Charity in the King James Bible

The word “charity” is used 28 times in 24 verses in the King James Bible. It is only used in the New Testament, and does not appear in the Old Testament (or the Apocrypha). In every case the translators reserve it in context of the love Christians have or ought to have, using the English word “love” more broadly.

I recently read where someone suggested that the use of “charity” by the King James translators was driven by Rule # 3, that “The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept.” This is incorrect. “Charity” was not the “old ecclesiastical word” of the 1540 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1568 Bishop’s Bible, or the 1559 Book of Common Prayer. These Bibles commonly use “love” where “charity” is found in the King James translation. The Book of Common Prayer prints 1 Corinthians 13 with love rather than charity. “Charity” was a change apparently first made in the 1572 Bishop’s Bible.

Rather then, this choice seems correlated with Rule # 1, to generally follow the Bishop’s Bible and that it be “as little altered as the Truth of the originals will permit.” The 1568 Bishop’s Bible almost always had the word “love,” but by 1572 had been changed. All 28 uses in the King James Bible correspond exactly to the use in the 1602 Bishop’s Bible, which is the Bible the translators had before them when they were working on the translation.

---

Note: I found that there are people online who claim the change from “love” to “charity” in the Bishop’s Bible is a nod to “ecclesiastical language” – not the ecclesiastical language of the Church of England, but rather the “ecclesiastical language” of Jerome of Stridon’s Latin translation of the Bible, specifically his use of “carita/s” in the Vulgate. I do not find this convincing. Jerome used carita/s over a hundred times in his translation, even some places in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. (The Douay-Rheims has nearly 100 instances of the English word “charity.”) Rather, I believe that the particular context is the reason for using “charity” in these 28 places; that is, in these cases the translators (Bishops & KJV) reserve it in context of the love Christians have or ought to have, as opposed to love in a more general or generic sense.

Left thy first love

Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Preaching on the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2, Brother Ben Horn of Middle Cross Baptist Church pointed out out that the word “left” indicates that the church at Ephesus did not just depart from her first love carelessly, but departed willfully.

Sometimes we misplace things and cannot find them. That is lost, carelessly. Sometimes we place things somewhere, know where they are, and do not want to take them up again. That is left, willfully.

Calvary

Death and Eternity, by Isaac Watts

1. My thoughts, that often mount the skies,
Go search the world beneath,
Where nature all in ruin lies,
And owns her Sovereign, Death.[i]

2. The tyrant, how he triumphs here,
His trophies spread around!
And heaps of dust and bones appear
Through all the hollow ground.

3. These skulls, what ghastly figures now!
How loathsome to the eyes!
Those are the heads we lately knew
So beauteous and so wise.

4. But where the souls, those deathless things,
That left this dying clay?
My thoughts, now stretch out all your wings,
And trace Eternity!

5. O that unfathomable deep!
Those deeps without a shore!
Where living waters gently creep,
Or fiery billows roar.

6. Thus must we leave the banks of life,
And try this doubtful sea:
Vain are our groans and dying strife
To gain a moment’s stay.

7. There we shall swim in heav’nly bliss,
Or sink in flaming waves,
While the pale carcass thoughtless lies
Amongst the silent graves.

8. Some hearty friend shall drop his tear
On our dry bones, and say,
“These once were strong, as mine appear;
“And mine must be as they.”

9. Thus shall our mould’ring members teach
What now our senses learn:
For dust and ashes loudest preach
The infinite concern.

The above hymn, in 9 stanzas of common meter, was published in Horæ Lyricæ by Isaac Watts. It was not in the 1706 Edition, but was added in 1709. See Horæ Lyricæ, pages 28-30, Book 1. For a little more on Isaac Watts, see HERE. (Fuller biographies of Watts are easily found online.)

In The Sacred Harp (page 300), the fist stanza of Watts’s above text appears with the tune Calvary by Daniel Read.

Daniel Read was born November 16, 1757 in Rehoboth, Massachusetts, the son of Daniel Read and Mary White. He grew up on a farm there, but moved to and settled New Haven, New Haven County, Connecticut in 1782. Here he married Jerusha Sherman (in 1785), ran a general store, made combs, composed music, and taught singing schools. He is considered a key figure in early American music, being part of the “First New England School” of musicians –also known as the “Yankee Tunesmiths.” Various sources assert that Read was the third American composer to publish a collection of his own music, in 1785, known as The American Singing Book. Read later also published The Columbian Harmonist and The New Haven Collection of Sacred Music. He wrote in 1790 An Introduction to Psalmody to instruct and encourage hopeful new composers.

Eleven tunes by Read appear in the 1991 Denson Edition of The Sacred Harp, and five in the 2012 Cooper Edition of The Sacred Harp. Some of his best-known compositions include Windham, Stafford, and Sherburne.

