Delivered from prison, Acts 12

6-19 Peter delivered from prison and execution

Verse 6: Peter was bound and watchers kept the door. Peter slept in the face of death (cf. Psalm 127:2), committing his case to the righteous judge (I Peter 2:23). Matthew Henry writes, “A peaceful conscience, a lively hope, and the consolations of the Holy Spirit, can keep men calm in the full prospect of death; even those very persons who have been most distracted with terrors on that account.”[i]

Verses 7-9: The sleeping Peter experiences an angelic release.[ii] With the coming of the angel, “a light shined in the prison.” He woke Peter by striking him on the side, then told him to arise while raising him up. The chains on Peter’s hands fell off. The angel then told Peter to prepare to travel, and led him out of the prison. All this was done without awaking any guards (if any were asleep) or alerting any guards who were awake (cf. v. 18). In the night (“the same night,” v. 6) before Peter’s day of execution, God delivered him. Initially Peter thought he saw a vision rather than a real happening.

Verses 10-11: “the first and the second ward” (φυλακην) refers to ward in its meaning “a body of guards,” that is, then, two of the quaternions assigned to keep Peter.[iii]  The gate leading from the prison to the city opened “of his own accord.” After passing through one street, the angel left Peter. At this point, Peter realized that this was not simply a vision but a deliverance by the Lord through his angel. God delivered Peter “out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.”

Verses 12-14: After the angel departed, Peter realized this was no dream or vision. He “considered the thing” and went to the house of Mary. His action shows he knows this home as a gathering place of believers. This Mary is Mary the mother of John Mark. She is probably a widow since her husband is unmentioned. Mary is a sister of Barnabas, according to Colossians 4:10.[iv] At this house members of the Jerusalem congregation were gathered praying – the prayer that God had answered, unbeknownst to them. A damsel named Rhoda answered Peter’s knock at the gate.[v] Rhoda knew Peter well enough to recognize the sound of his voice. In overwhelming joy, Rhoda became so excited that rather than open the gate she ran into the house to tell everyone that Peter was at the gate.

Verses 15-17: The praying believers become unbelievers in answered prayer! Some believe that the reaction of the disciples at Mary’s house indicate that they were praying for something other than Peter’s release.[vi] Rather than believe Peter was out of prison, they thought the actions of the damsel meant she was mad – in the sense of deranged, insane, not of sound mind. Festus thought Paul was mad, beside himself (cf. Acts 26:24). Rhoda continued to affirm that Peter was at the gate. Others offered as a possible solution to the quandary, “It is his angel.” Rather than Peter himself, they thought perhaps of a guardian angel or an angel with a communication about Peter – “his angel” ο αγγελος αυτου εστιν (the angel of him, i.e., Peter). This solution might explain Rhoda’s reaction without accepting as fact that it was Peter himself standing outside! “However, God had sent an angel to deliver Peter from death, not to report it.”[vii] Peter stayed at the gate door, persistently knocking. When they finally opened the door of the gate, it proved to their astonishment to actually be Peter. The praying believers experience the work of “him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.” Peter subdued their excitement with a motion of his hand to hold their peace. This action could serve two practical purposes: (1) their quiet allowed him to tell his story; and (2) their quiet was important since soldiers might be roaming around looking for him. They patiently listen as Peter declares their prayers have been answered – “how the Lord had brought him out of the prison.” Afterward he instructed them to send messengers to James and the brethren (the apostles and other church leaders). This James must be either the other James among the twelve, or James “the Lord’s brother” (cf. Galatians 1:19). The apostle James, brother of John, has been executed (verse 2). “he departed, and went into another place” Possibly out of Jerusalem, or at least to another location in Jerusalem – for his own safety and the safety of this house.

Verse 18: “no small stir among the soldiers” No doubt due to the known consequences. A prisoner condemned to die had escaped. To them, their accountability in the matter is serious and has dire consequences.

---

[i] Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary, page 822.
[ii] An angel is mentioned three times in Acts 12, though once it is a case of mistaken identity.
[iii] Often, “ward” means confinement or the prison itself (cf. e.g., v. 6; Luke 12:58; Genesis 40:3; Numbers 15:34; Ezekiel 19:9). Peter was chained to two soldiers, with perhaps two others nearby. Then perhaps four “keepers before the door,’ four of the first ward, and four of the second ward. The 16 soldiers might be accounted for as stationed in this way. Or, they may have served alternating shifts of four at a time.
[iv] Older translators and commentators understand ανεψιος to mean “sister’s son” – that is, Mark and Barnabas have a nephew and uncle. It is popular in modern versions to translate ανεψιος as “cousin.”
[v] Damsel = young woman, παιδισκη, perhaps also a servant; cf. John 18:17, Luke 22:56, Acts 16:16, et al. Her familiarity with Peter and her gladness indicates she was a believer.    
[vi] “It does seem likely, based upon their reaction, that they were not praying for Peter’s release from jail.” Carlsen, Faith and Courage, p. 209. Whatever their prayer, they were bound to “seek first the kingdom of God.”
[vii] Dwyer, The Book of Acts, p. 186. It is possible that the congregation was speaking out of confusion when they said “It is his angel.”

Was A. T. Robertson a conservative Baptist?

The name of A. T. Robertson is probably almost immediately recognized by older Baptist preachers, and probably most seminary Greek students and scholars. He was a great Greek scholar, but I do not see his theology as thorough-going conservatism (or even thorough-going Baptist). Robertson taught for nearly 40 years at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Concerning creation and evolution, he said the following to his students.

