The contention of Paul and Barnabas

Acts 15:36-41 the contention of Paul and Barnabas over John Mark

Verse 36: “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord” Paul and Barnabas agree on an initial plan, before coming to disagree. They would return again to the places of Acts 13 and 14, see how they do, and further establish them in faith and practice.

Verses 37-38: Despite initial agreement, Barnabas and Paul come to different conclusions on how to proceed. Barnabas, a man of consolation, encouragement (Acts 4:36), desires to take Mark again, giving him a second chance. Paul finds Mark’s departure from the previous work troublesome. There is not here a moral or spiritual issue between Barnabas and Paul. Each have a different perspective and judgment on Mark’s fitness for the work. Both dig in their heels.

Verses 39: “the contention was so sharp between them” In Jerusalem a controversy has been settled and a rift avoided. In Antioch a controversy erupts and the rift cannot be avoided. John Gill writes:

[that they departed asunder one from another] thus as soon almost as peace was made in the church, a difference arises among the ministers of the word, who are men of like passions with others; and though it is not easy to say which was to blame most in this contention; perhaps there were faults on both sides, for the best men are not without their failings; yet this affair was overruled by the providence of God, for the spread of his Gospel, and the enlargement of his interest; for when these two great and good men parted from one another, they went to different places, preaching the word of God:[1]

Unable to agree on Mark as a travel companion, the contention is adjusted by dividing into two preaching parties instead of one. “Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed…”

Verse 40: “Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.” Viewing this statement in the light of New Testament events that follow, it is problematic to interpret the statement as the church at Antioch taking Paul’s side and endorsing him only. Rather, Antioch recommends Paul with Silas because Silas is a new addition to the men sent from Antioch. Paul, Barnabas, (and by extension, Mark), had previously been “recommended” and sent out by the church at Antioch. Silas had not. Another reason for this focus is that the history that follows will not be about Barnabas and Mark, but about Paul and Silas. Concerning commending and upholding those going forth to preach the gospel, compare III John, verses 5-8.

 Both Mark and Barnabas are favorably mentioned in the Scriptures after this split (e.g., 1 Corinthians 9:6; Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13).

---

[1] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-15-39.html | “The occurrence was overruled for good, by divine providence, in setting on foot two evangelical tours, instead of one.” Ripley, The Acts of the Apostles, p .211.

Bible translation and copyright

I have read and heard King James Bible proponents argue that translators must intentionally reword portions of their new translations in order to make them original. By that means, they are therefore able to be copyrighted (in other words, as a new and distinct work). For example, Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions states that “New versions are forced to scramble phrases in order to secure a copyright, which, according to the derivative copyright law requires ‘substantial changes’” (p. 76). Some people claim the change must be at least ten percent.

In most of the world, the Authorized Version (KJV) has long since passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced by any and all who wish to do so. In the U.S. we would call this “public domain.” However, in the United Kingdom, the British Crown restricts production of the Authorized Version under the Letters Patent issued with the royal prerogative. “Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown...”

Visual created by a Facebook member

So, it seems reasonable to think that a Bible that too closely resembled the Authorized King James Bible would violate the rights of the Crown in the United Kingdom, and on the other hand possibly would be considered “public domain” (not copyrightable) in other countries. That said, I have never seen anyone cite the law concerning copyrighting new translations. Further, I cannot find anything about “10%” being the required level of change. That almost seems like a guess or made-up claim.

I also know that if I were to print the CSB or NIV, I would obviously be in copyright violation and subject to whatever punishment that accrues.

It seems that the creation of some Bible versions are related to copyright issues. For example (and this needs to be more carefully verified), it is my understanding that the Southern Baptist Convention backed and created the (Holman) Christian Standard Bible so that they do not have to pay for or get permission to use the Bible as extensively as they wish in their printed materials. If someone has the specifics on this, I would be grateful to have the evidence.

• Bryan Ross discusses some of these issues in Considering Claims Concerning Copyright: King James Bible & Modern Versions.
• Maurice Robinson discusses copyright and translation in The Bondage of the Word: Copyright and the Bible (1996).

No doubt the legal governance of this will vary from country to country. In the United States, 17 U.S. Code § 103 applies to the subject matter of copyright of compilations and derivative works:

(a)The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b)The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

This is the bare fact, but court cases, precedents, and other things probably complicate the ability of lay persons to understand this matter of derivative Bible copyright. We should try to look at the law, the details, and try to know what we are talking about when we talk about it. I suspect a lot of what has been passed around is just what someone heard someone say (or write) and does not clearly represent what is required to copyright just one more English Bible translation (not that we need one more English Bible translation).

Doth not nature teach you?

