In other words, ana to xeno

• anadiplosis, noun. Rhetorical repetition at the beginning of a phrase using the word or words with which the previous phrase ended.
• brinkmanship, noun. The art or practice of pushing a dangerous situation or confrontation to the limit of safety. especially to force a desired outcome.
• claustrophobic, adjective. Relating to or suffering from claustrophobia, a fear of narrow or confined spaces.
• dispositive, adjective. Relating to or determining the outcome of a case or decision.
• froyo (also fro-yo), noun. (Informal) Short for frozen yogurt.
• imbroglio, noun. A difficult or intricate situation; an entanglement; a confused heap.
• ignominy, noun. Disgrace; dishonor; public contempt.
• infamy, noun. Extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act.
• interlocutor, noun. A person who takes part in a conversation or dialogue.
• inveigh, verb. Speak against in an impassioned manner; complain bitterly.
• jaggery, noun. A coarse, dark sugar, especially that which is made from the sap of East Indian palm trees.
• janiform, adjective. Two-faced; resembling the god Janus, having two faces looking in opposite directions (also Janus-faced).
• mellifluous, adjective. Sweetly or smoothly flowing; sweet-sounding; flowing with honey.
• osmosis, noun. A subtle or gradual absorption or mingling; (Science) the diffusion of fluids through membranes or porous partitions.
• palaver, noun. A conference or discussion; a parley or conference between persons of different cultures; idle chatter.
• repatriate, verb. To restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship.
• superfluous, adjective. Being more than is sufficient or required; excessive; overflowing; unnecessary.
• tamalada, noun. A tamale-making get together or party.
• xenophobic, adjective. Suffering from xenophobia, a fear of strangers or foreigners.

Parallels between Adam and Noah

Interesting commentary.

Parallels between Adam and the Original Creation and Noah and the Re-Creation.

The Flood defaces the original creation headed by Adam and cleanses the earth for its re-creation headed by Noah. Warren Gage notes striking parallels between the prediluvian and postdiluvian worlds, making Adam the father of all humanity and Noah its father in the postdiluvian world. (1) Both ‘worlds’ are created out of a watery chaos in closely parallel acts (see phases of re-creation below). (2) Both Adam and Noah are uniquely associated with the ‘image of God,’ ‘in the Adam narrative as the basis of man’s identity and in the Noah narrative as the basis of man’s protection’ (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-3). (3) Both ‘walk with God’  (3:8; 6:9). (4) Both rule the animals: Adam by naming (2:19), Noah by preserving (7:15). (5) God repeats almost verbatim his commission to be fruitful, to multiply, and to rule the earth (1:28-30, 9:1-7). (6) Both work the ‘ground’ (cf. 3:17-19; 9:20). (7) Both follow a similar pattern of sinning, the former by eating and the latter by drinking (3:6; 9:21). (8) The immediate result of their sin is shameful nakedness (3:7; 9:21), connected with ‘knowing’ (3:5; 9:24) and being clothed by another (3:21; 9:23). (9) Both have three named sons (4:1-2, 25; 6:10). (10) As a remote result from Adam's sin, judgment falls on all; from Noah’s, a curse on Canaan. (11) Among their three sons is judgment and hope, division into elect and nonelect. The conflict between the seed of the Serpent (i.e., the curse-laden Cainites) and the seed of the woman (i.e., the Yahweh-worshiping Sethites), is now carried on between the cursed seed of Canaan and the seed of Shem, whose God is the Lord. In addition, in both halves of the Prehistory (books 1-3 and 4-6), human disobedience impinges on the heavenly sphere and God responds using the first-person plural (‘like one of us’; ‘let us’; 3:22; 11:7), and alienation is part of his judicial sentence (from the Garden of Eden and from Shinar; 3:24; 11:9; cf. 4:12).”

Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: a Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001, pp. 127-128.

[Note: Waltke’s commentary says that his parallel list is a modification and supplementing of Gage’s parallels, p. 127).]

Seven progressive phases of renewing creation in Noah’s day parallel the first week of creation.

Precreation

• 1:2 earth, deep, Spirit, waters
• 8:1b-2 wind, earth, waters, deep

Day 2

• 1:6-8 waters, firmament (sky)
• 8:2b heaven (sky)

Day 3

• 1:9 water, dry land, appear
• 8:3-5 water, tops of the mountains, seen (appear)

Day 5

• 1:20-23 fowl, above the earth (in the open firmament, sky)
• 8:6-12 raven, dove, off the earth (no need to renew water creatures)

Day 6

• 1:24-25 living creatures, cattle, creeping thing, (wild) beasts
• 8:17-19 every living thing, fowl, cattle, creeping thing

“the appearance/reappearance of the nuclear family”

• 1:26-28 man, image of God, male and female
• 8:16, 18 Noah and his wife
• 9:6 man, image of God

The blessing of God on his family/creation

• 1:28 blessed, be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, subdue it (rule…every living thing)
• 9:1-2 blessed, be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, fear and dread on every living thing

Waltke, pp. 128-129

Acts 26:30-32

30-32 the verdict rendered

Verses 30-31: After Paul expresses his desire that Agrippa and all under the sound of his voice were in the same position as he, except for being in custody. Agrippa, Bernice, Festus, and the others present went aside and conferred about Paul’s case. The conclusion is the same as it has been: “This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.” Not only has he done nothing to deserve a death sentence, he should not even have been in custody.