“Give Haeckel a primordial germ and let it be charged with potency to make the universe and he will do the rest. Give them a God to start with, only don’t call it God. Evolution, I am willing to believe in it, I rather think I do, but not in atheistic evolution. I take not a primordial germ, but God and start with Romans I, that the things around me are enough to prove God. They can not prove God was not before matter. I can not prove that he was. Lincoln at Hampton Roads Conference said: ‘Write ‘Union’ at the top, and I don’t care what you write under it.’ I say write God at the top, and what if he did use evolution? I can stand it if the monkeys can. They thing that differentiates you from a monkey is that you have a soul. If he did do it that way, he still did it.” (pp. 76-77)

…

“The Bible opened with the picture of a Garden. However man got in it, – evolution, I don’t know – they had fellowship with God.” (p. 175)

Changing the biblical statement that God put or placed man in the Garden to a weak and watery “however he got in” is not conservative (nor even Baptist in my understanding of the orthodox beliefs of true Baptists). A man who does not know how man got in the Garden may be qualified to teach Greek, but he is not qualified to teach the Bible. 

• And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul...And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Genesis 2:7, 15
• And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:2

New Testament Interpretation (Matthew – Revelation) Notes on Lectures of Dr. A. T. Robertson, 1931

En-sample and Ex-sample

Q. What are the meanings of “ensample” and “example” in the King James Bible? Are they the same, or different?

A. First, let us consider a little background behind this question.

In the video “Do We Need a Standard English Bible” (which was mentioned in another post), Mark Ward brought up an illustration given at the West Coast Baptist College Leadership Conference, of words in the King James Bible with nuances that need to be kept. One set of these were “ensample” and “example,” positing nuance of meaning derived from their prefixes – inside from “en” and outside from “ex”.

I looked for and at historical information about this argument. Ward claimed he had not read a King James defender who made these arguments, and thought perhaps the speaker was just guessing based on the role of English prefixes. Whether or not he is aware of them, these same types of presentations of these two words predate this speaker from 2023. A quick Google search will dispel any theory that this is new to Lloyd Read (the speaker he is critiquing). It is not.

Perhaps we might initially point out that Mark Ward should be aware of this discussion. Ward claims to have read The King James Bible in America by Bryan Ross (2019), and Ross calls attention to this. He has an entire chapter or words of this nature – alway/always, throughly/thoroughly, etc. Not only does he have a chapter on the phenomenon, but he has 15 pages on ensample/example alone! See pages 44-58 of this book. He called specific attention to Matthew Verschuur’s 2009 book Glistering Words, in which Verschuur discusses “ensample” and “example” 14 years before Lloyd Read brought it up. Regarding the differences, Bryan Ross concluded, “It is high time that we King James Bible Believers cease manufacturing ‘discriminated’ differences in meaning between words, which don’t exist, and accept the fact that there are different ways of saying the same thing. Our beloved translators knew this and translated accordingly; it’s time for us to recognize it as well” (pp. 57-58).

When is the first use or earliest record of distinguishing “ensample” and “example” rather than just seeing them as synonyms?

Some history.

In 2003 Gail Riplinger hints at a distinction in her book In Awe of Thy Word but does not spell it out as clearly as later writings by others.

“The brevity of the KJV translators extends even to the letters. The KJV uses the shorter word ‘example’ (7 letters), but retains the longer word ensample (8 letters) because it contains the built-in definition (sample). The so-called archaic word may be the only word that contains the definition built inside the word. For that reason it must be retained. In 1 Cor. 10:6 the KJV translators updated the word ‘ensamples’ to ‘examples.’ They did not change it in verse 11 because the word ‘ensamples’ contains the built-in definition, ‘sample.’”

On September 12, 2004 Blackstone Valley Baptist Church made a blog post “Changes In Your King James Bible,” in which they referenced American Bible publishers changing words such as “ensample” to “example.” They did not go into detail about those words. In February 2008 The Glory Land web site (E. Morales, administrator) published an updated version of this which included this comment:

Gods Word Uses Both “Alway” And “Always”, “Ensample” And “Example” And Other Pairs Of Similar Words. A Thorough Study Would Show That, Though Similar, These Words Each Have A Slightly Different Meaning As God Intended Them To Have.

Yes, always different.

Perhaps there are earlier examples I have not found, but there seems to be at least 20 years of discussions that make a distinction between ensample and example. These first are followed by:

• Glistering Truths, by Matthew Verschuur, 2009
• Ensample & Example, by Scriptural View blog administrator, June 2011
• “Ensample” and “Examples”—Same of Different?, by Shawn Brasseaux, November 2017
• Understanding Examples & Ensamples, by David Guyon, May 2018
• Ensample or Example, by Paul Scott January 2019
• Shall We View “Ensample” as Just an Archaic Form of “Example”?, by John M. Asquith, November 2019
• What are Ensamples & Examples in the KJB - Built in Dictionary, by Wesley Ray, August 2020

Verschuur makes the distinction this way: “An ‘example’ is an outward sample, while an ‘ensample’ is one that can be internalised through specific personal knowledge of the object looked at.” Glistering Truths, p. 18

“Surely any ordinary person can see that ‘en’ on the front of a word means something to do with ‘in’. For example, without getting all complicated and just keeping it basic, an entrance is the way in. In the same way ‘ex’ on the front of a word means something to do with ‘out’. For example, an exit is the way out.