1 Corinthians 11  ³ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. ⁵ But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. ⁶ For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. ⁸ For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. ⁹ Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. ¹⁰ For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. ¹² For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. ¹³ Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? ¹⁴ Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? ¹⁵ But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. ¹⁶ But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I thought I had posted on this before. If so, nevertheless I cannot find it. That is one of the problems with blogs. It is too much of an “in the moment” platform on which it can be hard to go back and find old material. Or perhaps I never created it to begin with. With that explanation (in case a similar post already exists and pops up), I proceed to consider some points about the woman’s head covering discussed in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

Reasons for the woman’s head covering:

• 1. The headship of man, verses 3-6.
• 2. God’s order in creation, verses 8-9.
• 3. Because of the angels, verse 10 (power/ εξουσιαν).
• 4. All things are of God, verses 11-12.
• 5. A sense of propriety, verse 13.
• 6. The very nature of things, verses 14-15 (including the distinction between male and female, and the woman’s natural head covering).
• 7. The practice of all churches, verse 16.

Each of the reasons given for the head covering is taken from permanent facts. Paul writes nothing of period hairstyles or Corinthian social customs.

On 1 Corinthians 11:14. I don’t know about you, but I think most people, myself included, tend to hear “nature” and first think the world of the outdoors and the living things in it (trees, animals, etc.). However, other connotations of “nature” are meant, such as the character of things, the natural order of things, the very nature of things. Vincent’s Word Studies puts it this way – “Nature (φύσις) The recognized constitution of things. In this case the natural distinction of the woman’s long hair.” The general order of things is that normally & naturally the hair of women tends to grow longer & more luxuriant than the hair of men, that men normally & naturally are the more dominant physically, that women are normally & naturally more nurturing, and things like that. There can be exceptions to this natural order of things, but in general it is replicated over and over in the circle of life. Barnes puts it a little differently, speaking of a natural sense of propriety in mankind generally, which is expressed as common customs in cultures across time and geography. The view of Barnes may prove helpful, but if not careful it gets broken down by people just going along with the practice of their culture or society. Then, people wind up arguing that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 has no real application today, because he was just trying to get the church at Corinth to act acceptably within the Corinthian cultural standards. Whatever nature is, Paul puts it forth as a kind of universally & generally accepted truth or established fact on par with the five reasons he gives before it and the one he gives after it.

This word is for today. Once we know it is for today, we must wrestle with its meaning to discover how it applies in 2024.

Stick with the King James

...the KJV’s overall superiority...derives in part from its being the product of a historical period in which the Bible’s divinely revealed character and literal truth, every word of which was assumed to matter supremely because it was God’s, were still taken for granted by most people, including the King James’s highly cultivated and sophisticated translators.

Indeed, the KJV’s archaic language, often cited as a point against it, strikes me as one more argument in its behalf. The language of the Hebrew Bible, after all, is archaic, too; it is precisely this that makes us feel when reading it that we are in contact with an age more wondrous and fervent than our own. The same holds true of the KJV. We should not want the Bible to sound modern. Of modernity we have more than enough; the Bible needs to be read against modernity’s grain. I’ll stick with the King James.

Philologos, a renowned Jewish-language columnist, answering why he quotes the King James translation rather than Jewish English translations

Our blessed Savior seven times spoke

Johannes Böschenstain wrote “Da Jhesus an dem Kreuze stundt” (When Jesus on the Cross was found), which begins in the first line in English “Seven times our blessed Saviour spoke.” It was written about 1515, and appeared in 1537 in Michael Vehe’s Gesangbüchlin Vom Jahre (Hymnbook for the Year), No. LII, in 8 stanzas, beginning on page 108 in the 1853 printing. In German the line about seven sayings does not appear until the fourth line (die Sieben Wort, die er sprach). The theme of the hymn expounds on the seven sayings made by Jesus while on the cross (See: Luke 23:34; Luke 23:43; John 19:26-27; John 19:28; Matthew 27:46 John 19:30; Luke 23:46).

Da Jhesus an dem Kreuze stundt
und ihm sein leychnam war verwundt
mit bitterlichem schmerBen
die Sieben Wort, die er sprach
betracht in deinem herBen

Böschenstain was born in 1472 at Esslingen, Wurttemberg. He was the son of Heinrich Böschenstein. He was a teacher of Greek and Hebrew; he published a Hebrew grammar in 1514. He died in Nördlingen in 1540.

Frances Elizabeth Cox freely translated the German into the English hymn beginning “Seven times our blessed Saviour spoke,” which she called “Hymn for Good Friday.” She included it in her Hymns from the German (London: Rivingtons, 1864). The daughter of George V. Cox, Frances was born at Oxford in 1812. She died in 1897 (some sources say in Iffley, England).

Cox provided a companion of John 6:63 for the hymn – “…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

1. Seven times our blessed Saviour spoke
When on the cross our sins he took
And died lest man should perish.
Let us his last and dying Words
In our remembrance cherish.

2. “Forgive them, Father, just and true,
Forgive! they know not what they do.”
So far his love extended.
Forgive us, Lord, for we, too, have
Through ignorance offended.

3. Now to the contrite thief he cries:
“Thou, verily, in Paradise
Shalt meet me ere to-morrow.”
Lord, take us to thy Kingdom soon
Who linger here in sorrow.