Verse 32: Agrippa’s verdict is the same as the rest. Since it is specifically Agrippa who was hearing the case, Luke specifically records the words of Agrippa: “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar.” In one sense, Agrippa’s words condemn the entire process from Felix forward. Paul should have been released. However, once he appealed to Cæsar, it became necessary to allow that appeal.

As with the Richard Longenecker doubts on Acts 25:13, Darrell Bock notes about this:

“Some scholars challenge this part of the passage and its credibility. How could this conversation be known?”[1]

Bock concludes that “the results of the hearing would have made the view of the governor, Agrippa, and Bernice evident” and that the explanation could have been communicated to Paul (who could have then communicated it to Luke, who then included it in his communication to Theophilus). While those means may be used by God, they seem to be necessary explanations for those who do not receive and rest in the inspiration of the Bible. For the Bible-believer, “God revealed it to him” is a simple and satisfactory answer to the question, “How could this conversation be known?” Do not discount divine inspiration.

---

[1] Bock, Acts, p. 724.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson

The letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association – with the phrase “separation between church & state” – is oft-mention in both historical and political discussions. The letter from the Danbury Baptists is not as well known. A transcription of it can be read at the National Archives online.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, [after 7 October 1801]

“…though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.”

Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction.”

Interestingly, there is also a Draft Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, showing how Jefferson started and then edited the letter to be more concise.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Give me that Book!

God himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book! O give me that book! At any price, give me the Book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri.*

*A man of one book.

John Wesley, “Preface,” Sermons on Several Occasions, Volume 1, Thomas Jackson, editor. London: J. Kershaw, 1825, p. vii

Salvation, O the joyful sound

Below is Hymn 88 from Hymns and Spiritual Songs In Three Books, by Isaac Watts, which he titled simply “Salvation.”

To the believer, the word “salvation” is pleasing music to our ears, healing ointment for our wounds, and stimulating medicine for our fears. May we who have arisen by and appreciate grace divine echo its sound around the earth. In The Sacred Harp (47a) we sing this hymn with the wonderful old tune Primrose, by Amzi Chapin.

1. Salvation! O the joyful sound!
’Tis music to our ears;*
A sov’reign balm for ev’ry wound,
A cordial for our fears.

2. Buried in sorrow and in sin,
At hell’s dark door we lay,
But we arise by grace divine
To see a heav’nly day.

3. Salvation! let the echo fly
The spacious earth around,
While all the armies of the sky
Conspire to raise the sound.

* “pleasure” in The Sacred Harp

The author of the hymn, Isaac Watts, is called the “Father of English hymnody,” so accorded for his vast production of good and great hymns, which solidified their places in English language churches.

Amzi Chapin, the composer of Primrose, was born March 2, 1768 in Springfield, Massachusetts. He was the son of Edward Chapin and Eunice Colton. By trade he was a cabinetmaker, but he was also an itinerant singing master and composer, teaching singing schools in Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. By denomination he was a Presbyterian. He married Hannah Power in 1800, and they had at least seven children. Amzi Chapin died in Northfield, Ohio, February 19, 1835. He and Hannah are buried at the Northfield Macedonia Cemetery in Northfield, Summit County, Ohio.

---

Note: a cordial is a food, drink, or medicine that stimulates and invigorates the heart and circulation – either literally or figuratively.

Cordial (adjective and noun)

c. 1400, “of or pertaining to the heart,” from Medieval Latin cordialis “of or for the heart,” from Latin cor “heart,” from PIE root *kerd- “heart.” Meaning “heartfelt, proceeding from the heart as the supposed seat of kindly feelings” is from mid-15c.

The noun meaning “something that invigorates” is from late 14c., originally “medicine, food, or drink that stimulates the heart.” Meaning “sweet or aromatic liquor” is from 1610s.

It is my profound conviction, and other quotes

The posting of quotes of 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.)

“It is my profound conviction that all of us [preachers] are in danger of fussing around speaking against the fruits of sin and never touching the roots.” -- Richard Owen Roberts

“The difference between teaching and preaching – teaching is aimed at the mind and preaching is aimed at the heart. The teacher prepares by discovering the mind of God in Scripture; the preacher prepares by discovering the heart of God in his prayer closet.” -- Richard Owen Roberts

“Love has grown out of control when pleasing children is more important than leading children.” -- Adam Griffin

“Every Christian has a ‘used-to-be’ story.” -- Larry Wade, Jr.

“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer.” -- Used in a cartoon; sometimes attributed to Kelly Hynam 

“If you want to conduct the orchestra, you have to turn your back on the audience.” -- Attributed to Aristotle, Max Lucado, James Crook, et al.