Daniel Read died at age 79 on December 4, 1836. He and his wife are buried at the Grove Street Cemetery in New Haven, Connecticut.

See “Daniel Read complains, gets even” for an excerpt from a letter from Daniel Read to Jacob French in which he complains about Isaiah robbing and republishing his works in the Worcester Collection of Sacred Harmony (1786). The book Music in the USA concludes: “Ironically the ‘pirating,’ or unauthorized borrowing by other tune-book publishers, made it possible for Read’s music to survive.” For example, “‘Greenwich’ was published 82 times in Read’s own era.” (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 73)

---

[i] In the first stanza “owns” (3rd person singular present tense of “own”) seems to be used primarily in the sense of “acknowledging” or “admitting” rather than “possessing.” The searched and examined state of nature recognizes or testifies that “death” is her sovereign.

Why Not Grandchildren, 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.

• Why Not Grandchildren? An Argument Against Reformed Paedobaptism -- “The right of the remotest generation was as much derived from Abraham and the covenant made with him, as was that of his immediate seed...”
• Uneasy Riders -- “ The team had just seen TV news footage of an EF5 tornado crossing I-35, right smack dab in the middle of our route...”
• Tragedy on the Prairie -- “Just outside the small town of Groesbeck, east of Waco, tucked between cow pastures and the Navasota River, stands an old wooden fort...”
• The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy – re: The King James Only Controversy by James White -- “In other words, White is ‘inconsistent’ and has a ‘double standard.’”
• Stop Misusing Tyndale -- “Translating into English does not by default mean translating for the most ignorant English reader in the country.”
• South Poles -- “Texas is a patchwork of cultures, accents and traditions. Thanks to the Polish Heritage Center, one of our more overlooked threads is finally getting the spotlight it deserves.”
• Poor and Misleading Translation in the New International Version -- “…the NIV’s changes … obfuscate the original text and make it unfairly difficult for readers to consider other interpretations, (2) other translations generally avoid making such changes, and (3) they usually appear to be theologically motivated.”
• Phillippi Primitive Baptist Church, Schley County, Organized in 1835 -- “...the little sanctuary still stands, a reminder of another era that feels both distant and near.”
• Ologies, Isms, & Ations -- “A list to give brief descriptions of different beliefs and doctrines regarding the Bible and other non-Biblical religions and belief systems.”
• Methods in Sermonizing -- “An old book we used many years ago.”
• John Wycliffe’s Bible: Correcting a False Narrative -- “It’s often claimed that translations of the Bible into the vernacular languages of medieval Europe weren’t really opposed within the church because there are a few examples of such translations prior to the Reformation.”
• Galvanized by the Gospel -- “By the 1820s, Baptists had become bitterly divided over the issue of missions.”
• First London Confession (Read by Audiobook Narrator David K. Martin) -- “This narration was done for those interested in learning more about the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith.”
• Fast and Curious -- “Nineteen hummingbird species have been recorded across Texas. In summer breeding months, the two most common species are black-chinned hummers in West Texas and ruby-throated hummingbirds in East Texas.”
• Canaanite Child Sacrifice, Abortion, and the Bible -- “May we repent and turn from any semblance of cooperation with the modern day cult of Molech, and hear and apply the command of the Spirit of Christ through Paul: Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness...”

Nice

complacency, noun. A feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.; inclination to please; complaisance.

There is a large problem of complacency – in Sacred Harp, in the churches, and in our country. One part of this is that we have created a societal value of “nice” (which intersects with outsized tolerance) and we have placed it above love and truth. We ought to be nice (amiably pleasant; kind), but somehow “nice” has become the highest goal for many. A way to illustrate and emphasize this is to think of two people asleep in their home and the home catches on fire. Our societal version of “nice” is like saying, “Oh, but I don’t want to bother them, they are asleep.” So, instead, we just let them burn to death! That’s actually not nice.

• Ephesians 4:15 …speaking the truth in love…
• 1 John 3:18 …let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Be not many masters

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

James warns aspiring teachers to not undertake that calling lightly. The teacher is a sinner like his students (v. 2) and will incur a stricter judgment (v. 1).

The Pulpit & Pen Christian Discernment Archives on Facebook often posts clips from vile and heretical “sermons,” in order illustrate the dung and mire into which so-called preaching in the United States has sunk. For example, on Monday August 24 they posted a link to an article about a United Methodist impastor in Alabama, detailing how the Bible is full or errors, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions. “Pastor” Gilbert said, “…The Bible is full of contradictions, and that’s to be expected…” going on to compare the Bible to Aesop’s Fables. This reveals the debased level of garbage that enters the American ear from American pulpits.

