10 things related to the Bones of Peter

Roman Catholics and non-Catholics have debated about whether Peter is buried in Rome, or whether he ever went to Rome. Catholics see proof of such a claim as support for their idea of Peter as the first pope. Non-Catholics believe that the absence of Peter's bones in Rome weaken the Roman Catholic claims. In actuality, there are two different debates. The physical/historical fact of Peter being in Rome, if in fact he was, would not prove the existence of the papacy or that he was the first pope. Whether Peter's bones are in Rome is an archaeological and historical debate. Whether he was the first pope is a biblical and theological debate.

Archaeological/Historical
The biblical evidence for Peter being in Rome is scant. Taken overall, if he were there it is not likely he spent much of his time there.  Yet historical tradition favors the idea that Peter went to Rome and was martyred under Nero. There is a claim that the tomb (and bones) of Peter have been identified. Much of this is set forth in John Evangelist Walsh's The Bones of St. Peter. On the other hand, a reviewer of this book wrote that it "unintentionally describes the rough treatment of the investigation, its poor planning and commission, the ineptitude of some participants and the shear, disquieting lack of professionalism." Certainly the discovery of Peter's bones in Rome was not without bias! Whether Peter traveled to Rome is attested in history and tradition, but cannot be proven biblically.

1. Paul is silent with respect to Peter being in the city of Rome. Covering quite a period of years, Paul wrote one letter to the church in Rome, and at least five written from Rome (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and II Timothy). In these letters to the church at Rome or writing from Rome to others, Paul never mentions Peter. (Yet both Paul and Peter mention one another in one letters.) In his last days, only Luke was with him (II Timothy 4:10-11).
2. The letter to the disbursed Hebrews was written from Italy (Hebrews 13:24). Peter is not mentioned. (I list this separately because of disagreement whether this epistle was written by Paul.)
3. Paul’s journey to the city of Rome is recorded by Luke in Acts 27 and 28 without any mention of Peter.
4. Peter was an apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:7-8) and Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13). The city of Rome is a Gentile city. (This does not mean Peter could not have gone there, but only questions whether he would have extended his stay there permanently.)
5. The word "Rome" occurs only nine times in the English New Testament -- Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14,16; Romans 1:7,15; 2 Timothy 1:17. Peter is never mentioned in connection with it. But in I Peter 5:13 Peter tells us that he wrote that letter from the city of Babylon. In "Was Peter in Rome", Catholic Answers magazine states that "Babylon is a code-word for Rome" and points out this kind of use in the writings of early Fathers. I agree that "Babylon" does often stand for Rome in the Scriptures (cf. Revelation 17:5)

In 1968 Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) officially declared the tomb of Peter had been conclusively identified. This probably settles the issue for Roman Catholics. But if Peter were not the first pope, Pope Paul VI didn't speak ex cathedra and this remains an open question for non-Catholics.* For those answers we look to the Bible.

Biblical/Theological
While Peter's life and death in Rome (or not) may prove interesting historically, it is not crucial to the issue of whether the papacy was instituted by Christ. This should be settled not by history or tradition, but by God's revelation through His inspired apostles and prophets.

1. Peter was married (1 Corinthians 9:5; Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38). Popes take the vow of celibacy. 
2. The Roman Catholic Church misinterprets Jesus' promise of Matthew 16:18-19, believing that the church is built on Peter and that he has divine authority above all others. Regardless of one's interpretation of these verses, it must be fairly acknowledged that whatever power is given to Peter in Matthew 16 -- the power of binding and loosing -- is equally distributed to all the apostles in Matthew 18:15-20. This is fact, is given to all the church (v. 19-20).
3. Latecomers may view Jesus distributing exclusive power to Peter, but the apostles did not understand such an occurrence to have transpired. They continued to strive over who should be the greatest (cf. Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 9:33-34; Luke 22:24). Jesus did not resolve the issue by referring back to any occasion in which He made Peter the greatest. Rather He gave an example of Gentile hierarchy and plainly stated it should not be so among them (cf. Matthew 22:25-28; Luke 22:25-27).
4. The New Testament does not emphasize Peter as a supreme leader. At the council in Jerusalem, Peter does not speak ex cathedra, that is, from the chair for the church** above any of the others (e.g. Paul, Barnabas, James) and final decision is made by the apostles and elders, with the whole church (Read Acts chapter 15). In Acts 11 Peter had to give account to the church at Jerusalem for his preaching to the Gentiles. In a weak moment for Peter in Antioch, Paul withstood him to his face (Galatians 2:11-14). It seems odd, too, if Peter were pope, that the Bible would give a greater historical account of the ministry of Paul, and include a much greater body of his work in its inspired oracles.
5. The Roman Catholic Church sets up a division in the body of Christ based on leaders, contrary to I Corinthians 1. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you...” This was on account of the church divided into following men. “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:10–12). Setting up Peter in authority and following his successors to the exclusion of others amounts to saying, “I [am] of Cephas.” For this the Corinthians were rebuked.

This is very little biblical weight behind the idea of Peter living at and entombed in Rome. "It is only after the emergence and evolution of the state-church on the heels of the legalization of Christianity by Constantine, and the proclamation of Christianity as the official state religion by Theodosius, that the role and influence of the Bishop of Rome as titular head of the Catholic Church began to be consolidated." On the other hand, the grand weight of scriptural evidence denies the possibility of an authoritative Peter who was head of "The Church".