“There are people out there who are committed to misunderstanding you, and misrepresenting your position.” -- Allie Beth Stuckey

“Discipleship is not about information; it’s about imitation.” -- Dallas Willard

“We’re afraid of the dark because we were made to live in the light.” -- R. C. Sproul

“The Ephesian church in Revelation 2:1–7 crossed all their doctrinal t’s and dotted all their ecclesiological i’s—but they lost their first love.” -- Juan Sanchez

“The Lord has established for salvation to precede identification through baptism into membership and then for those identifying markers to precede the ongoing celebratory act of the Lord’s Supper.” -- Nate Akin

“It’s not enough to be fans of Jesus. We should be followers of Jesus.” -- Kevin Lake

“When God has done something for you, let him do something with you.” -- Johnnie Johnson

“If God is pleased, it doesn’t matter who isn’t.” -- Unknown

Debaptism; who knew?

Debaptism, noun. The (so-called) practice of “reversing” a baptism.

I guess on this I’ve been living under a rock, ignorant in my bliss. Who knew “debaptism” was a thing? You probably did. I didn’t. I read about some nuts going through a blow dryer ceremony. I would suggest that if they were immersed they need to get in an oven!

To me there is some irony here, in a person thinking they need to be debaptized. Part of the craziness of modern society, perhaps? It seems that the folks who are being debaptized are in effect saying that de baptism dat dey had actually did something dat dey must undo. But their other testimony is that God and Christianity is nothing. If it is nothing, why undo nothing?

Finally. Do the debaptized join De’Baptist Unchurch?

Acts 26:24-29

Acts 26:24-29 Paul’s dialogue with Festus and Agrippa

Verses 24-25: thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus Even when Festus called him “beside thyself” and “mad” (crazy), Paul responded with respect – “most noble Festus.” He then reminded Festus that his words were not the ravings of a madman, but he spoke “words of truth and soberness.”

Verses 28-29: Of this Henry Smith states:

“In Agrippa, you shall hear what we are; in Paul, you shall see what we should be; for the king shews that he is almost a Christian, and the apostle shews that he should be altogether a Christian.”

He points to three acknowledgements Paul makes in addressing Agrippa:

A reverent title, King Agrippa.

A profitable question, Dost thou believe the prophets?

A favourable prevention, I know that thou believest.

“…almost standeth in the way before we can come to altogether…Is this altogether, like Paul, or like Festus, not at all? Now if we be almost Christians, let us see what it is to be almost a Christian. Almost a son, is a bastard; almost sweet, is unsavoury; almost hot, is lukewarm, which God spueth out of his mouth, Rev. iii. 16; so almost a Christian is not a Christian…Almost a Christian is like Jeroboam, which said, ‘It is too far to go to Jerusalem to worship,’ and therefore chose rather to worship calves at home. Almost a Christian is like Micah, which thought himself religious enough because he had gotten a priest into his house. Almost a Christian is like the Ephraimites, which could not pronounce Shibboleth, but Sibboleth.”[1] 

In this exchange of Paul with the king and the governor, one finds “almost Agrippa” and “not at all Festus.” Right preaching is about the message, not its results.

---

[1] “The Dialogue Between Paul and King Agrippa,” in The Works of Henry Smith: including Sermons, Treatises, Prayers, and Poems. With Life of the Author, Vol. I, Thomas Fuller, editor, pp. 435-436, 443-444. On “Shibboleth” and “Sibboleth,” see Judges 12:5-6.

Toward a biblical definition of “prophet”

Prophet, noun. According to Merriam-Webster, may be (1) one who utters divinely inspired revelations; (2) one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; (3) one who foretells future events. The third definition is probably that which comes most readily to mind to modern English speakers. What is a prophet, biblically defined?

The meaning of the word.

As we notice in the introduction, the English word “prophet” includes several different shades of meaning (e.g., 5 at Merriam-Webster, 7 at Dictionary.com). What about the Bible?

The primary Hebrew word for prophet is (נָבִיא nāḇî'). The word “seer” (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê/rā'â) is synonymous for prophet, according to 1 Samuel 9:9. The Hebrew word (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh) is also translated “seer.” In 1 Chronicles 29:29 all three of these Hebrew words are used (נָבִיא nāḇî') (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê) (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh).[i]

The primary Greek for prophet is (προφήτης prophētēs). Greek also has the word (ψευδοπροφήτης pseudoprophētēs) for a false prophet. Hebrew adds descriptors about prophets prophesying falsely rather than having a word “false prophet.”[ii]

The biblical use of the word.

The first use of the word “prophet” in the Bible is found in Genesis 20:7, where God calls Abraham a prophet. There it seems to primarily mean that Abraham is God’s spokesman or representative. The last use of the word “prophets” is found in Revelation 22, which seems to connect both the ideas of God’s spokesmen (v. 9) and the references to future events (v. 6).