4. To weeping Mary standing by,
“Behold thy son!” now hear him cry;
To John, “Behold thy mother!”
Protect, Lord, those we leave behind,
Let each befriend the other.

5. Now from his frame exhausted burst 
Those few faint Words, “I thirst! I thirst!”
O Lord! for our salvation
Thy thirst was great: then help us still
To overcome temptation.

6. Then rose that Cry, “My God, oh why
Forsake me in my Agony.”
Lord, thou wast here forsaken,
That we might be received on high;
Let this hope our hope awaken.

7. Next, hear him, ere his Spirit fled
Proclaim aloud, “’Tis finished!”
To thee our work commending,
May we each task thou dost impose
Bring to a joyful ending.

8. One piercing Cry, and all is done!
“Father, to thy true Hands alone
I now commend my Spirit.”
Be this, when sinks our dying heart;
The wish that last shall stir it.

9. Whoe’er, by sense of sin oppressed,
On these blest Words his thoughts doth rest,
Thence joy and hope obtaineth:
And through God’s Love and boundless Grace
A peaceful conscience gaineth.

10. O Jesu Christ! our Lord and Guide,
Who hast for our salvation died!
On this for ever dwelling,
May we each hour thy death regard,
Thy grief, all grief excelling!

The hymn is in 8.8.7.8.7. meter and is set to an A minor German melody believed to have been written around AD 1400. It is found in the 1545 Babst Gesangbuch, and called Das Jesus an des Kreuzes.

2,000-year-old Hasmonean coin, 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.

• 2,000-year-old Hasmonean coin discovered by child evacuated on Oct. 7 -- “While exploring the area around the hotel that he had been evacuated to along the Dead Sea, Nati Toyikar came across an ancient coin dating back to the Hasmonean period.”
• What do Roman Catholics Believe? A Confessional Protestant Response to Ten Teachings of the RCC -- “...the Lord’s Supper is a sacred meal for the church (when ye come together in the church) ordained by Christ himself. The bread and cup are spiritual emblems representing the body and blood of Christ...”
• Visible Grace in Disagreements -- “Paul wasn’t afraid to address sin. Just ask the Corinthians. But what first grabbed Paul’s attention when he thought about that rowdy, discriminatory congregation in Corinth?”
• Tips for Finding Deceased Ancestors in the Papers -- “With the help of AI, Newspapers.com has identified more than 316 million obituaries in their archives.”
• The Pericope Adulterae: A Floating Tradition? -- “One would think that after several years of these journal articles being published, this naive floating tradition argument would cease to be made.”
• The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition -- “Chris Keith is not a Textus Receptus advocate and does not even believe that the Pericope Adulterae is authentic, but he has demonstrated that the floating tradition argument is a baseless theory.” (will need Academia.edu account to read)
• Small Wonder -- “Flophouze Hotel, a member of Fayette Electric Cooperative, on Round Top’s outskirts, provides a stylish antidote to frazzled urban pilgrims who make the sub-two-hour trek from Austin, Houston or San Antonio.”
• Republic’s End -- “‘Many a manly cheek was wet with tears’ when the Texian flag was lowered for the last time.”
• How to Visit Cadillac Ranch in Amarillo, Texas -- The concept of Amarillo’s Cadillac Ranch on Route 66 is as simple as it is absurd: 10 perfectly lined-up Cadillacs sit in the desert, with their front ends buried in the earth.
• How the Book of Joel was Preserved -- “The doctrine of preservation falls within the issue of authority. If God’s word has been imperfectly preserved to any degree, it is lacking that much in authority.”
• How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology -- “Someone may call the Bible, the Word of God, but it no longer has the same authority as a book from God, because we are so unsure or uncertain about it.”
• Goodbye, NRSVue -- “I know not how this outrageous error happened, but I suspect the involvement of Dr. Jennifer Knust in the making of the NRSVue had something to do with it.”
• Doing Time -- “...in Brown County...the old jail looks more like a medieval fortress than a place to dive into history.”
• Buoyed by Vice -- “Unlike other infamous crime bosses of their era, the Maceos shied away from violence because it was bad for business.”
• A Revere of Our Own -- “In 1836, Katy Jennings rode west from her home in Bastrop to the tiny town of Waterloo (known today as Austin) to alert Texians that the Mexican army was coming...Katy was 10 years old.”
• A Critique and Caution About The Site kjvparallelbible.org, by Christopher Yetzer -- “Besides the confusion in the promotional language of the site, there are clear errors in the text as it is presented.”
• A Critical Apparatus of the Textus Receptus Tradition -- “There are three categories of variants that I compile…variants ‘of great significance’ or major variants that would be translatable…subtle variants (such as spelling) that ‘affect the sense,’ and…inconsequential variants ‘not of great significance’ and that do not ‘affect the sense.’”
• A Brief Working Definition of Postmodernism -- “The average community (and even the average church) is populated with people who believe that truth is relative and that answers for living are found in a variety of perspectives.”