“The word ‘ensamples’ has to do with that which reflects within the group referred to; the Israelites. The word ‘examples’ has to do with that which radiates to outside of the group where it took place.” Scriptural View blog administrator 2011

“If we dissect these terms, we can see—at least in ‘ensample’—the stem ‘sample.’ The two prefixes are ‘en–‘ (‘in’) and ‘ex–‘ (‘out’). Just with these few observations, we see a sample in and a sample out. A distinction is thus obvious: there are differences in relationships between nouns.” Shawn Brasseaux

“…ensample always and only refers to man’s characteristic and behavior. Ensample never applies to an inanimate product. Example, on the other hand, may apply to both personal or (and as typically used), general products and processes (not personal). …in conclusion, when the word ensample(s) is used, look for a pattern of personal behavior and conduct, be it good or bad. A subtle difference in spelling cues the reader about the context.” Paul Scott

This distinction is primarily made by modern Christian authors who support the King James Bible. However, I found one secular modern source distinguishing the two: “Ensample vs Example: Differences And Uses For Each One,” by Shawn Manaher, the founder and CEO of “The Content Authority” (a content provider with a pool of writers). So writing is supposed to be their thing. Whether his view is influenced by a religious and/or King James background, I do not know.

“Ensample is a term that is used to refer to a typical or representative example of something. It is a model or pattern that serves as a guide for others to follow.”

“After exploring the differences between ensample and example, it is clear that these two words are not interchangeable. While they both refer to something that serves as a model or illustration, ensample is specifically used in a moral or religious context, while example has a broader usage in everyday language.”

No, not exclusively.

Though the germ of the idea might be traced back to Gail Riplinger, her definitions in the 2018 book The Dictionary Inside the King James Bible: Line Upon Line, 2000 Words Defined suggest reservations about applying wholesale differences between ensample and example.

“...such a difference between example and ensample is not wholesale...Could the ‘en’ mean ‘in’, as in internal and the ‘ex’ mean external, as in things or outside? Sometimes, perhaps...However, such distinctions between the words ‘example’ and ‘ensample’ are not wholesale, For example, both example and ensample refer to ‘things’ in 1 Cor 10:6, 11.”

Here are some others:

In an article titled “Types of Spiritual Things” in the Primitive Baptist periodical Signs of the Times, the author (presumably the editor, F. A. Chick) says “There is no difference of meaning between ‘ensample’ and ‘example’…” (March 15, 1910, p. 182)

Is 17th-Century British English Holy? by David Cloud, August 2010.

The only difference between “ensample” and “example” is that one is 17th-century spelling and the other is 20th-century. The words are the same.

The words “example” versus “ensample”. Is there really a difference? by Will Kinney (not dated).

I see no real difference in the meaning. If you go back and compare previous English bibles you will see that both spellings were acceptable English, and where one English translation uses “example” another has “ensample”, and vice versa.

Thoughts on Recent Discussions About the Words Ensample & Example by Bryan Ross, September 2020.

The KJB in America: Ensample & Example by Bryan C. Ross, December 2020.

In this book, Ross writes: “The synonymous nature of ‘ensample’ and ‘example’ is further confirmed by a consideration of how the King James translators handled these words when doing their work.” (p. 48)

Dictionaries and concordances.

1622—Clement Cotton. The Christians Concordance, Containing the Most Materiall Words in the New Testament intriguingly and curiously gives 14 verses under the word ensample: Matt. 1:19; John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 4:12; Titus 2:7; 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7. (Clement Cotton wrote a Dedicatory to the First English Edition of 1605 of Calvin’s Commentary on Hebrews.)

1658—Edward Phillips’ The New World of Words originally published in 1658 contains this entry for the word “ensample”: “an Example, Model, or Pattern.” And for “example”: “a Pattern, Model, or Copy…”

1721—Noah Bailey’s An Universal Etymological English Dictionary from 1721 defines “ensample” as “example or pattern.” An example: “A Copy, Pattern, or Model.”

1828—Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language from 1828 defines “ensample” as follows: noun [Latin exemplum.] An example; a pattern or model for imitation. Being ensamples to the flock. 1 Peter 5:3.

Previous English Bibles, Geneva and Bishops.

Geneva 1560 Matt. 1:19 (example); John 13:15 (example); rest are ensample: 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 4:12; Titus 2:7; Heb. 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7.

1599 Geneva: Example: Matt. 1:19; John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Peter 2:21; Jude 7; rest are ensample: 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 4:12; 2 Pet. 2:6.

Bishops 1568 Matt. 1:19 (example); rest are ensample (exceptions in parentheses) John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16 (example); 4:12 (pattern); Titus 2:7 (pattern); Heb. 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7.

Bishops 1602 Matt. 1:19 (example); rest are ensample (exceptions in parentheses) John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16 (example); 4:12 (pattern); Titus 2:7 (pattern); Heb. 4:11 (example); 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7.

Other miscellaneous considerations.

The words “ensample” and “example” were used interchangeably in sermon/lesson proclaimed by Henry Airay – sometime before his death in 1616, and printed in 1618, only a few years after the release of the new English translation in 1611. See pages 789-793 in Lecture LXVII (Lectures on the Whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, London: Edward Griffin, 1618)

King James marginal notes in 1 Corinthians.