God told Moses, “Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). This also seems to emphasize the nature of the prophet as a spokesman (e.g. Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well…and Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, Exodus 4:14, 30). In Exodus 15:20, where Moses’s sister Miriam is referred to as a prophetess, she took a timbrel in her hand and led the women in singing to the LORD – emphasizing the nature of forthtelling. Notice also that the musicians for the tabernacle and temple were considered prophets (1 Chronicles 25:1-3).

The Old Testament prophets spoke for God. In connection with this, some of them also dreamed dreams, saw visions, and foretold the future (Numbers 12:6; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 28:9; Ezekiel 33:33). The word and its related work included “forthtelling” and “foretelling.” The commonality in all of this seems to be that of accurately presenting and representing God’s truth. Those who wrote the Old Testament Scripture, or at least many of them, were considered prophets.

Many times in the New Testament, the word “prophet” refers back to the Old Testament prophet (Matthew 1:22; 2:17; Acts 2;16). “The prophets” may also mean the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:29; 24:27, 44: John 1:45).

However, prophets are also current/active in the New Testament. John the Baptist was a prophet (Luke 7:28), a spokesman for God who came before and announced the coming of the Christ.[iii] Those called prophets in the New Testament include Jesus; Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul (Acts 13:1); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32).[iv] Though prophets and apostles were different – that is, all prophets were not apostles – it seems that by default the Bible considers all the apostles to be prophets, even while not specifically naming each of them them thusly (Acts 4:33; 1 Corinthians 13:2; Revelation 1:3; 18:20: 22:6).

Paul refers to those who speak in the Corinthian assembly as prophets, who could speak in a way to edify, exhort, and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3-5). Though prophecy is a gift (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:32), the prophets are not out of control. They can contain themselves from all speaking at once (1 Corinthians 14:26, 29, 40), and must speak so as to acknowledge that the inspired words of the apostles are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37). (Therefore, they cannot claim a the Spirit made me do it excuse for bad behavior.)

In Titus 1:12, Paul applies the word “prophet” in a “non-biblical” or “non-Christian” sense, calling a spokesman for the Cretians “a prophet.”

Prophecy is a spiritual gift, as we see from Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; 28-31; 13:2; and 14:1-6. Those who prophesy, prophesy according to the proportion of faith with which they are gifted, within the place in the body the Spirit has placed them.

The rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 12:29 indicates that all of God’s people are not prophets (cf. Numbers 11:29). Everyone should be a representative of God in witnessing to and sharing his truths. However, some are gifted to do so in a more official way.

Paul indicates that supernatural tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will cease with the close of the biblical revelation (canon), 1 Corinthians 13:8. “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”

Concluding thoughts on the words and its meaning.

In the Bible, a prophet was a spokesman for God – one who conveyed a message from God to the people. The calling or work included foretelling (proclaiming God’s events and plan for the future) and forthtelling (publishing God’s will and truth in the present). Often this role of prophet combined these two features, for example, using warning of future judgment as a call to present repentance. Prophets guided the people concerning truth, faith, morality, and judgment (cf. Acts 24:25). His duty was not solely about predicting the future – and often not even primarily.

• The Bible reader should not just think “predicter of the future” when encountering the word “prophet.” A full picture is needed.
• The Bible reader should think of “spiritual gift” when encountering the word prophet, especially in the New Testament.

It seems difficult for the average modern English Bible student to think “prophet” and not think of someone who foretold the future. Yet, the common thread of all prophets is not that fact, primarily, but rather of being God’s sent spokesman. Perhaps these thoughts will help. What have I forgotten to consider? If something, please add in the comments.

---

[i] I have put these words in parentheses due to the tendency of the embedded “backward spelling” of Hebrew to go haywire in Microsoft Word, ending up at times in various crazy fashions.
[ii] The Old Testament calls five women prophetesses – Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, and the wife of Isaiah (Isaiah 8:3). The latter may simply mean the wife of a prophet, and Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14) seems to be a false one, opposing the work of Nehemiah. The New Testament calls two women prophetesses – Anna (Luke 2:36) and Jezebel (Revelation 2:20). The first one is on God’s side, and the latter seems to only be one falsely so-called. Compare also Acts 21:9.
[iii] John the Baptist is evidence that a prophet did not necessarily perform miracles. “And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true” (John 10:41).
[iv] The emphasis of Judas and Silas as prophets was that they “exhorted the brethren with many words.”

Confessionalism

“Confessionalism [is] a commitment to defining, adhering to, and defending clearly stated truths that are sincerely believed.” While there is a certain sense in which all Christianity is necessarily confessional in a de facto sort of way, what I am arguing for is a sturdy kind of confessionalism: one that conscientiously and unashamedly and very carefully declares what is believed and what is to be taught…Christianity is inherently confessional. To be a Christian is to confess. Every Christian, every church, has a creed or a confession. ‘Credo’ simply means ‘I believe.’ Christians are believers; hence all Christians have a creed or a confession.”

Tom Ascol, in “Recovering a Robust Confessionalism” (Ascol granted all Christians and churches, though, might not have a “well-thought-out” creed or confession.)