King James Bible and Masons

Q. Did Sir Francis Bacon, a Freemason and a Rosicrucian, edit the King James Bible before it was released to the public? Why does the original 1611 KJV have Masonic handshakes in its artwork? Why is the KJV the Freemason’s Bible of choice?

A. The last question is answered simply. This is mainly because the King James Bible has been the Bible of choice for most English-speaking peoples for around 400 years. The second answer is rather simple as well, There is nothing in the 1611 Robert Barker artwork in the King James Bible that is distinctly Masonic. Handshakes and other symbols existed in print work before, beyond, outside, and apart from Masonry. The first question is answered in the negative. While there seems to be an effort of some Baconians to suggest otherwise, there is ample evidence about the original of the King James translation to reliably show that Sir Francis Bacon was not involved in translating, editing, or printing the new Bible translation of 1611. Whether Bacon was a Freemason or a Rosicrucian is questionable, but regardless, he did not edit the King James Bible before it was published.

These are persistent myths paddled about in writing, orally, and electronically, but myths they are. Myths (and conspiracy theories) about the King James Bible are often spread by anti-KJVOists. They should be dismissed as calculated but erroneous attempts aimed at tarnishing the status of the King James Bible. On the other hand, it may be that the Masonic claims, when made by Masons, intend to enhance the image of Masonry by associating the fraternity with the King James Bible. It is best to ignore ahistorical claims.

There are some who say that King James I himself was a Mason. However, the document produced to make and prove the claim did not even exist until long after his death. Most historians do not find the document or the claim credible. Whether or not King James was a Mason, that would not make the King James Bible a Masonic Bible. Neither does its use by Masons, Methodists, Mormons, and More make it their Bible. (What Masons think about James might help influence their using the King James translation in their lodges, but it does not go beyond that.) 

The King James translation stands on its on merit, aloof from all those who recommend or reject it, prefer it, read it, and quote it, or disown and complain about it.

The church consultation at Jerusalem

Acts 15:6-28 the church consultation at Jerusalem

Verse 6: “came together for to consider” The church had already heard a general report from Paul and Barnabus. Now they come together for a formal consultation. The “council” at Jerusalem is a commonly recognized terminology used to describe this meeting in Acts 15. However, this biblical council of the apostles, elders, and church at Jerusalem should not be confounded with later historical usage in a more technical sense, such as various ecclesiastical councils held as judicial proceedings.[i] Perhaps the use of terms like assembly, conference, or consultation would help relieve the confusion and conflation of the different events.

**

Which James? This James must be either the second James among the twelve apostles (the son of Alphæus; Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), or James “the Lord’s brother” (cf. Galatians 1:19; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 1:14). The other apostle James, brother of John, has been executed (Acts 12:2). The James mentioned in Acts 12:17 and 21:18 (and probably 1 Corinthians 15:7) seems to be the same person as the James in Acts 15. James identified as “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians (1:19; 2:9, 12) might be the best identification. He, Cephas (Peter), and John, are described as pillars in the church at Jerusalem.[ii]

** 

Verse 28: The decision and conclusion was not of man, but of God.[iii] “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” What seems good to the Holy Ghost should seem good to us.

The “Jerusalem Council” is not the “pattern” for associations and conventions, but it a pattern of brotherly consultation. It is the meeting of representatives of two churches, with good counsel for all. The church at Jerusalem corrected error taught by her members – “certain men which came down from Judæa … certain which went out from us” (verses 1, 24). The church at Jerusalem advised that her representatives were wrong, and informed others that a gathering of apostles and elders, with the whole church, corrected and condemned those errors.

---

[i] Such as the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and so on.
[ii] That this is James the Lord’s brother seems to be the current consensus. However, older commentators such as Calvin, Gill, Barnes, Ripley, et al. see him as James the son of Alphæus. Calvin accounts James of Alphæus and James the Lord’s brother as the same person, writing, “…I do not doubt but that he was son to Alphæus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent…”

[iii] The consultation at Jerusalem resolved the question of circumcision without any mention of or reference to the idea of baptism now standing in place of circumcision as the new covenant sign. Surely, were that a valid theological construct, baptism replacing circumcision should have been mentioned in this context.

Mississippi Sacred Harp

Sacred Harp Sings, by W. B. Allison

“Old Sacred Harp Singings,” of common occurrence in the comparatively early days of this region, were almost abandoned for a considerable period but in more recent years have been revived with great fervor. So marked is their return to popularity in the rural districts that, during the early summer, a singing is held within the territory contiguous to Meridian on practically every Sunday and some residents of the city, devotees of the older sacred music, make a practice of attending them all.

The name is derived from that of the song book or hymnal in general use, i.e., the “Sacred Harp,” a very old collection (a revision dated 1902 is generally accepted as few of the original books survive). “The Harp” and “Old Harmony” (Christian Harmony, published in 1873) are considered the only books appropriate for use at a real “Old Harp” singing.”