* For opposing versions of this, see Was Peter in Rome and Tracing the original tombs.
** "...its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: 'We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.'"

For St. Patrick's Day

Church History: What Did the Real St. Patrick Do?

More quotes

"You don't have to tell all you know, but you'd better know all you tell." -- copied

"If Christ is the head of his body, then everything else is just body, including the pastor." -- Paul Tripp

"I made a point of adopting certain unmarketable positions. I'm a televangelist with a blacked-out tooth—so if something happens, it's God's work." -- Doug Wilson

"Many denominations have so emphasized the professional side of ministry that they have ordained some people with numerous talents but little or no understanding or sense of call in the Pauline sense of the word. The result is that some flocks get fleeced instead of fed." -- Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, p. 216

"Bent on attaining a certain desired object, the energy of the flesh has been given free rein; and supposing that the object was right, evangelists have concluded that nothing could be wrong which contributed unto the securing of that end." -- A. W. Pink

"There are three types of people in the world -- believers, unbelievers, and make-believers." -- copied

Why Marriage Matters - Ryan Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson has written an insightful piece on why marriage matters, and some of the consequences of redefining it as something other that what it has been and is. In his abstract, Anderson writes:

"Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role."

Read the entire piece HERE.

Catholics have a new papa

As God rained on St. Peter's Square, cardinals blew smoke and announced "Habemus Papam!"* Now the Roman Catholic Church has a new pope. By the time you read this news it won't be news. Most will already know; the saga of papal selection has dominated the news since Pope Benedict XVI stepped down at the end of February.** Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76-year-old archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina and papal runner-up to Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger in 2005, is the church's Pope Francis -- after St. Francis of Assisi. This pope sets a number of firsts. He is the first named Francis, the first non-European pope of the modern era, the first from South America/Latin America, and the first Jesuit pope. He was chosen to replace the first pope to resign in 600 years, and might possibly be the first pope with only one lung (due to a childhood illness).***

There is plenty of news available, reported with awe and mysticism. Rather, I want to take this brief opportunity to point out to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear -- all the trappings of Roman Catholicism, from Popes to Purgatory, Mariolatry to Mass, Images to Indulgences, Lent to Limbo and Transubstantiation to Tradition, are antithetical to the simple faith of the New Testament as taught by Christ and spread by His apostles. Which faith have you?

* Habemus Papam (Latin) means "We Have a Pope" in English. It is the announcement given by the senior Cardinal Deacon after a new Roman Catholic pope is elected.
** Hopefully news will continue to flow freely, as Pope Francis begins to lead a Roman Catholic Church diminished by sex abuse scandals and claims of infighting in the church hierarchy.
*** A list of popes can be found HERE. This list appears to be an authoritative from a RCC standpoint, though there was no Catholic-style pope in apostolic times and for at least 400 years after the apostles.

Reading around the web

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

A.W. Pink on Worship
Come Ye Sinners Poor and Needy
Digital Stress and Your Brain
Gadsby’s Hymns: an Introductory Selection
How Hospitality Reflects Your Grasp of the Gospel
How Movies Teach Our Kids about Gender
On Public Criticism via Social Media
Paul’s Rebuke of Red-Letter Christians
Present Day Evangelism
The Greatness of Grace
Two Rival Religions? Christianity and Post-Christianity
Vast majority of Christians tip at or above the normative percentage

4 Approaches to God's Revelation to John

...and other eschatology.

If you're like me, you may tend to tend to view eschatology -- the final or end-time events of the history of the world -- as falling into the categories of amillennialism, postmillennialism and premillennialism. And then there is and pessimillennialism and panmillennialism. :-)

Another way of approaching eschatology and the book of Revelation are the interpretations of historicism, preterism, futurism, and idealism. The 3 millennial views may be sorted out variously among these and are not coterminous with any of them.

The historicist approach interprets the Book of Revelation as a record that spans history from the time of the apostles to the end of the world, or from Christ's first advent to His second coming. Some fulfillment is past, some is in progress and some is yet to come. The events have been unfolding for about two thousand years and will continue to do so until the end of time. Well known historicists include Martin Luther, Isaac Newton, Matthew Henry, and Albert Barnes. This approach seems to be a minority view today, but one can see a combination of historicism and futurism in the Bible commentary of C. I. Scofield -- especially his conflation of the seven churches of Asia representing the seven periods of entirety of church history. 

The preterist approach interprets the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as having occurred in the past -- either all (preterism) or most (partial preterism) of them. The events happened not long after John’s own time and are often associated with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Examples of preterist views can be found in books such as Is Jesus Coming Soon by Gary DeMar and The Days of Vengeance: an Exposition of the Book of Revelation by David Chilton.

The futurist approach interprets the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as await future fulfillment -- either all or almost all of them. Almost everything after the first verse of the fourth chapter is expected to occur in a few years before the return of Christ.  The futurist approach has existed since the earliest centuries of the church, and finds wide contemporary representation among premillennial proponents such as Arno Gaebelein, Norman Geisler, H. A. Ironside, John MacArthur, Henry M. Morris, Charles Ryrie, and John Walvoord.