Daily Mercies

No. 572 Daily Mercies (S. M.)

1. GOD is the fountain, whence

Ten thousand blessings flow;

To him my health, my wealth and friends,

And ev’ry good I owe.

2. The comforts he affords,

Are neither few nor small;

He is the source of fresh delights,

My portion and my all.

3. He fills my heart with joy,

My lips attunes for praise;

And to his glory I’ll devote

The remnant of my days.

This hymn, written by Benjamin Beddome, appears as No. 752 in Hymns Adapted to Public Worship, or Family Devotion: now First Published, from the Manuscripts of the late Rev. B. Beddome (London: Burton & Briggs, 1818). It is titled “Daily Mercies.” It recognizes God as the source of all our blessings. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Recognizing that, the Christian ought to devote his lips to praise God, and his days to glorify God.

Benjamin Beddome was born at Henley-in Arden, Warwickshire in 1717. He was the son of a Baptist minister. The younger Beddome also became a Baptist preacher, beginning his ministry around 1740. He authored several discourses (including A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism) in addition to his hymns – which number over 800. His hymns were written to complement his Lord’s Day morning sermons. Beddome died September 23, 1795 at Bourton-upon-the-Water, Cotswold District, Gloucestershire, England, and is buried there in the Baptist Churchyard.

Robert Hall, editor of the posthumous volume of hymns, writes of Benjamin Beddome:

“As a preacher, he was universally admitted for the piety and unction of his sentiments, the felicity of his arrangements, and the purity, force, and simplicity of his language; all which were recommended by a delivery perfectly natural and graceful.” (p. vi.)

Hymnwriter James Montgomery described Beddome’s hymns as “impressive, being for the most part brief and pithy. A single idea, always important, often striking, and sometimes ingeniously brought out, not with a mere point at the end, but with the terseness and simplicity of the Greek epigram,—constitutes the basis of each piece.”[i] 

---

[i] The Christian Psalmist Or Hymns, Original and Selected, James Montgomery, p. xxvii.

10 Things You Never Knew, 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.

• 10 Things You Never Knew About Funeral Home History -- “Funeral homes might seem like they’ve been around forever, but they really didn’t emerge in the United States until the mid-1800s.”
• Baptist Roots: The Use of Models in Tracing Baptist Origins -- “The interpretation of historical evidence is greatly affected by the particular approach of the historian.”
• Does Pragmatism Tend Toward Liberalism? -- “One of the first things to go missing in pragmatic churches is regenerate church membership, or any meaningful way to discern whether or not a person wanting to join has placed their faith in Jesus.”
• How a Christian Woman is to Adorn Herself -- “Seek to find out what this means and go wherever the Lord shows you.”
• How Dictionaries Decide Which Words to Include and Exclude -- “The balance between tradition and innovation will remain a focal point for lexicographers as they strive to document the richness of human communication.”
• How far did the early Christians worship God? -- “The question which arises is whether these accepted terms are the best or the most appropriate ones to describe what Christians do, or what they ought to be doing, when they gather together.”
• How to Identify the Andersonites -- “This article is intended to be a warning for faithful Baptist churches both against Anderson’s practice and doctrine, as well as a ‘how-to’ guide for identifying the churches that openly or secretly associate with Anderson directly or at least maintain his doctrinal positions.”
• Is it True That No Two NT Manuscripts (MSS) Are Exactly the Same? -- “Years ago I myself wrote that no two MSS were identical, merely repeating the prevailing canard. But that was before I started collating MSS for myself.”
• Lanier and Ross’ Fallacious Footnote -- “Consider first the sloppiness of the footnote. While the first two references are properly cited, the reader is then offered a vague reference to ‘various’ materials produced by RBS...”
• Name Dropping -- “...The white board and batten Nameless School operated for 36 years, from 1909 to 1945.”
• Raising up Pastors Is the Church’s Work -- “...seminaries are...usually used for the wrong purposes. ”
• Terlingua’s Traces -- “...a trip to the cemetery confirms that Texans have been living out here for a very long time.”
• The God-Ordained Method for Missions -- “Sadly, the Christian life in the West has become more individualistic over the last sixty or seventy years.”
• The Roots of Red -- “Like many quintessentially American foods, chili (or more accurately chili con carne) was born from that unique amalgam of cultures found in the U.S.”
• Your Moral Code Has Christian Roots Whether You Know It or Not -- “he found...his core beliefs about universal value and equality...lay not in the French Revolution, nor in the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Enlightenment, but in the Bible.”

Shape note singers -- Be aware

Back in September I posted a warning to an anonymous individual. Now I am officially issuing a warning to all anonymous shape note singers.

I put on notice that shape note singers will not get a pass to hide behind anonymity to take potshots on shape note and Sacred Harp subjects. If your post is suspect, your post will be deleted. If you are willing to use your name and own your comments, your posts will not be deleted.