• 1 Corinthians 10:11 ensamples || Or, Types
• 1 Corinthians 10:6 our examples † Or, our figures

The verses themselves.

“Ensample” is found in 6 verses in the King James Bible. They are (with Greek word following):

• 1 Corinthians 10:11 τυπος

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

• Philippians 3:17 τυπος

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

• 1 Thessalonians 1:7 τυπος

so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.

• 2 Thessalonians 3:9 τυπος

not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

• 1 Peter 5:3 τυπος

neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

• 2 Peter 2:6 υποδειγμα

and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

“Example” is found in 9 verses in the King James Bible. They are (with Greek word following):

• Matthew 1:19 παραδειγματισαι

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

• John 13:15 υποδειγμα

For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

• 1 Corinthians 10:6 τυπος 

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

• 1 Timothy 4:12 τυπος

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

• Hebrews 4:11 υποδειγμα

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

• Hebrews 8:5 υποδειγμα

who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

• James 5:10 υποδειγμα

Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

• 1 Peter 2:21 υπογραμμος

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

• Jude 1:7 δειγμα

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Related:

• 1 Timothy 1:16 pattern, υποτυπωσις
• Titus 2:7 pattern, τυπος
• Hebrews 8:5 pattern, τυπος
• Hebrews 9:23 patterns, υποδειγμα

Concluding thoughts.

In conclusion, I will be brief. There is little support for churches, preachers, commentators, etc. of earlier times making a fine distinction between “ensample” and “example.”

First, this is an important matter which might affect how one interprets any given Bible verses containing these words. Let each verse be interpreted on its own without carrying a preconceived idea to the verse. 

I neither doubt nor question the sincerity of those who think ensample and example are similar words with different connotations. However, we see that they are making the distinction based on their own interpretations of the texts. They find the verses, and go through them with a fine-toothed comb looking for similarities and differences. This results in the grid taken to the Scriptures being placed above the Scriptures themselves. On the other hand, the King James Bible itself denotes the words as synonyms - compare 2 Peter 2:6 and Jude 1:7. The condemned cities are an ensample, an example. This should settle the question.

This does not mean that slightly different connotations might be found in various verses using “ensample” and “example.” But, if so, let us find this in the verse itself, and not bring it with us to the verse to put it there.

Fear not

“Fear not: I…have the keys of hell and of death.” Revelation 1:17-18

“Is it Jesus, all precious, all lovely, all-powerful Jesus, that saith this? He who hath redeemed my soul from hell, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling? And hath Jesus, my Husband, my Brother, my Redeemer, the keys both of hell and of death? Why then it is impossible for any to open death’s door one moment before that he gives the appointment. And doth he command me to fear not? Oh then, my soul, dismiss all anxiety about thy departure. Thy time is in Jesus’s hands; the keys are hanging at thy Redeemer’s girdle. Never fear, neither to die as thou hast lived, and art living, in a believing frame in Jesus. This is as much suited to a dying time, as it is to a living time; for with this thou mayest go out of the world, as safe as living in it. ‘To live is Christ, and to die is gain.’ God’s covenant love, and God’s covenant promises in Jesus, are the same. They are, both in death and life, fixed and sure.”

Robert Hawker (1753-1827)

And ye are Christ’s

William Gadsby (1773-1844) was a minister of the Strict and Particular Baptists in England. For 38 years he was pastor of the Strict Baptist church at Manchester, England. He was the first editor of The Gospel Standard periodical. He compiled a selection of hymns (including many of his own) and published them in a hymnbook entitled A Selection of Hymns for Public Worship in 1814. It is one of the oldest English hymnbooks still used for congregational worship.

Gadsby was the son of John Gadsby and Martha Lingard, born January 3, 1773 in Warwickshire. In 1793 he was baptized by the Particular Baptist church at Cow Lane in Coventry. He was ordained in 1800 and became the pastor of St. Georges Road Particular Baptist Chapel in 1805. Gadsby died January 27, 1844 at age 71 and was buried at the Rusholme Road Cemetery in Manchester. For more information on William Gadsby and his hymnbook, see the doctoral dissertations “Engaging the Heart: Orthodoxy and Experimentalism in William Gadsby’s A Selection of Hymns for Public Worship,” by Deborah A. Ruhl.

The hymn, in 7s. meter, focuses on and emphasizes the safety and security of the believe who is in Christ. Those who lean upon Jesus can rest safe in Jesus. Gadsby’s theology can be described as “high Calvinism” but not “dry Calvinism.” He was a strong proponent of experimental religion, or experientialism.

“And ye are Christ’s.” 1 Cor. 3:23; Rom. 14:8

1. Sinners who on Jesus rest,
Must eternally be blest;
All Jehovah’s love can give,
They from Jesus shall receive.

2. Loved of God, to Jesus given,
In the purposes of heaven;
They are bought with blood divine,
And they must in glory shine.

3. They are Jesus’ flesh and bone,
Nor from him shall e’er be torn;
Can a part be sent to hell,
And the whole in Zion dwell?

4. No! we bless the Lord on high,
Not a single joint can die;
Every member lives in him;
He’s the life of every limb.

5. They are Christ’s by ties divine;
Here his brightest glories shine;
All creation must give place
To the subjects of his grace.