The idealist approach is a spiritual or symbolic approach to interpreting the book of Revelation. It does not look for single or individual historical or future fulfillment of the visions. Rather it takes Revelation to as a drama of recurring spiritual conflicts played out in human history until the return of Christ, in which Christ and His saints emerge victorious. Its symbols express abiding principles regarding the conflict between good and evil. More Than Conquerors: an Interpretation of the Book of Revelation by William Hendriksen (Baker Books, 1998) provides a scholarly representation of the idealist approach.

These approaches tend to be mutually exclusive, but some students of Revelation blend them into what might be called an eclectic approach. Proponent of eclecticism include George Eldon Ladd (A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972)), Gregory Beale (The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) and Grant Osborne ( Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, 2002). Despite their eclecticism, one approach is usually emphasized heavily above the others.

In the news

The following links are to items that are in the news or have been in recent months. These represent random sources where I ran across them. To get a more well-rounded view of these events, check out other sources and reports.

A Warped Worldview: Another Moral Effect of Pornography
Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist, last surviving member of anti-Hitler plot, dies at 90
Five Reasons Why Christian Ministry Majors Still Need Seminary
Food fraud in America: What are you really eating?
Jewish museum in Poland unveils synagogue roof
Man’s NASCAR headstone banned by church; widow sues
Religious Parents' Divorce May Cause Children to Leave the Church
Teaching Intelligent Design Goes on Trial in Ohio
Top contenders to be the next pope
Utah judge OKs plan to create board to oversee redistribution of polygamous sect property
7 inspiring stories of stray dogs saving perfect strangers

Finishing Well

II Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Luke 14:28-30 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

The Christian life is more like a 26-mile marathon than it is like a 100-yard dash. In a sense "starting well" is not nearly as important as "finishing well". How often do we see those succeeding in the middle of life's race? They sprint out far ahead of all others. They may be placed on a pedestal to admire -- an example to aspire to. But how soon fades the beauty? What, when the pedestal comes crashing down? In the long run, the tortoise may outlast the hare. Genuine faith in Christ perseveres to the finish line.

Many biblical characters teach us lessons on going the distance and finishing well, both positively and negatively. Today I think of three.

A New Testament era disciple named Demas is mentioned three times in the Bible. In those three times we catch a glimpse of a man who began well, but did not finish. In the 24th verse of the book of Philemon, along with Marcus, Aristarchus and Lucas, Demas is mentioned as a fellowlabourer right alongside of Paul. When Paul wrote to the nearby Colossian church, he mentioned Demas to them as one who with Luke sent greetings (Col. 4:14). Our final view of Demas comes in Paul's final epistle, his near-death letter to Timothy. It is a sad look, at one who did not finish well -- "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world" (II Tim. 4:10). Demas, a man who co-laboured with Paul, soon found that he loved the world more than he loved God. He did not persevere to the finish line.

Caleb is a fine Old Testament example of one who not only started well, but finished well, too. Caleb was one of 12 spies that Moses sent into the land of Canaan to bring back a report of it to the people. He was one of only two spies who maintained a godly report. While 10 spies forbid it, Caleb said of the land, "Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it" (Num. 13:30). With Joshua, he became one of only two people over 20 years old who would eventually enter this land. Flash-forward 45 years. Israelites have wandered in the wilderness 40 years. They've spent 5 years conquering the land of Canaan with Joshua as their leader. Caleb is now 85 years old. He does not slink back from the task he urged his people to take on 45 years earlier. He still believes the God he served in the past has the same power in the present. By military conquest he takes possession of the land of Hebron which God gives him and his family. Caleb goes the distance and finishes well (Joshua 14:6-15; 15:14).

At this point you may be discouraged. Are the only two options starting well & finishing well, or falling by the wayside and not crossing the finish line? What if I am a sputtering in the middle of the race? Is there hope? Enter a disciple named Mark to instruct us further.

Mark, also known as John or John Mark, was a young man whose discipleship apparently extended before the crucifixion of Jesus but not all the way back to the baptism of John. He was a nephew of Barnabas, the itinerant preacher who traveled with Paul from Antioch. Mark had traveled with them from Jerusalem to Antioch, then went with them when they left Antioch for regions beyond (Acts 13:5). But not far into the journey, Mark left them and went home to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Mark not only didn't go the distance, he inserted a source of contention between Barnabas and Paul. When they intended to go again and visit the churches they has started, Barnabas was determined to take Mark once again. Because he turned back from the previous journey, Paul was just as determined that Mark would not go. Each went his own way!

Paul, despite his strong opposition, and Mark, despite his lack of persistence, both learned that a "messed-up middle" does not have to keep one from finishing well. Immediately after Paul told Timothy about the departure of Demas, he spoke to him of the return of one who had departed -- John Mark. "Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." II Timothy 4:11. This young disciple was even chosen of God to pen one of the gospel accounts, the 2nd book in our New Testament. 

Those who do not run well in the middle stages are not necessarily destined to fall by the wayside. By the grace of God they just start running again and go the distance, finishing well!

Let us run the race that is set before us. Run with patience. Run with our eyes on Jesus.

The End of All Debate

“Addison Baker (Baptist) and Thos. Quarles (Methodist) lived on Kingdom Come Creek, in the commonwealth of Kentucky. They got into a controversy on infant baptism, and grew exceedingly warm. Baker advanced an argument that he considered unanswerable by his Methodist opponent, but he was in error. Quarles whipped out a pistol and shot Baker dead.”