The old Liberty Church, three miles from Duffee, Newton County, has for a number of years held as an annual event, a Harp singing, on the second Sunday in June, and, as the traditions and conventions are carefully observed, their latest service may be considered as typical. Liberty Church is situated in an oak grove on top of a fairly high hill, allowing, on one side, an extensive view, but enclosed by woods on three sides, and, from it, a path descends steeply through the woods to a fine spring. The age of the church is uncertain but a former member states that he moved into the community and, with his wife, attended services there in 1871. The building is small, about twenty-five by forty feet, but, so great is the interest through the country round that a crowd of more than five hundred persons of all ages gathered to attend the service. The singing started at ten o’clock and continued without pause until twelve, when a recess was taken, and, for an hour, the invariable bountiful dinner was the center of attraction. At one o’clock the singers reassembled and continued with strong voices and unflogging zeal until nearly four o’clock.

There was not instrumental accompaniment. The singing is led by two, three or even four co-leaders who sound the key note and sing a chord in unison. The entire song is then run through in chorus, “by note,” after the method of the old country singing schools, now a thing of the past. That is, instead of using the words, each note is sung by syllable as—

 

Thereafter the number is sung through, words and music in the usual way but the complete formula is observed with each selection. The leaders are almost without exception most capable conductors who know their books by heart, after calling and singing through number after number from either book without so much as a glance at it. All parts are carried with the utmost accuracy and fervor, and it is indeed beautiful to see the rapt expression which comes upon the faces of many of the singers to whom music is truly a voice of and to the soul.

W. B. Allison was a researcher for the Works Progress Administration. On June 14, 1936, he attended and described a singing at Liberty Church in Duffee, Newton County, Mississippi. I believe the author W. B. Allison is probably this person – William Bartlett Allison.

The community of Duffee was first known as Liberty, as was the Baptist Church (i.e., Liberty Baptist Church). It was later called Rue, with a post office by that name existing from 1902 to 1906. In 1906, it was renamed Duffee for a railroad surveyor when a railroad was built through the community at that time. Duffee is about 20 miles northwest of Meridian, Mississippi.

A Place Called Mississippi: Collected Narratives, Marion Barnwell, editor. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1997, pp. 261-262.

Check your sources

Not long ago, Alex Suarez shared something he was looking at in Psalm 30, verse 8. The question presupposed the idea that the ALL CAPS or Small Caps of LORD / Lord in the Authorized Version of the Bible (King James) signifies the tetragrammaton (that is, is a translation of Jehovah).[i] In The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (p. 147), F. H. A. Scrivener writes: “Heb. Jehovah. The words ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are always intended to be printed in small capitals in the Authorized Version, when they are employed to translate that Holy Name.”[For more detail, see also my post Lord, Lord, and lord.)

Alex noticed the ALL CAPS (or Small Caps) feature in Psalm 30:8 in the Authorized Version for Lord (i.e., the tetragrammaton / Jehovah / Yᵊhōvâ) seemed to be wrongly placed.

Psalm 30:8 I cried to thee, O LORD (יְהוָה / Yᵊhōvâ); and unto the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy) I made supplication.

According to his source, it showed the second LORD in this verse to be a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. The text of the Authorized Version clearly has the same type-face for Lord both times.

This is a picture of the 1611 printing. It has Small Caps in both places.

Alex later reported that he ran across some other examples: 

• 1 Kings 3:15 “And Solomon awoke; and, behold, it was a dream. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy), and offered up burnt offerings, and offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants.
• Psalm 90:17 "And let the beauty of the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy) our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it."
• Isaiah 38:14 “Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward: O LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy), I am oppressed; undertake for me."
• Ezekiel 21:9 “Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus saith the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy); Say, A sword, a sword is sharpened, and also furbished:”
• Malachi 1:12 “But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD (אֲדֹנָי / 'ăḏōnāy) is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.”

These findings raised two questions in my mind.

1. Is this found using the same Hebrew text as used by the King James translators?
2. Is the “Caps” rule re Jehovah universal and consistent?

On the first, I did a check of Psalm 30:8 in the King James Bible at Blue Letter Bible. This site gives the corresponding original text  words beside the English words. Hebrew is not my forte, and I use this resource as a quick online check of original language words in the King James Bible. Having made the same finding as Alex, I moved on to think about the second.

On the second, particularly then, is there some rule or explanation somewhere that says LORD (ALL CAPS or Small Caps) always and only means Jehovah in the King James translation? It seems there is no statement by the translators themselves about this. It is an observation that has been made based on the text itself. I wondered if this might relate to translation rule # 1, which was about generally following the Bishops Bible. The 1602 Bishops had LORD in the same style both times in this verse. However, the answer was not to be found along these lines.

I found that I had too quickly accepted the reliability of my source at Blue Letter Bible, and did not follow up on the better explanation.[ii] However, David Stark, pastor at Grace Presbyterian Church of Redding, California, rescued us from our quagmire.

“Brethren, the Hebrew printed editions that the AV translators used had YHWH in all those places, and correctly translated it, according to the usage they chose, as LORD.

“The St. Petersburg Codex has ‘Adonai’ in those places. (Psalm 30:8; 90:17; 1Kings 3:15; Isaiah 38:14; Ezekiel 21:9 [21:14 in the Hebrew text]; and Malachi 1:12).