Awhile versus A While

As I get older I seem to become more forgetful, and have problems with stuff I once knew well. However, with “awhile” versus “a while” I think I have generally always had problems remembering the correct usage. Here is how it should be:

“Awhile” is an adverb. It means “for a while.” As an adverb, “awhile” usually modifies a verb – as in “I will wait awhile.”

“While” is a noun. It means “a period of time” (and “a” is an indefinite article modifying it). Usually, the two words “a while” is used when following a preposition – as in, “I will wait for a while” – or with the words ago or back (a while ago; a while back).

Acts 26:19-23

Paul’s obedience to God and “crime” before the Jews, 19-23

Verses 19-20: Paul declares to Agrippa his “obedience unto the heavenly vision.” He heeded the divine words of Christ and immediately began to preach where he was – in Damascus – and then where he went – “at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles.” The clear message in these places was repentance toward God (cf. 20:). “do works meet for repentance” not works in order to obtain repentance (or in order to obtain salvation) but works consonant with the salvation they profess.

Verse 21: Because Paul turned from his course and obeyed the heavenly vision, and because he preached repentance toward God to all in all places, the Jews hated him, caught him in the temple in Jerusalem, and did their best to kill him. 

Verse 22-23: Only by the grace (help) of God had Paul continued his ministry up to this time. His witnessing was to all men, both small and great. His message was concerning the things that Moses and the prophets, in the Old Testament, said should come to pass. Paul saw his message that Christ should suffer, die, and rise from the dead as a continuation of the message of the Old Testament rather than a break from it. Jesus came to show light unto the people (the Jews) and to the Gentiles. Cf. Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 60:3; Luke 2:32. “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Jesus was “the first that should rise from the dead” never to return to death. He won the victory, rose by his own power rather than that of another; he rose in a spiritual body rather than a mortal body; he rose to live forevermore rather than die again. Cf. I Corinthians 15:20.

Give thanks

1 Thessalonians 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Give thanks! Give thanks! Give thanks!
Give thanks to God and praise.
Give thanks to God the Father and
Extol him for his grace.

Give thanks! Give thanks! Give thanks!
Give thanks to God the Son.
Give thanks to Christ who lived and died—
God’s sin-atoning One.

Give thanks! Give thanks! Give thanks!
To God the Spirit give;
Give thanks to him for grace and power
Which caused us to believe.

By Donald S. Fortner (1950-2020), long-time pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Danville, Kentucky

A Visit to Cowper’s Grave

Resting Wednesday is suspended for this tribute.

“A Visit to Cowper’s Grave” is a poem by an unknown author. This author began stanzas 2-6 with lines from William Cowper’s (1731-1800) hymns (“Far from the World,” “There Is a Fountain,” “When Darkness Long Has Veiled My Mind,” “O For a Closer Walk,” and “God Moves in a Mysterious Way”), and wove words from those hymns into these stanzas. A very interesting tribute.

1. I went alone. ’Twas summer time;
And, standing there before the shrine
Of that illustrious bard,
I read his own familiar name,
And thought of his extensive fame,
And felt devotion’s sacred flame,
Which we do well to guard.

2. “Far from the world, O Lord, I flee.”
How sweet the words appeared to me,
Like voices in a dream!
“The calm retreat, the silent shade”
Describe the spot where he was laid,
And where surviving friendships paid
Their tribute of esteem.

3. “There is a fountain.” As I stood
I thought I saw the crimson “flood,”
And some beneath the wave;
I thought the stream still rolled along,
And that I saw the ransomed throng,
And that I heard the “nobler song”
Of Jesus’ “power to save.”

4. “When darkness long has veiled my mind,”
And from these words I felt inclined
In sympathy to weep;
But “smiling day” has dawned at last,
And all his sorrows now are past;
No tempter now, no midnight blast,
To spoil the poet’s sleep.

5. “O for a closer”—even so,
For we who journey here below
Have lived too far from God.
Oh, for that holy life I said,
Which Enoch, Noah, Cowper led!
Oh, for that “purer light” to shed
Its brightness on “the road”!

6. “God moves in a mysterious way;”
But now the poet seemed to say,
No mysteries remain.
On earth I was a sufferer,
In Heav’n I am a conqueror;
“God is his own interpreter,”
And “he has made it plain.”

Does the NKJV follow the Critical Text…

…at Revelation 16:16? Scott Ingram brought this verse up in a recent Facebook post in the Textus Receptus Academy. He was defending the New King James Version translation. However…

Compare Revelation 16:16 in the King James and New King James:

• AKJV: And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
• NKJV: And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.

Brother Ingram implied that there is no underlying Greek word for “he” or “they” in the Greek text. However, he failed to mention or show that the verb συνήγαγεν is 3rd person singular (which is he, not they). Disregarding this, his main point was this translation is a matter of interpretation.

Compare Revelation 16:16 in the Textus Receptus, Majority Text (HF, RP), and Critical Text (NA/UBS). They are the same at this verse/verb (συνήγαγεν, 3rd Person, Aorist, Active, Indicative, Singular).

• καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον εβραϊστὶ αρμαγεδών
• Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Μαγεδών.
• Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.
• καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.

The clip below is shows this verse in The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament, edited by Art Farstad (the chief editor of the NKJV) and others.[i]

The Interlinear shows “he.” Yet the NKJV and most modern translations have “they,” with something like “they gathered” or “they assembled.” Why so? Some might argue that the translators are making an interpretation of the singular referring to a group, based on the context (or something like that).[ii] However, there is another possibility for this change – the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). 

The NET Bible note does not specify their reasoning, but implies that the word is “they” in Greek:

tn Grk “they”; the referent (the demonic spirits, v. 14) has been specified in the translation for clarity.[iii]

This is a place where the NKJV is following modern translations over the KJV and TR, which are giving weight to the note with the Nestle-Aland (NA) text. Both the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text is 3rd person singular – literally, “he” rather than “they.” The NA text has the same reading as the TR; both have συνήγαγεν. However, the NA footnote shows that there is a variant – συνήγαγον, which is 3rd person plural. Or possibly they are making some other interpretation that the singular refers to a group or something. Some do argue that a plural neuter noun can be followed by a singular verb, though I’m unaware of any other place in Scripture where that happens.

To me it seems that they took an option that was a possibility (but not a necessity), added weight from the Codex Sinaiticus and modern translations, and, voila, oops, here again they did not do what they claimed they would do. Since Nelson Publishing and the editors of the NKJV claimed this was a “new” King James Bible, in places like this they should have given the weight to the KJV; but they didn’t. Or they should have lessened their claim on the King James name; but they didn’t.

---

[i] It is unfortunate that the interlinear has no comment on the difference in what it shows (he) and the NKJV translation (they).
[ii] For example, Albert Barnes says that “Prof. Stuart renders it ‘they gathered them together,’ … and that this is the construction of the neuter plural with a singular verb.” “The singular συνήγαγεν (synēgagen, he gathered) is probably due to the neuter πνεύματα (pneumata, spirits [of demons] in 16:14 (since neuter plural nouns sometimes take singular verbs) and should be rendered ‘they gathered them together.’” Revelation, Grant R. Osborne, (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Moises Silva, Editor). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002/2012.
[iii] The upshot of this is that the NET translators take the Greek to be “they” (which is what it is in Codex Sinaiticus) and then substitute the interpretation “the spirits” for “they.”

The Evasive Invasive Kingdom

The Kingdom is both Invasive and Evasive.

By “invasive” I mean it is everywhere taught – it injects itself into all parts of the Bible and is a very central doctrine.

By “evasive” I mean it is largely ignored, as if it evades most Bible teachers’ studies and presentations. 

Those who preach mainly topical sermons usually ignore the core topic of the kingdom, choosing topics mentioned far less often in the Scriptures. Those who prefer expository sermons often read right over the mention of the kingdom, choosing to deal with other aspects of their text. It is almost as if the kingdom is mentioned so often, that it becomes easy to overlook it in both topical and expository preaching.

Rick Howard (I don’t know who this author is, or what he believes about the Kingdom as found in the Bible. Nevertheless, I found this thought very intriguing and, I think, generally true.)

Let thy blood in mercy poured

1. Let thy blood in mercy poured,
Let thy gracious body broken,
Be to me, O gracious Lord,
Of thy boundless love the token.
Thou didst give thyself for me,
Now I give myself to thee.

2. Thou didst die that I might live;—
Blessed Lord, thou cam’st to save me;
All that love of God could give,
Jesus by his sorrows gave me;—
Thou didst give thyself for me,
Now I give myself to thee.

3. By the thorns that crowned thy brow,
By the spear wound and the nailing,
By the pain and death, I now
Claim, O Christ, thy love unfailing.
Thou didst give thyself for me,
Now I give myself to thee.

4. Wilt thou own the gift I bring?
All my penitence I give thee;
Thou art my exalted King,
Of thy matchless love forgive me;—
Thou didst give thyself for me,
Now I give myself to thee.

“Let thy blood in mercy poured,” is a communion hymn, based on an old Greek hymn translated by John Brownlie of Scotland – or rather a loose paraphrase. Regarding the hymns in the Hymns From the East (Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1907, p. 12), Brownlie said he used the Greek “as a basis, a theme, a motive…” This particular hymn is found on pages 89-90. It is six lines of 7s.8s. meter (in this case 7.8.7.8.7.7.). It often is paired with the tune Jesus, Meine Zuversicht, by Johann Crüger.

John Brownlie was born at Glasgow, Scotland, August 6, 1857. He studied at Glasgow University, and the Free Church College in Glasgow. He was licensed by the Presbytery of Glasgow in 1884. In 1890 he became the senior minister of the Trinity Free Church in Portpatrick. Brownlie created several hymnological works and in 1908 Glasgow University awarded him an honorary D.D. degree for his work in hymnology. Brownlie married Alison Kerr Rutherford, who died in 1934. He died November 18, 1925. They are buried at the Portpatrick Cemetery in Portpatrick, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland.