* The above record is found in Burnett’s Budget, March 15, 1905, a paper published in Dallas, Texas by a preacher in the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement, T. R. Burnett. Though I have not found it elsewhere, it appears that this is an historical record and not just humor. Kingdom Come Creek is an area in Letcher County, Kentucky. Burnett went on to write that “If that is the way they discuss the question in Kentucky, we do not wish to do any debating in that state. When Rev. J. C. Weaver reaches the argumentum ad pistolum in our present discussion on infant baptism, we expect to adjourn the debate.”

---

Note: I have since found this in a number of newspaper blurbs. These papers report the name of Mr. Baker as “Alphonse” or “Alphonso” rather than “Addison,” which probably explains why I did not find it sooner. For example (below) the Kentucky Advocate (Danville, Kentucky) Monday, January 16, 1905, p. 1.

Three junior poems

I'm calling these "junior poems" because I wrote them as a junior in high school in 1975. I've kept them all these years, and thought I would pass them along on the blog.

Toil is tedious,
Unless
Flavored with fun.
Fun is frivolous
Without
Work well done.
------------------
The boat rotted
as it waited
to be boarded.
------------------
The world is wondering
what will be done.
Our wisdom's wandering
down in the dung.

In the news

The following links are to items that are in the news or have been in recent months. These represent random sources where I ran across them. To get a more well-rounded view of these events, check out other sources and reports.

Appeal filed in Ayers ruling
Applebee’s waitress gets her own stolen driver’s license shown for ID
Arkansas Passes the Most Restrictive Abortion Law in the U.S.
Billion-Dollar Giveaway to the Muslim Brotherhood
Canadian Supreme Court ruling on hate crimes and free speech
Jailed American Pastor Describes Iranian Jail ‘Horrific’ And ‘Unbearable’
“Loan Ranger Bandit” robbing banks across Texas
New York Man Summoned to Court for Laughing Too Loud
North Korea threatens nuclear strike on U.S.
Pew Forum abortion survey
Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby
Union Grove ISD to allow select teachers, administrators to be armed on campus

The age of electronic friendship

Once upon a time we read in our Bibles statements such as "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly" and "A friend loveth at all times." In the new age of electronic friendship it seems to be "to have friends a man must be on Facebook" and "one may be friended and unfriended at any time."

Computers and electronic media are wonderful tools, but have we fully considered the implications of "electronic friendship"? Just what is it, if it is anything at all?

According to the urbandictionary.com, electronic friendship is a "friendship that is defined by communication ONLY via electronic devices. i.e. AIM, facebook, myspace, text messages, etc." Furthermore, this type of friendship generally does not even include phone calls. Such friendships are most common among high school and college students and help exlude the awkward moments of contact face-to-face.

Before the advance of social networking media, a friend was a person that you actually knew -- came in contact with face-to-face -- with whom there was an attachment of mutual affection and personal regard. Now we click the "Add Friend button" on someone's profile and instantly we are friends. No fuss; no mess. It's true, electronic friendships go bad, but all you have to do is choose "Unfriend." No fuss; no mess. Real face-to-face friendships are much more fussy and much more messy. Are they worth it? Yes!

The age of electronic friendship is not going away anytime soon. Let's use what is good in it and leave off the bad. Let's not abandon the "face-to-face" and let's not be the couple seated across the table in a restaurant, each ignoring the other while "talking" to friends via text, twitter, and twenty ways to Tuesday. The sympathizing tear, the hand of fellowship, the firm embrace, the holy kiss and sweet communion are best experienced warmly and in person.

Proverbs 18:24 A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Proverbs 17:17 A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.

Curfew Must Not Ring Tonight

In the 17th century when Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector of England, a young soldier named Basil Underwood was tried in military court and sentenced to death. His fiancée pled with Cromwell for her lover's life, but to no avail. The execution was set to take place at the “ringing of the curfew bell.” However, at the set time the bell did not sound. The soldier’s fiancée had climbed into the bell tower. She clung to the bell’s clapper to prevent it from sounding. Cromwell's soldiers investigated and found the young woman cut and bleeding from being knocked back and forth against the great bell. When summoned by Cromwell to account for her actions, she wept as she showed him her bruised and bleeding hands. Cromwell’s heart was touched with sudden pity and his eyes lit with misty light. He replied to the young lady, “Your lover shall live. Curfew shall not ring tonight!”


The poetess Rose Alnora Hartwick Thorpe (1850-1939) immortalized the story when she was only 16 years old, writing “Curfew Must Not Ring Tonight.”

Slowly England's sun was setting o’er the hilltops far away,
Filling all the land with beauty at the close of one sad day;
And its last rays kissed the forehead of a man and maiden fair,--
He with steps so slow and weary; she with sunny, floating hair;
He with bowed head, sad and thoughtful, she, with lips all cold and white,
Struggling to keep back the murmur, "Curfew must not ring to-night!"

"Sexton," Bessie's white lips faltered, pointing to the prison old,
With its walls tall and gloomy, moss-grown walls dark, damp and cold,--
"I've a lover in the prison, doomed this very night to die
At the ringing of the curfew, and no earthly help is nigh.
Cromwell will not come till sunset;" and her lips grew strangely white,
As she spoke in husky whispers, "Curfew must not ring to-night!"