This is a disgusting display of multiplying words without knowledge, a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. However, Bible-believing preachers ought not be lifted up with pride, but rather mourn. We ought to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and also consider our own selves, lest we be deceived. While believing the word itself, we may be preaching self-indulgence, self-satisfaction, and just plain self. Bible-believing preachers often appropriate the culture, accentuate the comedy, and appeal to the crowd rather than following the simple biblical directive, “Preach the word.”

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

• Preach the word with confidence – because it is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
• Preach the word with diligence – because with must answer to God (2 Timothy 4:1, 5).
• Preach the word with influence – because unsettled times come (2 Timothy 3:11; 4:3-4).
• Preach the word with incentive – because a crown awaits (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

The Apostle Junia?

I recently reviewed the book A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. About the same time, I had a Facebook acquaintance argue that the plain reading of Romans 16:7 is that Junia (and Andronicus) were apostles.[i] This friend did not make much of a defense of his position, simply restating several times that “of note among the apostles” meant they were apostles.[ii]

Romans 16:7 (Greek and English).

• 1894 TR: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν Χριστῷ
• UBS: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ.

• KJV: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
• RSV: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

The issue in Greek (TR vs. CT) is Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine).

Paul is addressing [You (all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints)] directing them (among all the other greetings) to salute Andronicus and Junia. He describes these two as “my kinsmen” (apparently related in the flesh), “my fellowprisoners” (having suffered persecution for the faith),[iii] “of note among the apostles” (two who are notable to the apostles), and “in Christ before me” (having been in the faith longer than Paul).[iv] The relative clause describes two people, Andronicus and Junia. Who are they and what are they? They are “of note.” Of note where? Of note “among the apostles.” Neither this sentence nor this clause means that Andronicus and Junia are apostles.

Neither the grammar nor the definitions of the words prove that Junia was an apostle. A plain reading of the Bible shows that Paul did not write, “Andronicus and Junia are notable apostles.” Instead, he was inspired to write that they “are of note among the apostles.” The expression is not the one which would have been used if they had been apostles. What the expression “of note among the apostles” means is that were well-known to the apostles. It is also worth considering that the word “apostles” is masculine plural (ἀποστόλοις, dative masculine, plural), grammar not fitting with Junia being part of the group.[v]

 

Brief information on the name.

In the Greek text, a difference of accent distinguishes between this person being a man or woman – Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine, Junia) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine, Junias).[vi] So, as we have it in the King James Bible, this is the name of a woman. The name itself is rare in Greek – the masculine form being even rarer than the feminine form.[vii] Some translations have (apparently) opted to remove the “difficulty” by changing Junia (feminine) to Junias (masculine).[viii]

Considering “of note” and “among.”

• Of note – (εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι) well-regarded, prominent, important, well-known, deserving distinction. 
• Among (ἐν) – meaning can be situated in, surrounded by, with, a part of, in contact with

• Inclusive use – “among” means a part of the body of the apostles
• Exclusive use – “among” is comparative to but not included in the body of the apostles

An example of exclusive use is found in Euripides’ Hippolytus (line 103), where the goddess Aphrodite is “prominent among mortals,” – although she is not a mortal. Exclusive use of “among” is not odd or unusual.

ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (exclusive or inclusive)

• 2 Peter 2:1 among the people ἐν τῷ λαῷ (exclusive and inclusive)
• 1 Peter 2:12 among the Gentiles ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (exclusive, they vs. you)
• Acts 15:22 among the brethren ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (inclusive)
• Matthew 2:6 among the princes ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν (uncertain)
• Mark 5:3 among the tombs ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν (exclusive)

Some history.

According to various sources, the early church writers thought Junia was a woman (as well as later writers).[ix] See, for example, Origen (ad Romanos), Ambrosiaster (ad Romanos), Jerome (Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ad Romanos), Theophylact of Ohrid (ad Romanos), Peter Abelard (ad Romanos), and Peter Lombard (ad Romanos).[x]

Final thoughts.

The debate about Junia/Junias and the apostleship is, in my opinion, a demonstration of just how far feminists are willing to stretch to Bible to make it say what they want it to say. There are some difficulties with this passage. It should be interpreted in the light of clear passages, and not made to walk on all fours. Our King James English translation can be trusted in both identifying Junia as a woman, and in not addressing her (or Andronicus) as an apostle.

---

[i] He was only arguing about Junia because he wanted to prove there was a female apostle. Whatever is true of Junia in this verse is also true of Andronicus. Andronicus were probably husband and wife, or brother and sister. Paul considered them kinsmen according to the flesh.