“It is always important to make sure you are looking at the actual text the AV translators used whenever you are checking their accuracy.

“From the Hebrew text they used, the AV is completely reliable in all those passages. (YHWH = LORD)”

David provided scans of a couple of examples from the Jacob Ben Chayim/ Daniel Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. These have (יְהוָה), not (אֲדֹנָי).

Psalm 30:8

Psalm 90:17

There are different readings behind LORD in different Hebrew texts. Sources must be carefully checked and confirmed, lest we find the wrong answer. I had not previously checked the underlying Hebrew text used in the Blue Letter Bible tools. I had falsely assumed that since this was the King James Bible then the Hebrew text would be that which matched the King James Bible. Wrong. Lesson learned. The hard way.[iii] 

This Hebrew text is a digital version of the Leningrad Codex developed by the Westminster Hebrew Institute and made available by The J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research. This version is based on the January, 2016 WLC v4.20 release.

Wiping the egg from his face, he passes along a lesson learned (actually two, I suppose).

• Always check your sources.
• Don’t just take the quick and easy source.

---

[i] Whether ALL CAPS or Small Caps seems to be a printer’s choice.

[ii] Even had I bothered to check on my shelf the print editions of Youngs and Strongs Concordances, the answer is there as well (apparently correctly following the underlying text of the King James Bible this instance).

[iii] They were not hiding it. I made assumptions and just have never bothered to check.

Forgetting those things which are behind

Inspiration teaches us to forget those things which are behind, to reach forth unto those things which are before, and press toward the mark. And well may it; for us, in the future only is achievement possible. The past will not come to us, nor shall we go to it. But to run well we must not run blindly, but intelligently. And as we know the future only by a study of the past, we must look back, in order to see ahead. Practical Wisdom ever lights her torch at the flame of history; thus he who best remembers “things which are behind” for instruction, best forgets them for attainment. This is clearly seen from the structure of Holy Scripture, in which historical record is dominant in influence and predominant in quantity. From out that book homely and lowly events, told in a plain and simple way, cast a guiding light for all the ages to come.

“Introduction,” G. D. B. Pepper, The Early and Later Delaware Baptists, Richard Briscoe Cook, Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1880, p. 5

Living By Faith

Living by Faith is a popular Southern Gospel song that has been part of our family and church tradition. It was not in our church songbook, but was included in several shape-note songbooks we used, such as New Songs of Inspiration and J. Bazzell Mull’s singing convention series. It is No. 668 in the more recent Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs by Melody Publications. 

The song has 4 stanzas of 11s.8s. meter, with an irregular meter refrain sung after each stanza. The music is structured in 6/8 time for the stanzas and changes to 12/8 for the refrain. The hymn follows the theme “the just shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). The author advises living by faith because the Lord is the ruler over everything. He loves us, and we can trust in him and his love. The text connects with many other scriptures, such as Proverbs 3:5 - “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”

1. I care not today what the morrow may bring,
If shadow or sunshine or rain,
The Lord I know ruleth o’er everything,
And all of my worry is vain.

Refrain:
Living by faith in Jesus above,
Trusting, confiding in his great love;
From all harm safe in his sheltering arm,
I’m living by faith and feel no alarm.

2. Tho’ tempests may blow and the stormclouds arise,
Obscuring the brightness of life,
I’m never alarmed at the overcast skies—
The Master looks on at the strife.

3. I know that he safely will carry me through,
No matter what evils betide;
Why should I then care, tho’ the tempest may blow,
If Jesus walks close to my side.

 
4. Our Lord will return to this earth some sweet day,
Our troubles will then all be o’er;
The Master so gently will lead us away,
Beyond that blest heavenly shore. 

The first three stanzas, the refrain, and the music, are by somewhat obscure persons. Robert Emmett Winsett (1876-1952), a well-known teacher, composer, and publisher of Gospel music, wrote the fourth stanza. It adds the forward look to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Living by Faith was first published in His Voice in Song (Robert E. Winsett, editor, Chattanooga, TN: Winsett Music, 1918).

The text of stanzas 1-3 and the refrain were written by James Sewell Wells, called by some the “printer-poet of Georgia.” Wells was born in Liberty Township, Pennsylvania November 11, 1872, the son of Chauncey Wells and Susannah Freer. Wells was living in Whitfield County, Georgia by 1910 and working as a printer. Around 1918 he married Annie Elizabeth Linder, and they had five children.