"Bessie," calmly spoke the sexton (every word pierced her young heart
Like a gleaming death-winged arrow, like a deadly poisoned dart),
"Long, long years I've rung the curfew from that gloomy, shadowed tower;
Every evening, just at sunset, it has tolled the twilight hour.
I have done my duty ever, tried to do it just and right:
Now I'm old, I will not miss it. Curfew bell must ring to-night!"

Wild her eyes and pale her features, stern and white her thoughtful brow,
As within her secret bosom, Bessie made a solemn vow.
She had listened while the judges read, without a tear or sigh,
"At the ringing of the curfew, Basil Underwood must "die.
And her breath came fast and faster, and her eyes grew large and bright;
One low murmur, faintly spoken. "Curfew must not ring to-night!"

She with quick step bounded forward, sprang within the old church-door,
Left the old man coming slowly, paths he'd trod so oft before.
Not one moment paused the maiden, but with eye and cheek aglow,
Staggered up the gloomy tower, where the bell swung to and fro;
As she climbed the slimy ladder, on which fell no ray of light,
Upward still, her pale lips saying, "Curfew shall not ring to-night!"

She has reached the topmost ladder, o'er her hangs the great dark bell;
Awful is the gloom beneath her, like the pathway down to hell.
See! the ponderous tongue is swinging; 'tis the hour of curfew now,
And the sight has chilled her bosom, stopped her breath, and paled her brow.
Shall she let it ring? No, never! Her eyes flash with sudden light,
As she springs, and grasps it firmly: "Curfew shall not ring to-night!"

(Clinging to the ponderous tongue, Bessie muffled its sound with her hands as she hung suspended beneath the bell swinging to and fro.)

Out she swung,-- far out. The city seemed a speck of light below,--
There twixt heaven and earth suspended, as the bell swung to and fro.
And the sexton at the bell-rope, old and deaf, heard not the bell,
Sadly thought that twilight curfew rang young Basil's funeral knell.
"Still the maiden, clinging firmly, quivering lip and fair face white,
Stilled her frightened heart's wild throbbing: "Curfew shall not ring tonight!"

It was o'er, the bell ceased swaying; and the maiden stepped once more
Firmly on the damp old ladder, where, for hundred years before,
Human foot had not been planted. The brave deed that she had done
Should be told long ages after. As the rays of setting sun
Light the sky with golden beauty, aged sires, with heads of white,
Tell the children why the curfew did not ring that one sad night.

O'er the distant hills comes Cromwell. Bessie sees him; and her brow,
Lately white with sickening horror, has no anxious traces now.
At his feet she tells her story, shows her hands, all bruised and torn;
And her sweet young face, still haggard, with the anguish it had worn,
Touched his heart with sudden pity, lit his eyes with misty light.
"Go! your lover lives," said Cromwell. "Curfew shall not ring to-night!"

Wide they flung the massive portals, led the prisoner forth to die,
All his bright young life before him. Neath the darkening English sky,
Bessie came, with flying footsteps, eyes aglow with love-light sweet;
Kneeling on the turf beside him, laid his pardon at his feet.
In his brave, strong arms he clasped her, kissed the face upturned and white,
Whispered, "Darling, you have saved me, curfew will not ring to-night."

Thorpe's poem derives from Lydia Sigourney's story "Love and Loyalty", which appeared in Peterson's Magazine in September, 1865. Albert Smith's earlier 1842 play, Blanche Heriot, or The Chertsey Curfew, is a quite similar story but with different characters.

Get plenty of rest

I try to not miss a chance to complain, at least once in the year, about the obligatory government-ordained clock changing ritual. So here goes.

Everybody get plenty of rest in the days leading up to this weekend. On Sunday morning at 2:00 a.m. you'll need to get up and run your clock forward one hour. Since you'll be losing an hour of sleep, try to make it up elsewhere.

Music quotes, the devil's tunes

Did John Wesley ask, "Why should the devil have all the best tunes?" That, or "the devil has no right to all the good tunes" has been variously credited to John Wesley, George Whitfield, Charles Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, William Booth, and who knows who else. In a sermon at Surrey Chapel in London in 1844, Rowland Hill is said, "The devil should not have all the best tunes."

Regardless, a Baptist writing in 1867 thought one of the Wesleys said it, and agreed to a certain extent. Yet he thought there were plenty of tunes that ought to be left with him! (The devil, not Wesley.)

"With Wesley, we do not see why the devil should have all the best, but we must say many tunes have crept in to worshipping assemblies and Christian families, which ought to have been restricted to him and his." -- The Voice of Truth; or, Baptist Record, January 1867, p. 17

12 reasons for the Church Before Pentecost

12 reasons I believe that there was a church in existence before the day of Pentecost

These reasons may seem fairly simplistic, but it doesn't take too much to satisfy a simple mind like mine!*

