to God I cried;
He heard my plaintive sigh,
He heard, and instantly he sent
Salvation from on high.

6. My drooping head he rais’d,
My bleeding wounds he heal’d,
Pardon’d my sins, and with a smile,
The gracious pardon seal’d.

7. O may I ne’er forget
The mercy of my God;
Nor ever want a tongue to spread
His loudest praise abroad.

Worry is like a rocking chair, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify when possible.)

“Worry is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but doesn’t get you anywhere.” -- Common proverb

“Trying to impress those that you are teaching with how smart you are, is rather to show them how smart you are not.” -- Unknown

“The gospel needs no worldly help to advance.” -- Owen Strachan

“Unsound doctrine kills; sound doctrine gives life..” -- Owen Strachan

“Try to keep the walls of church separation as low as possible, so that you can shake hands over them as often as possible.” -- paraphrasing J. C. Ryle

“Reality is always better than lies. The truth can hurt, but only the truth can free.” -- Lila Rose

“No, you are not good enough, that’s why God chose you.” -- Lamar Denby

“We should always be careful about using expressions that are not warranted by the Bible.” -- Walter Cash. Connected, but different: “We should also be careful about arguing about words to no profit.” (derived from 2 Timothy 2:14)

“When you read God’s word, look Godward.” -- Douglas Sean O’Donnell

“When the blessing comes, no one will have to tell you that it was God.” -- Lamar Denby

Scripture-quoting, blanket-toting, Duvall Scott

I used to listen to a lot of Jerry Clower’s comedy. Among my favorites was his tale of a very religious general store owner, named Duvall Scott. Every time he made a sale and opened the cash register, he recited a Bible verse. A child buys a piece of candy. Scott rings up the sale, saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” If a child comes to make a purchase for one of his parents, he might say, “Honour thy father and mother.” As with most old country stores, there were usually some old guys sitting around playing dominos or shooting the breeze. God-fearing men themselves, they always waited with great anticipation to hear what scripture he’d quote next.

One day a city fellow drove up in an expensive pickup truck, pulling a fancy horse trailer. He stopped to buy a blanket for his horse. Duvall Scott walked to the back, pulled a blanket off his shelf, and came back. “That’ll be $10.” The city dude replied, “This is an expensive horse. I won’t put a $10 blanket on him!”

Mr. Scott went into the back again to pick out another blanket. (He only had one kind.) He brought back a blanket of a different color, and said, “That’ll be $50.”

Frustrated, the city customer said, “I have a prize-winning thoroughbred out there. I must do better than a $50 blanket!”

Again Mr. Scott walked back to his blanket rack. He picked out another blanket – another of a different color. He brought it out and told the customer, “This one is $100.”

“Now that’s more like it! I’ll take it,” said the satisfied city slicker, handing Duvall Scott a fresh $100 bill. 

The customer departed, and the old store owner rung up the sale. The old guys – knowing he had only one kind of blanket – intently waited for Duvall Scott, to hear what scripture he could possibly come up with to fit this sale.

Mr. Scott, inserting his $100 into the cash register, looked reverently up to heaven and said, fittingly, “He was a stranger, and I took him in.” 

[At least, that’s the way I remember it. It’s so much better when Jerry tells it.]

Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5

Troubles within the Jerusalem Church: the strange case of Ananias and Sapphira, 1-11

Verses 1-2: The peace, prosperity, and community of goods of the church is now abused. Sin takes its toll. Ananias and Sapphira enter a conspiracy to defraud the church at Jerusalem through a lie. Like Joses Barnabas before them (4:36-37), they sell a possession, bring the money and lay it “at the apostles’ feet.” The fraud was in claiming to give all though only giving a part. It seems they wanted the show – the “glory” –without the sacrifice.

Verse 3: Peter exposes the deception as the work of Satan, the devil, “a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).  Further, the deception is not merely to men, but a “lie to the Holy Ghost.”

Verse 4: Keeping “back part of the price of the land” is not a sin in itself. The possession was their own, and the sale and disposal of income was “in thine own power.” Peter’s commentary emphasizes private ownership and the voluntary nature of the community of goods in the church at Jerusalem. The sin was in the deception, the lie. The lie was not merely in men’s secular matters, but in spiritual matters – “but unto God.” A lie unto the Lord’s church was a lie unto the Lord (Cf. Matthew 10:40-42; 25:40, 45; Luke 10:16; Acts 9:4).

Verses 5-6: The God to whom Ananias lied executed the sentence. Ananias fell down dead at the apostles’ feet, the same place he had brought his gift and his fraud. Despite his deception, they gave a decent burial to one of their own – “the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.”