His jobs, based on the U. S. censuses and his World War I draft registration, were:

• 1910 Printer, Newspaper Office
• 1918 Printer, A. J. Showalter
• 1920 Printer, Office
• 1930 Type Setter, Printing Office
• 1940 Printer, Printing

His columns (such as “Little Light Lyrics” & “Verses of Victory”) appeared regularly in The Dalton/North Georgia Citizen newspaper. Later James Wells wrote a regular column in The Dalton Citizen called “The Corner Store Gossip.” It well demonstrated his knack for both poetry and humorous tall tales. In 1940, Hal M. Stanley of the Georgia Press Association wrote the following about Wells:

The Atlanta Journal, Sunday, December 29, 1940, page 5-D

In June of 1915, the Baptist Young People’s Convention came to Dalton. Wells wrote three stanzas as the official song of the convention, beginning “We come, a loyal band,” and intended to be sung to the same tune as used with “My Country, Tis of Thee/America” by S. F. Smith. See The Dalton Citizen June 10, 1915.

James Wells died in Dalton December 9, 1947, and he was buried at the West Hill Cemetery at Dalton in Whitfield County, Georgia. (A. J. Showalter is also buried here.)

The music of this song was written by J. L. Heath. He seems to be misidentified on sites such as Hymnary.org and The Cyber Hymnal. Thus far I have found nothing to commend Jesse Lindon Heath as the composer of this tune.

On the other hand, Julius Lawrence Heath (1862-1933) of Iredell County, North Carolina was a singing school teacher and composer. He had connections to the singing school Normals of his day, putting him in the same circles as Winsett, Showalter, and Wells. Based on available newspaper accounts, Heath’s career as a singing school teacher spanned from the mid-1880s to at least 1920. The report from his singing school at Bailey in 1912 mentions that he is a composer (The Mocksville Herald, Thursday, February 15, 1912, p. 2).

Julius L. Heath was the son of Milborn Heath and Mary Polly Walker. He married Nora Shields in 1892. He died in 1933 and they are buried at the Clarksbury United Methodist Church Cemetery at Harmony in Iredell County, North Carolina. The tombstone states, “They have gone to join the Heavenly Choir.”

Listen to the song HERE.

“Remember that we have no more faith at any time than we have in the hour of trial. All that will not bear to be tested is mere carnal confidence. Fair-weather faith is no faith.” C. H. Spurgeon

Some folks get, 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.)

“Some folks get exactly what they never wanted.” -- Unknown

“The wisdom of God will always steer you away from the foolishness of the world.” -- Shelton Smith

“If he who was without sin prayed, how much more it becometh a sinner to pray.” -- Cyprian of Carthage

“Salvation is not a reward for the righteous, but rather a gift for the guilty.” -- Adrian Rogers

“No man can teach if he is unwilling to be taught. Any gentleman who has ‘finished his education’ will never be an educator of others.” -- Charles H. Spurgeon

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” -- Anonymous, but said similarly by Jonathan Swift: “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.”

“Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be.” -- Thomas à Kempis

“Whoever is truly humbled will not be easily angry, nor harsh or critical of others. He will be compassionate and tender to the infirmities of his fellow-sinners, knowing that if there is a difference – it is grace alone which has made it!” -- John Newton

“There are a lot of modern text critical Faucis out there who are more than happy to tell us to wear our masks, get our shots, receive our Bibles, and don’t ask any questions about it.” -- Jeff Riddle

“The greatest proof that the Bible is inspired is that it has stood so much bad preaching.” -- A. T. Robertson

“In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart.” -- John Bunyan

“Hell is the truth learnt too late.”  -- From an Agatha Christie “Poirot” novel

“Old sins cast long shadows.” -- Old proverb

Hath God said?

“…hath God said?”

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

The first question recorded in the Bible is found in Genesis 3:1.

The serpent questions God’s word.

• Questions whether it is true.
• Questions whether it is good.

The serpent questions God himself.

• Questions God’s motive.
• Questions God’s nature.

First, the serpent questions the word of God, then he denies the word of God. By this pattern we can identify the work of the father of lies, “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.”

Acts 15 in relation to Galatians 2

The timing of Acts 15 in relation to Galatians 2

How Paul’s visit to Jerusalem as described in Acts 15 fits with his description of a visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is the matter of much excitement among commentators. “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.” Is this the same trip as the one in Acts 15? To what other period of time are the 14 years reckoned? How is this resolved?

The short answers are “yes” this is the same incident, or “no” these are not the same incidents. In some detail, we find from these comments of others:

“Yes.”

 Matthew Henry.

“With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years after the former (mentioned chap. 1.18), or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the death of Christ…If the journey here spoken of was the same with that recorded Acts 15. (as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went about.”

 John Gill.

“Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem,....That is, either after it pleased God to call him by his grace, and reveal his Son in him; or rather after he had been at Jerusalem to see Peter, with whom he stayed fifteen days, and then went into Syria and Cilicia; so that it was seventeen years after his conversion that he took this journey to Jerusalem he here speaks of; and he seems to refer to the time when he and Barnabas went from the church at Antioch to the apostles and elders about the question, whether circumcision was necessary to salvation, Acts 15:1 which entirely agrees with the account the apostle here gives of this journey…”

 Charles J. Ellicott

“Fourteen years after.—From what date is this fourteen years to be reckoned? The phrase ‘I went up again’ seems to be decisive in favour of reckoning it from the visit to Jerusalem just mentioned. We should therefore have to add the three years of Galatians 1:18, in order to reach the date of the Apostle’s conversion…In the meantime, it may be assumed that there appear to be sufficient reasons for identifying the visit to Jerusalem here described with that recorded in Acts 15…”

 A. M. Overton.

“Paul’s visit to Jerusalem [was] fourteen years after the incidents related in the closing part of the preceding chapter…What this ‘revelation’ was may be seen by a close study of Acts, 15^th chapter.”[1]

Conclusion of “yes” proponents: The alleged differences between what Luke writes in Acts 15 and what Paul writes in Galatians 1-2 are not differences in fact, but different emphases explained by their purposes in writing.