1. The church is referred to before Pentecost, both by the word "church" (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) and by its figurative names - flock, bride, house, etc. (Luke 12:32, cf. I Pet. 5:2; John 3:29, cf. Eph. 5:22-31; Mark 13:33-36, cf. I Tim. 3:15).
2. The English word "church" is a translation of the Greek word "ekklesia", which means a called-out assembly. Jesus disciples were both called-out and assembling with Him before the day of Pentecost (e.g. Matt. 4:19; John 1:35ff).
3. Apostles were set in the church (I Cor. 12:28) before Pentecost (Matt.10:1,2; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:13).
4. Ordinances were instituted and observed before Pentecost (John 4:1,2; Matthew 26:26-30).
5. John the Baptist prepared a people ready for the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:17), not for the day of Pentecost. Mark 1:1ff. indicates the gospel age began with John's ministry.
6. The church was commissioned before Pentecost: first the limited commission of Matt. 10:1-4 and then the extended commission of Matt. 28:18-20.
7. Jesus sang in the church before Pentecost (Heb. 2:12; Matt. 26:30).
8. The last days refer to the church age, and the last days were in existence during Jesus' ministry (Heb. 1:2).
9. There was church discipline before the day of Pentecost (Matt. 18:17).
10. The church had a business meeting before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-26).
11. The Lord added to the church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41-27), so there had to exist a church for people to have been added to it.
12. There is no reason to suppose that the church could not exist with her visible Head present. Nothing in scripture says the church was or had to be started on Pentecost.

* Possibly the one thing that isn't simple enough to suit everyone is that in this view there is some chronological time overlap of the Old and New Testaments/Covenants.

5 John Newton Quotes

Best known as the author of the hymn "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound," John Newton was a prolific writer with amazing output -- not only many other hymns, but also theology, journals, letters and sermons. Here is a small taste of other things that John Newton wrote.

"Though we say this world is vain and sinful, we are too fond of it; and though we hope for true happiness only in Heaven, we are often well content to stay longer here on earth. But the Lord sends afflictions one after another to quicken our desires, and to convince us that this world cannot be our rest. Sometimes if you drive a bird from one branch of a tree he will hop to another a little higher, and from thence to a third; but if you continue to disturb him, he will at last take wing, and fly quite away. Thus we, when forced from one creature-comfort, perch upon another, and so on. But the Lord mercifully follows us with trials, and will not let us rest upon any; by degrees our desires take a nobler flight, and can be satisfied with nothing short of Himself; and we say, 'To depart and be with Jesus is best of all!'"

"I allow that every branch of gospel truth is precious, that errors are abounding, and that it is our duty to bear an honest testimony to what the Lord has enabled us to find comfort in, and to instruct with meekness such as are willing to be instructed; but I cannot set it my duty, nay, I believe it would be my sin, to attempt to beat notions into other people’s heads."

"You say, ‘I have aimed to displease the Arminians’, I had rather you had aimed to be useful to them, than to displease them. There are many Arminians who are so only for want of clearer light. They fear the Lord, and walk humbly before him.  And as they go on, by an increasing acquaintance with their own hearts and the word of God, their objections and difficulties gradually subside.  And in the Lord’s time (for he is the only effectual teacher) they receive the doctrines of grace which they were once afraid of.  These individuals should not be displeased by our endeavouring to declare the truth in terms the most offensive to them which we can find, but we should rather seek out the softest and most winning way of encountering their prejudices. Otherwise we make a parade, and grow big with a sense of our own wisdom and importance, but we shall do little good. Our Lord you know taught his disciples as they were able to bear it, he did not aim to displease them thought it is pretty plain they had a good deal of the Arminian spirit in them for some time after they began to follow him. You will perhaps say, ‘An humble Arminian! Surely that is impossible.’ I believe it not more impossible to find a humble Arminian, than a proud and self-sufficient Calvinist. The doctrines of grace are humbling, that is in their power and experience, but a man may hold them all in the notion, and be very proud. He certainly is so, if he thinks his assenting to them is a proof of his humility, and despises others as proud and ignorant in comparison of himself.  I believe you mean well, but some things you have written against the Arminians manifest that you have not been aware of your own spirit. " (from a letter to John Ryland, Jr.)

"How highly does it become us, both as creatures and as sinners, to submit to the appointments of our Maker! and how necessary is it to our peace! This great attainment is too often unthought of and overlooked; we are prone to fix our attention upon the second causes and immediate instruments of events; forgetting whatever befalls us is according to his purpose, and therefore must be right and seasonable in itself, and shall in the issue be productive of good. From hence arise impatience, resentment, and secret repinings, which are not only sinful but tormenting; whereas if all things are in his hand, if the very hairs of our head are numbered, if every event, great and small are under the direction of his providence and purpose; and if he has a wise, holy, and gracious end in view, to which everything that happens is subordinate and subservient;- then we have nothing to do, but with patience and humility to follow as he leads, and cheerfully to expect a happy issue. The path of present duty is marked out; and the concerns of the next and every succeeding hour are in his hands. How happy are they who can resign all to him, see his hands in every dispensation, and believe that he chooses better for them then they possibly could for themselves!" (3 paragraphs in the original)

Christ crucified
1. When on the cross the Lord I see,
Bleeding to death for wretched me,
Satan and sin no more can move,
For I am all transformed to love.
2. His thorns and nails pierce through my heart,
In every groan I bear a part;
I view his wounds with streaming eyes;
But see, he bows his head and dies!
3. Come, sinners, view the Lamb of God,
Wounded, and dead, and bathed in blood!
Behold his side, and venture near,
The spring of endless life is here.
4. Here I forget my cares and pains;
I drink, yet still my thirst remains;
Only the fountain-head above,
Can satisfy the thirst of love.
5. Oh, that I thus could always feel,
Lord, more and more thy love reveal!
Then my glad tongue shall loud proclaim
The grace and glory of thy name.
6. Thy name dispels my guilt and fear,
Revives my heart, and charms my ear;
Affords a balm for every wound,
And Satan trembles at the sound.