6. Matchless Jesus! may we be
Wholly taken up with thee!
And, in every deep distress,
Lean upon thy truth and grace.

In other words, vertiginous abschriften

• abschriften. noun. (from the German) Manuscripts, copies.
• anodyne, noun. A medicine that relieves or allays pain; anything that relieves distress or pain.
• arriviste, noun. A person who has recently attained high position or great power but not general acceptance or respect; an upstart; a social climber; a bounder.
• boustrophedon, noun. An ancient method of writing in which the lines run alternately from right to left and from left to right.
• brannigan, noun. A noisy quarrel or squabble, especially one associated with drunkenness.
• Digrammaton, noun. A Hebrew word for God, consisting of the two letters jod (yod) and he, translated as JAH in Psalm 68:4.
• ecosexual, noun. A person that finds nature romantic, sensual, and sexy.
• fropa, noun. (Meteorology) An acronym (and formerly an aviation weather communications code word) for frontal passage, which is the passage of a front over a point on the earth’s surface.
• hauteur, noun. Haughty manner or spirit; arrogance.
• incredulous, adjective. Not credulous; disinclined or indisposed to believe; 
• indicating or showing unbelief.
• indie, noun. An independently or privately owned business.
• kenspeckle, adjective. (Scotland and North England) Conspicuous; easily seen or recognized.
• multifarious, adjective. Having or occurring in great variety; diverse.
• patronymic, adjective. Of, relating to, or derived from the name of one’s father or a paternal ancestor.
• pshaw, interjection. Used to indicate impatience, irritation, disapproval, or disbelief.
• pulchritudinous, adjective. Having great physical beauty.
• punter, noun. (chiefly British) A person who gambles; customer, patron.
• shrive, verb. To impose penance on; to grant absolution to; to hear the confession of; to make confession, confess one’s sins.
• stereopticon, noun. A magic lantern, especially one with two projectors arranged so as to produce dissolving views.
• tactic, noun. A device for accomplishing an end; a method of employing forces in combat.
• Tetragrammaton, noun. A Hebrew word for God, consisting of the four letters jod (yod), he, vav (waw), and he, transliterated consonantally as JHVH or YHWH.
• transmogrify, verb. To change in appearance or form, especially strangely or grotesquely; transform.
• vertiginous, adjective. Whirling; spinning; affected with vertigo; dizzy.

Ever learning

Modern textual criticism, in the opinion of some of its leading minds, has given up its so-called search to recover the words of the original text or autographs. They are satisfied they cannot recover it, and seek now for the Ausgangtext (or texts), “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” Some more conservative (relatively speaking) text critics have pushed back against this. In the “Conclusion” of the book Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament (p. 87), editors Abidan Paul Shah and David Alan Black write:

“Lack of a settled original text only leads to a lack of a settled biblical theology which only leads to uncertain Christian doctrines and practice.”

This is most certainly true. No settled text = no settled theology = no settled faith and practice for modern Christians. Unfortunately, these authors’ solution is “to continue to practice a scientific approach to retrieving the original text of the New Testament.” What is the fruit of the scientific approach or method? The same kind of fruit against which they complain. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the text leads to Christians tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

Let us look for a more stable foundation, a settled text that has been preserved and in the hands of the churches and Christians all along. Why go look for something you already have?

Called Christians, Acts 11:25-30

The disciples called Christians, 25-30

Verses 25-26: Antioch Syria is some 150 miles southeast of Tarsus, where Barnabas found Saul (cf. Acts 9:30) and “brought him unto Antioch.” Luke summarizes an entire year in their assembling with the church at Antioch and teaching the people. This is about AD 41-44 – before the dearth “in the days of Claudius Cæsar.”

 

“called Christians” – at Antioch is the first occurrence of the disciples of the Lord called by the name or description “Christian.” They “were called” (χρηματισαι) – that is, the passive implies they did not call themselves Christians (χριστιανους), but that the unbelievers of Antioch so called them. The unbelieving King Agrippa speaks the word in Acts 26:28, and Peter uses it as a name under which believers suffered (I Peter 4:16). Other New Testament designations of the followers of Christ are: descriptively by Luke, the disciples (Acts 1:15, et al.), believers (Acts 5:14), brethren/the brethren (Acts 6:3, 9:30; et al.), the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9:1), any of this way (Acts 9:2), the saints (Acts 9:32, et al.); and derisively by Tertullus, the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).[i] The Latin affix “ian/ianous” added to the Greek word “Christ” carries the idea of belonging to, pertaining to, or origin from Christ.

 

Verses 27-28: “in these days” During this year (v. 26), prophets from the city of Jerusalem came to Antioch. One of them – named Agabus – prophesied of a “great dearth” (a famine; cf. Genesis 41:36, 54; Acts 7:11) which would happen in the days of Claudius Cæsar.[ii] Claudius ruled in Rome AD 41-54. This may be the famine that Josephus mentioned in Antiquities Book XX. If so, then this famine must have occurred circa AD 46.[iii] If the order of chapters 11 and 12 is chronological, Agabus gave the prophecy circa AD 42 – that is, before the events relating to Herod in Acts chapter 12.[iv]

 

Verses 29-30: The disciples at Antioch, rather than first prepare for themselves, instead “determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa…which also they did” They determined what to do. They accomplished what they determined to do, sending their relief by Barnabas and Saul to the elders at the churches in Jerusalem and Judæa.[v] “every man according to his ability” God’s standard is each according to his ability. He does not require what we do not have, neither what someone else has. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (I Corinthians 4:2).