Verses 7-8: Not knowing the previous events, Sapphira came into the apostles’ presence about three hours later. Peter inquires of her concerning the act of her and Ananias. Though she could have confessed the truth, Sapphira rather sticks to the story they had concocted – “Yea, [we sold it] for so much.”

Verse 9: Here Peter calls the lie an agreeing “together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord” (Cf. Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12). This tempting, in effect, tested whether God knew all things, and whether they would be found out. Compare I Kings 8:39; II Chronicles 6:30; Proverbs 15:3; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; Hebrews 4:12.

• Numbers 32:23 …ye have sinned against the Lord: and be sure your sin will find you out.
• Job 4:8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.
• Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Verse 10: Sapphira is also buried through a kind act by the church “the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.”

Peter plainly declares the sin of this incident – Ananias and Sapphira lied and attempted to deceive even God! The sin was not that they did not sell all. The sin was not that they kept a portion of the sale. The sin was not that they did not give all. At no time were they required to do so.

Verse 11: The details of this incident brought “great fear” – esteem and respect of God, his power, his work, and his dealings with mankind – both within the church and without, “upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.”

And sought to slay him

John 5:16 (KJV) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

John 5:16 (ESV) And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

John 5:16 reveals another variant which the light of theological study and biblical context will help explain. The Textus Receptus includes the words και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι – which are left out the NA & UBS Critical Texts. Which is correct? The Textus Receptus. Notice the context and meaning by reading John 5:16-18 –

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The answer is found in comparing verses 16 and 18. The former says the Jews “sought to slay him” and the latter says “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” In context the phrasing of verse 18 supports the Textus Receptus reading και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him). Why? It explains that adding the accusation blasphemy to breaking the Sabbath, the Jews sought “the more” (all the more, additionally, even harder) to kill Jesus.

• KJV: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him
• ESV: This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him,
• NET: For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him
• NIV: For this reason they tried all the more to kill him

“All the more” means more seeking to kill Jesus than has previously been mentioned. However, in the Critical Text it has NOT previously been mentioned (i.e. και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι is missing). “All the more” refers back and connects to nothing if και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him) is removed. So much for touting “neutral” textual criticism done academically “as if God does not exist.” Such an approach removes theological tools that are needed to understand why certain words do or do not belong in the Bible.

I must work

Q. “Why do modern Bible versions use ‘We’ rather than ‘I’ in John 9:4?”

• KJV: I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• ESV: We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

A. The short answer is because most modern translations are translating based on the NA-UBS Critical Text, which has the third person plural (ημας) instead of the first person singular (εμε) which is in the Textus Receptus. Most modern translations translate that way (we). Generically all do not, such as MEV, NKJV, and WEB, since they are consulting the TR tradition. This is not a TR issue only. The Majority Text also has εμε, and any Majority Text English translation will have the translation “I” as well.

This variant in John 9:4 (I/εμε vs. we/ημας) demonstrates the problem of exempting text criticism from the light of biblical theology. Who is this “we” that “must work the works of him who sent me”? My first inclination, were I thinking “we” is correct, would be that “we” means the Divine Trinity (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). However, that interpretation does not fit how Jesus ties that statement together – with “the works of him that sent me.” Also, the singular nominative “I” better matches the singular predicate “me” (though I don’t consider that conclusive in itself). Using the “we” text as his base, Everett F. Harrison says Jesus was “linking the disciples with himself.” (So, to Harrison, “we” is Jesus and his disciples. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1093) Jesus has just said that the works of God will be displayed in this blind man. The “we” of “Jesus and the disciples” together did not work the work, but rather the “I” of Jesus alone. 

• v. 4 “I must work”
• v. 5 “I am in the world”
• v. 5 “I am the light of the world”
• v. 6 “he had thus spoken”
• v. 6 “he spat on the ground” 
• v. 6 “and [he] made clay of the spittle
• v. 6 “he anointed the eyes of the blind man
• v. 7 “and [he] said”
• v. 11 “A man that is called Jesus…”
• vs. 35-37 “the Son of God…Jesus said…Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”
• v. 39 “I am come into this world, that they which see not might see”

These disciples, after asking Jesus the question recorded in verse 2, do not again come in sight in this chapter. Jesus is the light of the world who gives this blind man light (sight). “I” represents the theological and contextual fit. “We” does not.