5 Books for Further Reading
John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace, Jonathan Aitken, Crossway, 2007
Letters of John Newton, Selected by Josiah Bull, Banner of Truth, 2007
Olney Hymns: In Three Books, On Select Texts Of Scripture; On Occasional Subjects; On The Progress And Changes Of Spiritual Life, John Newton and William Cowper, 1779 (There are numerous reprints of Olney Hymns)
Out of the Depths: the Autobiography of John Newton, John Newton (1725--1807), edited by Dennis R. Hillman, Kregel Publications, 2003
Wise Counsel: John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland, Jr., edited by Grant Gordon, Banner of Truth, 2009

The Anvil of God's Word

...the word of the Lord endureth for ever... 1 Peter 1:25

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out you know."
And so, thought I, the anvil of God's Word,
For ages skeptics blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed--the hammers gone.

By John Clifford (apparently the English minister John Clifford, 1836-1923)

Criminal Minds Season 8 Episode 15

On Wednesday Feb 20, NBC aired the Criminal Minds* episode "Broken". It featured a homosexual serial killer suffering from an identity crisis. He loves men and cannot love women the way he feels he should. So he kills his sexual partners. Parallel to the plot is the condemnation of the horror of conversion therapy -- an effort to convert or change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. "Broken" may not refer to the homosexual character, but to the fact that misguided therapy has ruined his psyche. There is an effort to blame the therapy rather than the serial killer, and in the end viewers may even be drawn into sympathetic association with the killer. FBI agents are mortified by the conversion camp and know it must be even more horrendous than they can even imagine. Finally they discover the ostensibly Christian camp uses physical abuse, drugs and forced heterosexual sex therapy as part of their conversion methods. One fan praised the episode for "shedding light on the darkness of so-called fix 'em camps." I expect such a camp is mostly Hollywood fantasy that produces more heat than light.

I am not a proponent of "conversion therapy". It sounds like just one more of the many shady psychiatric treatments that has been foisted on a gullible American people. On the other hand, the American Psychiatric Association promotes many vague and unnecessary psychiatric treatments, while condemning conversion therapy. Why? Because it is "based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." There's the catch. It's not really the "conversion" they object to, but that they believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's still alright to analyze, therapize and convert alcoholics or fat people -- maybe even hoarders -- even if they were born that way, since society says these things are bad. (Pity the poor fat people; it's always OK to skewer them for any reason or no reason.)

Criminal Minds’ episode "Broken" is one example of the continual Hollywood bombardment against Christian moral beliefs. A belief is caricatured and the caricature then demolished. One down; another to go. Intellectually stimulating shows such as Criminal Minds probably do more damage than the mindless fodder of such offal as The Simpsons or Family Guy.

In keeping with the Bible and centuries of Christian moral teaching, I believe that homosexuality is a sin -- regardless of what Hollywood or the APA says. It is a sin of extra-marital sex and defilement of God's natural creation order (man & woman). Homosexuality is one of many sins perpetuated by depraved sinners. It is not the only sin. Conversion therapy is not the answer to that or any other sin. An experience with God and conversion by the Lord Jesus Christ is necessary for us all.

*Criminal Minds is a "procedural thriller about the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, which profiles criminals to solve crimes."

From Mohler to Hendricks to KJV translators

“The written word can do what the spoken word simply cannot do—sit flat on a page and demand attention.” -- Al Mohler

“People tell me they want to make the Bible relevant. Nonsense. The Bible’s already relevant. You’re the one that’s irrelevant!” -- Howard G. Hendricks

"It is amazing how much light the Bible shines on commentaries." -- Howard G. Hendricks

"The Scriptures we are commanded to search...If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege, Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures..." -- The King James translators, 1611

3 positives of the King James Bible, and a 4th

Many online writings that I have found in favor of the King James Bible are diatribes against modern Bible versions and offer little in the way of positive promotion of the KJV or helpful suggestions to the reader of the KJV. There is also a plethora of “anti-KJV” material readily available. In previous posts I have looked at the accuracy of the “ye’s & thou’s,” sought a little clarity on verb endings, and considered the use of archaic language. This post will be more generic praise of the positive attributes of the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is founded on historic texts. The Old Testament is from the Jacob ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text. Jacob ben Chayyim, a Jewish Rabbi, published this text in 1524.[1]  This text is sound and comparable to other Hebrew texts. According to James D. Price, “The differences between the Bomberg Ben Chayyim edition and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the text used with most modern translations) are microscopic.”[2] Variations between translations more often are introduced from other sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Syriac Peshitta. The New Testament is from the Textus Receptus. According to Daniel B. Wallace, “when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable.”[3]   

The King James Bible is an accurate translation. Years ago I remember finding a book in Bible Book Store that trashed the KJV Bible as the worst translation ever. Those who write and repeat such nonsense must either have no clue what they are talking about or have an agenda of promoting some other Bible. Nevertheless, the translators who gave us the King James Bible were well qualified academically -- their language expertise and ability was exceptional. These translators believed in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. This is recognized even by modern scholars who prefer other translations. Today there are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts preserved and available (fragments, uncials, cursives).[4] These provide greater support of the Textus Receptus/KJV readings. The major variations in modern translations arrive from the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

The King James Bible follows a proven method. The method of the King James translators was verbal or formal equivalence (as opposed to dynamic equivalence).[5] Because of differences between original and receptor languages, all translations combine some degree of formal and dynamic equivalence.  But different versions may commit strongly to one over the other. A comparison of First Timothy 5:10 provides a good example of the difference of the two methods.

Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. [KJV, showing formal equivalence]

and have a reputation for good deeds: a woman who brought up her children well, received strangers in her home, performed humble duties for other Christians, helped people in trouble, and devoted herself to doing good. [Good News Translation, showing dynamic equivalence]

The Good News Translation is an apt example of preferring dynamic equivalence over a “word-for-word” translation. The Greek text contains the words for “wash” and “saints” and “feet” [ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν] but the translators chose to follow what they believed was the intention rather than the actual words.

Some peripheral issues

The King James Bible is important to the English language. It was instrumental in standardizing the language. It also provides a common bond between its readers around the world. It underlies the meaning of many common things we say. It contributes a musical and poetic quality to our language (and contributes to the music and poetry of our language!). Much could be said along these lines which might be of interest. But these are more “niceties”; the larger concern is the Bible as the reliable word from God.

KJV Bible readers should not feel subordinate or inferior to the reader of modern Bible versions. They should not be embarrassed to ask for a KJV Bible when the book store clerk tries to shoo them on to something else. They have a reliable translation of the Word of God. It was reliable in its beginning and is still reliable today. They need to be diligent in study of the Word and have the Spirit of God to lead them into all truth.

---

[1] It is also known as the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible.

[2] Price, now retired, was Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Temple Baptist Seminary, and executive editor of the Old Testament for the New King James Version (Thomas Nelson, 1982).

[3] Wallace is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX. He also writes that “over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree.”

[4] Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256

[5] Though language scholars may attach more nuanced or technical meaning at times, these terms are commonly used to mean a “word-for-word” translation (formal, translating the meanings of individual words and more or less in their syntactic sequence) versus a “sense-for-sense” translation (dynamic, translating the meanings of phrases and sentences).

Archaic words

One recurring complaint against the King James Bible is that is contains many archaic words. That is something of a misnomer. While many of these accused words may not be commonly spoken today, they are not “archaic” in the sense usually intended – no longer in use, obsolete or outmoded. They may be considered archaic in its definition “surviving chiefly in specialized uses.” These archaic words might be considered “in specialized use” but they are certainly and definitely used on a regular basis in English-speaking churches around the world where the King James Bible is read, studied and preached. And my “NEA Crossword Puzzle” expects me to know the meaning of words such as “anon” whether or not I use them in speech regularly!

A companion complaint to archaic words is the presence of words whose meanings have changed.* Daniel B. Wallace claims “300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning.” This is again something of a misnomer. Rather than the word no longer bearing the meaning used in the KJV, more likely is that its most common use is no longer the meaning most commonly used in the KJV. Wallace gives as examples “suffer” (permit) and “study” (be diligent). The meaning in the KJV may not be the first meaning moderns think of when they hear the word, but my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary supports the changed meanings. Suffer means “to allow” (# 4) and study means “endeavor/try” (# 3) – substantially the same definitions given by Wallace which have “changed”. My modern dictionary even tells me that “prevent” means to “arrive before” or “go before” (Cf. I Thess. 4:15).

Words that do not mean what we expect them to mean cause us difficulty in reading and understanding the Bible. I do not ignore that; I have experienced that. But part of being diligent in studying the word of God is to study words and their meaning. This is true whether it is words in a Bible first printed in 1611 or a Bible that has just been translated and made available to the readers. It isn't hard to look up an old word in a good dictionary. All words we don’t understand need to be looked up in some dictionary!

The Oxford English Dictionary is a wonderful tool. It is the largest unabridged dictionary of the English language and especially helpful in ferreting out multiple and changing word meanings. Yet most good basic dictionaries will give definitions that correspond to the meanings of “archaic” words found in the King James Bible. In addition many Bibles have footnotes or marginal readings that are helpful, calling attention to archaic words or words whose meaning has changed.

Though Daniel Wallace and I will not agree on the best texts and best translations, I unreservedly agree when he writes, “The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem.” This is the first great problem of understanding the Scriptures, for they are spiritually discerned. Changing words may address a person’s intellectual problem, but it cannot address his or her spiritual problem!**

It is true that the King James Bible contains words that are not used much in everyday speech or that are not often used in the way the KJV uses them. It is not true that these must keep one from understanding the Bible. Rather than frighten the KJV reader (who wants to be a KJV reader) towards a modern translation, a valid option is to direct them toward the help they need.

* “Archaic” and “changed meaning” are two different issues, though they might seem one and the same without due consideration.

** Since each individual suffers from different language and knowledge difficulties, it is endlessly impossible to try to accomplish a fix with a new translation of the Bible. It would take a unique Bible for each individual. Rather than falling into this never ending cycle, better that many individuals work together to solve their problems from one common translation.

*** If we were to follow the train of thought used concerning the Bible – that something should not be written with words that some people cannot understand – we could not intelligently write or read much of anything.