 

Christians love their brethren (which is in deed, not just words).

• Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
• James 2:15-17 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
• I John 3:17-18 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Christians give of what they have (not of what they have not, or take from another).

• 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
• 2 Corinthians 8:11-12 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. For if there be first a willing mind, it isaccepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
• See also I Timothy 6:17-19 and Philippians 2:4.

---

[i] Jesus of the city of Nazareth was called a Nazarene (ναζωραιος Matthew 2:23), and the name was attached to his disciples (ναζωραιων) – at least by Tertullus on this occasion.
[ii] The role of prophet or prophecy is described in the New Testament as a gift of the Spirit (cf. Romans 12:6; I Corinthians 12:10, 27-31; 13:2; 14:1–6, 22–25, 29-40; Ephesians 3:5; 4:11).
[iii] “Antiquities of the Jews,” Complete Works, Book XX 2:5 and 5:2, pp. 416, 418. “Now [Helena’s] coming [circa AD 45-46] was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it...” “Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already.” Matthew Henry (Commentary VI, p. 146) thinks this occurred in the second to fourth year of Claudius Caesar, which is circa AD 44-45.
[iv] The prophet Agabus is mentioned again in Acts 21:10-11.
[v] Relief is διακονιαν, recognizing it not just as alms, but a ministry to the churches of Jerusalem and Judæa.

Scripture, Preservation, Jots, and Tittles

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

John Lightfoot (d. 1675), in “Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations,” The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, Vol. XI, (ca. 1658/1823, pp. 99-100), commented:

But that our Saviour, by ἰῶτα καὶ κεραία “jot and tittle,” did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse 19, where he renders it, one of “these least commands:” in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara of Solomon’s rooting out Jod, that is, evacuating that precept נָשִׁים ְלֹא יָרבּה “He shall not multiply wives.” And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the law to the end of it.

In A Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725, p. 204), Benjamin Marshall (d. 1749), Rector of Naunton in Gloucestershire, wrote:

What our Saviour saith of the Law is also true of the Prophets. And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could any one jot, or tittle of the latter ever pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle much less could one word, So significant a word especially as the word After in this part of the Prophecy pass away without its actual Completion, and full Accomplishment in the express letter of it.

Thomas Ridgley (circa 1667–1734), an English Dissenting minister, wrote in his Body of Divinity (1731, p. 66, 1814 printing):

Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass from the law, Mat. v. 18. and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail, Luke xvi. 17. If God will take care of every jot and tittle of scripture, will he not take care that no whole book, designed to be a part of the rule of faith, should be entirely lost? It is objected, indeed, to this, that our Saviour hereby intends principally the doctrines or precepts contained in the law; but if the subject matter thereof shall not be lost, surely the scripture that contains it shall be preserved entire.

In Theopneustia: the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (English translation, 1850, p. 102), Swiss Protestant Louis Gaussen (1790-1863) wrote:

Alas! in a few short years both the doctors and the disciples will be laid in the tomb, they shall wither like the grass; but not one jot or tittle of that divine book will have passed away…

“It is easier,” says he, “ for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle (χεραία) of the law to fall and by the law Jesus Christ understood the whole of the Scriptures, and even, more particularly, the Book of Psalms. What terms could possibly be imagined capable of expressing, with greater force and precision, the principle which we defend; that is to say, the authority, the entire divine inspiration, and the perpetuity of all the parts, and of the very letter of the Scriptures? Ye who study God’s Word, here behold the theology of your Master! Be ye then divines after his manner; be your Bible the same as that of the Son of God! Of that not a single tittle can fall.”

Dutch Theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), in The Sacrifice of Praise (1922, translated from the Dutch, p. 38), wrote:

The cause of this power lies therein, that it is God’s Word. All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power. The Gospel, which comes forth out of that Word unto man in manifold forms and along various ways, is always borne and animated by God. It is and always remains His Word. It is constantly accompanied by the Holy Spirit, who lives and dwells in the church and from out of her goes into the world and convinces her of sin, righteousness and judgment. It is a Word, that continually proceeds out of the mouth of God, that comes unto us in Christ, and that through the Spirit of Christ is declared unto our heart or conscience.

In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925, p. 175), Eldred C. Vanderlaan (1890-1974) quotes James M. Gray:

...Christ teaches that the Scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the Mount He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”...”One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” The “jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, while the “tittle” means the horn, a short projection in certain letters extending the base line beyond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish.

In an undated paper “Jot” and “Tittle”, professor of Old Testament Willis E. Bishop (1914-2013) wrote:

In Matthew 5:18, Christ said the law is so perfect down to every jot and tittle. Every letter and every part of a letter is inspired by God. When the men who wrote the Scripture finished writing, it was not only letter perfect but part-letter perfect – perfect absolutely to a part of a letter in the original writings. [Note: Bishop refers to the original writings and probably would not apply this to copies and translations. However, he plainly applies the Lord’s statement about “jots and tittles” to written Scripture – something that has become anathema to many modern evangelicals. This was probably written between 1947 and 1982, the years he served as professor and chair of Old Testament Studies at Washington Bible College.]