Of the truth and the accomplishment of the holy Scriptures

“The truth of the holy Scriptures doth depend upon the truth of God, who is the author of them. He that doubteth the truth of them, either he doth not believe that they were uttered by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, or else if he doubteth not of that, he doth not believe that God cannot lie. Or if he do believe that also, he taketh him to be mutable as man, so that the same which he would have today tomorrow changing his mind, he would none of it. All which opinions be far from them that be of the number of true believers. For they do doubt nothing at all, but that the holy Scriptures be of God, and that God can neither lie, neither be changed. They do say with the Apostle: Let God rather be true, and every man a liar. And with the prophet: The word of God is tried by fire, cleansed seven times.”

Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), Common Places of Christian Religion, Fol. 163 (Hathi page 345), 1563 (translated from Latin into English by John Man)

The Excellency of the Holy Scriptures

“The Excellency of the Holy Scriptures,” written by Anne Steele, appeared in her Poems on Subjects Chiefly Devotional: In Two Volumes (London: J. Buckland and J. Ward, 1760). Her poetry was initially published under the pen name “Theodosia.”

Anne Steele was born in 1716. Her father William Steele was a timber merchant and pastor of the Particular Baptist congregation at Broughton in Hampshire for 60 years. She united with the Broughton Church by experience and baptism when she was 14. In life she was long afflicted with the pains and suffering of poor health, writing many beautiful hymns out of her grief. In this hymn she captures the assorted “excellency” of God’s Holy Scriptures. The hymn is written in common meter, originally containing 12 stanzas. Most hymnals reduce that number to four or five. However, Melody Publications’ 2020 Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs reproduces all twelve – paired with the tune Tallis. Other hymns with which the hymn is sung include Azmon, Beatitudo, and Titley Abbey – but it might be sung with a good common meter tune with which you are more familiar.

Anne wrote nearly 150 hymns, as well as producing several metrical verses of psalms. She was the first woman hymn writer whose hymns came into wide use in hymnbooks in England and America. Anne Steele died November 11, 1778, and is buried at St. Mary Churchyard, Broughton, Hampshire, England. J. R. Broome tells her story in A Bruised Reed: The Life and Times of Anne Steele.

1. Father of mercies, in thy word
What endless glory shines!
Forever be thy Name adored
For these celestial lines.

2. Here, mines of heavenly wealth disclose
Their bright, unbounded store:
The glittering gem no longer glows,
And India boasts no more.

3. Here, may the wretched sons of want
Exhaustless riches find:
Riches, above what earth can grant,
And lasting as the mind.

4. Here, the fair tree of knowledge grows
And yields a free repast
Sublimer sweets than nature knows
Invite the longing taste.

5. Here may the blind and hungry come,
And light, and food receive;
Here, shall the meanest guest have room,
And taste, and see, and live.

6. Amidst these gloomy wilds below,
When dark and sad we stray;
Here, beams of heaven relieve our woe,
And guide to endless day.

7. Here, springs of consolation rise,
To cheer the fainting mind;
And thirsty souls receive supplies,
And sweet refreshment find.

8. When guilt and terror, pain and grief,
United rend the heart,
Here, sinners meet divine relief,
And cool the raging smart. 

9. Here the Redeemer's welcome voice
Spreads heavenly peace around
And life and everlasting joys
Attend the blissful sound.

10. But when his painful sufferings rise,
(Delightful, dreadful scene!)
Angels may read with wondering eyes
That Jesus died for men.

11. Oh may these heavenly pages be
My ever dear delight,
And still new beauties may I see,
And still increasing light.

12. Divine Instructor, gracious Lord,
Be thou forever near;
Teach me to love thy sacred word,
And view my Saviour there.

In a letter to her “dear and honoured father” William Steele, his “ever dutiful and grateful daughter” Anne Steele wrote:

“As many of these verses have been favoured with your approbation, I have now at your desire collected them into a little book ... They may, perhaps, find seasons when the thoughts of the unworthy writer may suit their own, and the resemblance produce delight. If while I am sleeping in the silent grave my thoughts are of any real benefit to the meanest of the servants of God, be the praise ascribed to the Almighty Giver of all grace.”

On November 29, 1757, William Steele penned in his diary, “This day Nanny sent a part of her composition to London to be printed. I entreat a gracious God, who enabled and stirred her up to such a work, to direct in it, and bless it for the good and comfort of many.”

Anne Steele sleeps in her grave, but her thoughts preserved in her hymns still provide benefit, to the glory of God. Anne replied with the following lines to a lady who had written to relay how much she had been blessed by Anne’s poetry:

If aught you find in Theodosia’s lays,

To profit, or to please, transfer the praise

To Him whose bounty every gift bestows;

Since all unmerited that bounty flows.