[ii] In a past writing on the apostles, I included “Andronicus and Junia” in a list of other possible apostles – not because I think they were, but because I was listing all the possibilities that different students consider on the subject.
[iii] Philemon 1:23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; (cf. Colossians 1:7; 4:10-12).
[iv] Early disciples, before Paul was converted. Likely they were converted elsewhere and then later moved to Rome.
[v] In the case of the masculine use for “kinsmen,” it would be used whether this was two men, or a man and a woman – that is, the plural form used to include both male and female persons is nevertheless grammatically masculine. That is in a different part of the structure of the sentence, though, from the use of “apostles.”
[vi] That is, in the Romans 16:7 passage, the name Junia is in the accusative case.
[vii] See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993, pp. 737-738.
[viii] For example, see ASV, DRA, NASB1995, RSV, RV.
[ix] There is more involved in the appeal to the church fathers than some (on either side) have suggested. For example, the evidence of Origen comes from the Latin translation by Rufinus. The manuscripts of Rufinus are not consistent, where some give the name as Junias and some Junia. Epiphanius believed Junias was male and the bishop of Apameia (Index Discipulorum from Epiphanius of Salamis). I am not saying that the name is masculine; I think Junia was a woman. However, those who appeal to the church fathers need to admit that there is no universal agreement among the church fathers about this verse. One interpretation of Origen on the phrase in Romans 16:7 was that Andronicus and Junia might have been among the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1) sent out by Jesus, then at the least implying he thought this was a man. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Origen wrote, “When Mary the prophetess spoke, she was the leader of some women; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, and I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man. And also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made certain concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse.” This tends to suggest that Origen thought Junias was a man, and those manuscripts are accurate representations of what he wrote.
[x] In many cases, it is not necessarily that they commented, but simply that they used the feminine form of the name in their writings/commentary. Of these, it appears that John Chrysostom thought Junia was both a woman an apostle (In epistulam ad Romanos). Some editor at Wikipedia (which loves to promote leftist liberalism) has misrepresented the writings of Bernadette Brooten to claim that all early patristics thought Junia was an apostle. According to the editor, Brooten “points to additional early Christian commentators, all of whom gave no indication of doubt that the epistle referred to Junia and that she was a woman and an apostle.” This is not correct. The accurate fact in the article is that Brooten points to Chrysostom believing Junia was a woman and an apostle. The most that can be derived from the other writers is that they took the name as feminine. B writes, “John Chrysostom was no alone in the ancient church in taking the name as feminine…In fact to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.” (“Junia … Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7), Bernadette Brooten, Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, Arlene and Leonard Swidler, editors. Paulist Press: Ramsey, NJ: 1977, p. 141).

Spell and Sherwin

In June of this year, Pastor Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church in Central, Louisiana was arrested, charged with 2nd-degree battery, posted bond, and then went home. It was reported that Pastor Spell is supposed to be back in court on September 15. It will be interesting to see what is the outcome. Many Christians have sided with Pastor Spell, but it is unclear that all that he has claimed can be established.

If you choose to, you can watch the video of the altercation between Pastor Tony Spell and the Sherwin man who lives across the road from the church. Pastor Spell runs across the street, looks angry. The Sherwin man has probably shouted something at him. Sherwin has a phone in his hands, but he does not have a weapon. The reports indicate the Sherwin family and Pastor Tony Spell have been involved in an ongoing feud. As the pastor comes close, Sherwin hits at or tries to hit Pastor Spell. Spell quickly takes him down and is striking him repeatedly. It is obvious from the video that within seconds Sherwin is subdued and then there is no threat. If one existed, it is over. It is not continuing. After that point Pastor Spell is not protecting (and the video shows no one there for him to protect); he is not neutralizing; he is not stopping a threat. He is just pounding on Sherwin. This appears to be angry retaliation or revenge. That distinction must be recognized. Pastor Spell even adds a kick to the head in conclusion. I do not know all the facts, and I have an initial tendency to root for the guy who is older and a preacher. Strength and protection are good traits. However, strength must be tempered with wisdom and know when how to stop.

The protection of others is a biblically justified response. Revenge is not. The neutralizing of a threat can be justified biblically. Continuing to inflict unnecessary harm to a subdued foe cannot. I think what is seen in the video goes beyond what is biblically justified. Perhaps more facts will come out in court.

Free Speech in the Real World

“If you’re in the real world, you have to live the consequences of what you say. Online, you don’t. You can separate your opinions from your fate. (That’s a good way of thinking about it.) So there’s nothing really that keeps you on track. There’s no responsibility commensurate with our right to free speech. And I think that probably enables the psychopaths, because people can get away with saying anything. You might say, that’s okay because people have a right to free speech. But if you’re actually dealing with a person who is right there in front of you, no one can get away with just saying anything. There are all sorts of explicit and implicit rules governing the conversation. All of that is lifted in the virtual space, and I’m afraid that enables people who are psychopathic and narcissistic. It probably also tilts people who use those platforms toward narcissism and psychopathy.”

Jordan Peterson on “Travis Interviews the World”