King James and Hugh Broughton

The “Hampton Court Conference” (so-called because it met at the Hampton Court Palace, near London) was held January 14, 16-18, 1604. King James I presided over this meeting attended by bishops and Puritan leaders of the Church of England. At this conference John Rainolds/Reynolds proposed a new English translation of the Bible be made, and King James agreed. William Barlow reported:

“Whereupon his Highnesse wished, that some special paines should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation (professing that he could never, yet, see a Bible well translated in English, but the worst of all his Majesty thought the Geneva to be)…” (The Summe and Substance of the Conference…at Hampton Court, Jan. 14. 1603, William Barlow. Clerkenwell, UK: Bye and Law, Printers, 1804, page 35.)

The proud and prickly Hugh Broughton is perhaps best known for being hard to get along with, and for his excoriations of the new Bible translation in 1611 (A Censure of the Late Translation for our Churches). Less known (certainly to me, at least) is that Broughton may have tried to revive with the new King James I of England his former dead attempt with Queen Elizabeth to authorize his [Broughton’s] revising the English Bible. Kristen MacFarlane reports:

“…the succession of James I in 1603 gave Broughton what he perceived to be a window of opportunity. He had always thought his scholarship would be better received in Scotland than in England, and with a Scottish King on the British throne, Broughton felt confident that a change in his fortunes was imminent. This is shown in a letter entitled ‘Of Amending the Genevan translat.’, sent to James by Broughton soon after his succession and before 1604.[89] In this, Broughton explained to James that many bishops and nobles had long wished for an improved version of the Geneva Bible and that even Anthony Gilby (d. 1585), who was one of its translators, had been ‘most earnest to have his work amended’.[90] As well as briefly reiterating some of the general rules that Broughton had already mentioned in his Epistle to the Learned Nobility, this letter also informed James that another work was soon to be printed (An advertisement of corruption) which would further reveal the ‘grosse errors’ in the text and notes of current English Bibles, and urged him to take action in this matter.[91] Whether Broughton ever did send this letter, or indeed whether James ever received it and replied is a matter of speculation but, in any case he would have no more support from James, either for his new English Bible or his other projects, than he had from Elizabeth.” (Biblical Scholarship in an Age of Controversy: The Polemical World of Hugh Broughton (1519-1612), Kristen MacFarlane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, page 79.) [89] LBL MS Sloane 3088, fol. 114r-115r. The letter’s reference to the imminent publication of Broughton, An advertisement gives its terminus ad quem. [90] LBL MS Sloane 3088, fol. 114r. [91] LBL MS Sloane 3088, fol. 114v. (“LBL MS Sloane” refers to the Hans Sloane Collection of manuscripts at the British Library, numbered 1-4100.)

This intrigues me, and raises a question. If the letter by Broughton was sent to King James “soon after his succession and before 1604” and IF James received and read it, might Broughton’s points have influenced King James’s negative views and comments at the Hampton Court Conference about the English Bible in general and the Geneva translation in particular? Has any more in-depth research been done in this regard?

---

Note: After my writing this, Bryan Ross pointed out the previous desire of James to revise the Bible, in 1601 in Scotland:

“After this a Proposition was made for a new Translation of the Bible, and the correcting of the Psalms in Metre: his Majesty did urge it earnestly, and with many Reasons did persuade the undertaking of the Work, shewing the necessity and the profit of it, and what a glory the performing thereof should bring to this Church: speaking of necessity, he did mention sundry escapes in the common Translation, and made it seem that he was no less conversant in the Scriptures then they whose profession it was; and when he came to speak of the Psalms, did recite whole verses of the same, showing both the faults of the metre and the discrepance from the Text. It was the joy of all that were present to hear it, and bred not little admiration in the whole Assembly, who approving the motion did recommend the Translation to such of the Brethren as were most skill’d in the languages, and revising of the Psalms particularly to M. Robert Pont; but nothing was done in the one or the other: yet did not the King let this his intention fall to the ground, but after his happy coming to the crown of England set the most learned Divines of that Church awork for the Translation of the Bible; which with great pains and the singular profit of the Church they perfected.” (The History of the Church of Scotland, Beginning the Year of Our Lord 203, and Continued to the End of the Reign of King James VI (3rd edition), John Spottiswood. London: R. Norton, 1668.)

In contrast to Spottiswood, who heaps high praise on King James VI, David David Calderwood does not mention James in reference to the translation. He writes: 

“In the last Session, it was meaned by sundrie of the Brethren, that there were sundrie errours in the vulgar translation of the Bible, and of the Psalmes in meeter, which required correcting; as also that there were sundrie prayers in the Psalme Book, that were not convenient for the time. It was therefore concluded, that for the translation of the Bible, every one of the Brethren, who had greatest skill in the languages, imploy their travails, in sundrie parts of the vulgar translation of the Bible, which need to be amended, & to confer the same together at the next Assembly.” (The True History of the Church of Scotland, From the Beginning of the Reformation unto the End of the Reigne of King James VI, David Calderwood. 1678, page 456.) 

Calderwood does mention that “About the end of this Assemblie, the King discoursed upon the dutie of good Kings…” Spottiswood was a partisan for James, while Calderwood opposed his episcopal views. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between the opinion of two partisans. 

As for the Bible to be revised, it would have been the Geneva Bible.

In the local church

“Regarding the structure of the local church, Christ instituted it as a means of fulfilling the Great Commission. As evidence of this, Jesus marries the act of making disciples to baptism, a church ordinance (Matt. 28:19). In fact, there is ample reason to connect his abiding presence in Matthew 28:20 (‘I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world’) to his presence in Matthew 18:20 (‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’). That is, the authority present in the gathered congregation to pronounce an excommunication is the same authority required in the act of expanding the kingdom by making disciples. The keys of the kingdom of heaven are wielded by the local church (cf. Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18).”