“No.”

 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Commentary.

“Calvin, however, and others identify the visit of this verse with that of Acts 11:30.”

 F. F. Bruce.

“...the Jerusalem conference of Gal. 2:1-10, the Antioch controversy of Gal. 2:11-14, and even the writing of the letter to the Galatians itself (to the churches whose foundation is recorded in Acts 13:48-14:23) antedated the council of Acts 15.”[2]

 Ben Witherington.

“Various factors point to an identification of the meeting mentioned in passing in Acts 11:30 and 12:25 with that recorded in Galatians 2...Notice that the incident in Antioch according to Paul in Galatians 2 is in fact over table fellowship, not circumcision. this comports with the earlier discussions recorded in Acts 10-11, but less well with the later discussions in Acts 15 where the circumcision issue is settled and a different kind of food and fellowship is discussed, namely, food and fellowship in pagan temples.”[3]

 Joe Morgado.

“…the evidence I have provided seems to show that Paul’s Jerusalem visits in Acts 9:26-30 and 11:30/12:25 can be identified respectively with his visits in Gal 1:18-24 and 2:1-10. Luke records three more visits of Paul to Jerusalem: (1) Acts 15, the council visit; (2) 18:22, where Paul visits the church after his second missionary journey; and (3) 21:17, where Paul brings an offering to the church after his third missionary journey and is arrested and imprisoned in Caesarea. None of these three correspond to the visits in Galatians.”[4]

 Conclusion of “no” proponents: The alleged differences between what Luke writes in Acts 15 and what Paul writes in Galatians 1-2 are differences in fact, indicating the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2:1 does not correspond to the visit to Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Comparing and contrasting Acts 15 and Galatians 2

                        Acts 15                                                Galatians 2

Third visit (Acts 9:26; 11:30,12:25)   | No third visit mentioned

Problem, reason for going (15:2)        | Problem after arrival (2:3-5)

            Sent by church (15:2-3)                      | By revelation (2:2; cf. Acts 11:27-29)

            Public discussion (15:6ff)                   | Private meeting (2:2)

            Circumcision and salvation (15:1,5)   | Table fellowship (2:11-13)

            Focus on James’s resolution (15:19)  | James’s resolution unmentioned

            Paul a minor participant (15:12)         | Paul a primary participant (2:1-9) 

“I went up again” in 2:1 seems to be a reference back to a prior visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 1:18.[5] Without a presupposition in favor of Acts 15, the comparison of 2:1 and 1:18 would normally and simply be taken as the next (therefore, second) visit Paul makes to Jerusalem. The second visit of Paul to Jerusalem, according to the book of Acts, occurs as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, 12:25. The events of Galatians 2:11-21 strike an odd chord if they track with Acts 15 or follow after the conclusion of the consultation (cf. Acts 16:4). The influence of the Judaizers in Galatians is much more understandable if occurring before the decision of the church in Acts 15 rather than after it. In Galatians 2, Paul calls the opposers “false brethren.” In Acts 15, Luke calls the opposers “Pharisees which believed.” Also, Galatians 2:10 “remember the poor” is also more consonant with the purpose of the Acts 11 visit than the Acts 15 visit. This further better explains why Paul does not refer the Galatians to the decision of the consultation in Jerusalem – it had not taken place at the time he was writing to the Galatians.

At this time in the historical record in the book of Acts, Paul visits Jerusalem three times – the first visit is mentioned in Acts 9:26ff, the second is to bring famine relief from Antioch to Jerusalem and Judæa (Acts 11:27-30), and the third is for counsel with the Jerusalem Church on the matter of circumcision and the law of Moses (Acts 15).

---

[1] Studies in Galatians, A. M. Overton, page 21.
[2] The Book of Acts, F. F. Bruce, page 283.
[3] Acts of the Apostles, Witherington, page 93. Witherington gives an extended comparison in “The Galatian Chronological Data,” in the “Introduction,” pp. 88ff, as well as in the comments on Acts 15, pp. 439ff.
[4] “Paul in Jerusalem,” Joe Morgado, Jr., JETS, page 68. https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-1/JETS_37-1_055-068_Morgado.pdf
[5] επειτα (“Then after,” “Afterwards,” “Then…after”) is used three times relating a timeline in Paul’s story – Galatians 1:18, 1:21, and 2:1. These are his first visit to Jerusalem, his departure from Jerusalem to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and his second visit to Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Titus.