Conley Owens, “The Dorean Principle: A Biblical Ethic for Ministry Fundraising,” MDiv Thesis, p. 272

A Parting Hymn

This hymn by Joseph Hart is No. 79 on page 217 of Hymns Composed on Various Subjects. It is one of five short hymns labeled “At Dismission.” Its intended use is for a congregational exhortation at the time of dismission of services. It pauses to praise and appreciate the Saviour before parting, then recommends storing up the word to feed upon and practice as Christian.

The hymn is short meter and might be used with the tune Dennis, familiar to many churches as the tune used with “Blessed be the tie that binds.” The Christian’s Love in the 2012 Sacred Harp revision (95b) will also work well.

1. Once more, before we part,
We’ll bless the Saviour’s name.
Record his mercies ev’ry heart;;
Sing, ev’ry tongue, the same.

2. Hoard up his sacred word,
And feed thereon and grow;
Go on to seek to know the Lord;
And practice what you know.

He who thinks half-heartedly, 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 if possible.)

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” -- attributed to Isaac Newton

“That which ministers speak from their own hearts is most likely to reach the hearts of their hearers...Those that undertake to teach others must first learn themselves.” -- Matthew Henry (Commentary on Psalm 49)

“The real false friends [of the KJB] are those who pretend to support the KJB, but gaslight its wording all the time.” -- Matthew Verschuur

“The angry atheist says, ‘There is no God … and I hate him!’” -- Unknown

“Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Character is everything.” -- variously attributed; probably a saying that developed over time, with its current form possibly best attributed to Frank Outlaw, founder of the supermarket chain Bi-Lo

“How would this philosophy work out for you: ‘It does not matter what medicine you take, as long as it is medicine and you are sincere.’” -- Unknown

“Every good hymn learned and loved is another window through which the worshiping soul looks toward heaven.” From the “Preface,” Worship & Service Hymnal, Carol Stream, IL: Hope Publishing, 1957/1982

“You can’t talk to people about Jesus if you don’t talk to people.” -- Unknown

“God sent many to preach the gospel, but only four to write the Gospels.” -- Unknown

KJV1611-Only

In my journey within and studies of “King James Onlyism” I do not recall that I ever noticed that there is subgroup who advocates using only the 1611 edition of the King James Bible. Perhaps I had my head in the sand, or just was not paying close attention. Or, perhaps this group is relatively new.

This difference requires some explanation, since many, if not most, KJV defenders often make references to using the KJV 1611. This group, however, is KJVO/1611-Only. By that I mean that they advocate the actual use of the King James Bible as printed in 1611. I am not familiar enough to know that they advocate only the black-letter type (I don’t think so), but they advocate no changes in words, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. For example, they include this disclaimer on the home page of their website, King James Bible 1611.

“If you find typographical errors on this website in the quotes from the 1611 AKJB, it is because this platform mistakenly auto-corrects, not recognizing Elizabethan spellings.”

The primary leaders of this group appear to be Reginald Jacob Block and John Doerr, of whom I know almost nothing. Brief bios appear on their site HERE. On the website, the advertisement for the book Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible (Reginald Jacob Block, John Doerr, 2019) states:

“Most Christians are unaware that the Bible called the KJV is not faithful to the Bible that King James authorized. In fact, the KJV is a product of the 1700s, and at best a revision of the real 1611 King James Bible. This book explains the differences.”

Block has a February 11, 2020 video – Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible – in which he discusses two of his books (Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible and Bible Corruption, Everything Matters). This provides some further insight into this viewpoint. At one point he mentions “the Bible that came off the press in 1611,” which is possibly the best expression clarifying what they are advocating. He also distinguishes his Bible as the “1611 AKJV” versus the “KJV” as the 1769 Blayney revision.

With advocating the 1611 printing of the King James Bible comes the inclusion of the Apocrypha. This subgroup believes that Bibles should contain the Apocrypha, but they distinguish it from the inspired canon.

“The 66 books (Old and New Testaments) of the 1611 Authorized King James Bible are perfect and correct…In their wisdom, the 47 translators placed the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments that we might understand the false doctrines of Mystery Babylon from which the church was delivered during the Reformation. It is not part of the canon of scripture and was never intended as such.”

For those unfamiliar with 1611 King James Bible orthography, see a scan of the 1611 Bible HERE.

Reg Block has at least four books on the Bible versions issue.

• Authorized, the Real 1611 King James Bible, Reginald Jacob Block, John Doerr, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2019
• Bible Corruption, Everything Matters: Comparing NABRE, KJV, NKJV & NIV to the 1611 AKJB, Reginald Jacob Block, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2019
• Is Your Bible The Word of God? Examine the Witnesses, Reginald Jacob Block, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2022
• Modern Bible Translation Problems, Volumes I-VI (Series), Reginald Jacob Block, Seattle, WA: The Book Patch, 2016, 2023

I am not endorsing this position, but post merely as a matter of information. It is good to be aware of differing positions of advocacy of the King James Bible. Those who say “AV 1611” and such like may only mean they are KJV-Only (support and use a descendant edition of the Bible first printed in 1611), or they may mean they only use “the Bible that came off the press in 1611.”