Fellowshipping with liberals, and other quotes

The posting of quotes of 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.)

“This idea of fellowshipping with liberals, modernists, and every ism, schism, and spasm of this broadminded religious age originated in Hell, not Heaven, nor in the Bible.” -- Oliver Boyce Greene

“The gospel is already sweeter than honey. It is bitter only to those who are spiritually blind and spiritually dead. When a man understands what it is he will live and die for it.” -- Mark Osgatharp

“Iron, till it be thoroughly heated is incapable to be wrought; so God sees good to cast some men into the furnace of affliction, and then beats them on his anvil into what frame he pleases.” -- Anne Bradstreet, from The Poems of Mrs. Anne Bradstreet

“We preach Christ crucified, not Christ customized.” -- Heard

“The only bee that cannot bear honey is the ‘used-to-be’.” -- Herman Johnson

“Christ went more willingly to the cross than we do to the throne of grace.” -- Thomas Watson

“Grace is the salt which seasons our discourse and keeps it from corrupting.” -- William Harris, in the Matthew Henry Commentary

“It’s not love to affirm delusional beliefs a neighbor has, that’s actually cowardice and it trades basic truth for momentary comfort.” -- Allie Beth Stuckey

“Everything I have above nothing; God gave it to me. The least I can do is say, ‘Thank you.’”  -- S. M. Lockridge

“Affirm that the Bible establishes two offices and make sure that every titled job in a church, no matter what you call it, complies with the duties and qualifications of one or the other.” -- Jonathan Leeman

“It’s not about the ‘plan’ of salvation, but the ‘man’ of salvation – Jesus.” -- Herman Johnson

Appomattox Baptist Association condemns A. Campbell translation

1830.

“The Appomattox Association issued the following statements signed by Abner Clopton as clerk:

“1. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches composing this association, to discountenance the writings of Alexander Campbell.

“2. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the churches in this association not to countenance the new translation of the New Testament.”

Alexander Campbell and His New Version, page 80 referencing The Millennial Harbinger, Volume 1, 1830, p. 261.

Alexander Campbell and His New Version, Cecil K. Thomas (St. Louis, MO: The Bethany Press, 1958).

Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road

Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road, 26:12-18

Verses 12-13: Now Paul begins to relate his fateful day of consequences on the road to Damascus, a city with a synagogue, but a strange city outside the limits of Judæa. Damascus of Syria is about 135 miles north-northeast of Jerusalem.[1] Both Jews (Acts 9:2, 20) and Christians (9:10, 19) lived there. Paul “went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,” which he bore as a letter from the high priest (Acts 9:2).

That Saul was travelling at midday suggests something of the fatal furor that propelled him to advance toward the city. He would not rest; he would not wait until it was cooler. He must forge on. However, on this midday, Saul encountered a light that outshone the sun – it was (1) light from heaven, (2) above the brightness of the sun, and (3) shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

Verse 14: Some detractors paint a contradiction between “all fallen to the earth” and “stood speechless” in Acts 9:7. They do so by literalizing an idiom. The phrase “stood speechless” is an idiomatic expression describing a situation when someone is so shocked and surprised that they are dumbfounded, unable to speak. It is not about posture (i.e. standing versus falling). 

Saul heard a voice. The voice was:

1. speaking to Saul. The speaking was addressed to one person and not the entire envoy. Saul heard the voice and understood what was said. His companions merely heard sound but did not understand what was said.
2. speaking in the Hebrew tongue. The speaking voice spoke in the Hebrew language. It was an external reality, not just a voice in Saul’s mind.
3. saying Saul, Saul. Saul was addressed and his name repeated, “Saul, Saul.” Repetition is commonly used for emphasis, and/or getting one’s attention. Cf. Genesis 22:11 (Abraham); 46:2 (Jacob); Exodus 3:4 (Moses); I Samuel 3:10 (Samuel); Luke 10:41 (Martha); 22:31 (Simon). In the Old Testament the double-naming occurs in appearances of God to chosen individuals. In the New Testament Jesus uses it as a form of emphasis and admonition.
4. asking why persecutest thou me. Though Saul was persecuting individual Christians, plural, the voice asks why are you persecuting “me,” singular. Christ himself is persecuted in his people.
5. saying it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. This agricultural proverb, such as an ox kicking against the goad that guides him, speaks of something that is both difficult and injurious. The ox would through his effort only injure itself rather than the prick or its bearer. See Acts 9:5. Note “pricks” is plural.

Verse 15: Saul speaks to the voice, asking, “Who art thou,” and addressing him as “Lord.” He recognizes this as some type of divine communication. The Lord identifies himself as (1) Jesus (2) whom thou persecutest. Saul’s rage against the people of Christ and their beliefs was ultimately persecution of Christ himself.

Verses 16-18: In relating his experience, Paul does not include every detail each time before different audiences; his accounts are complementary and supplementary. In this case he does not mention asking the Lord what he should do, but adds more of what the Lord said. Jesus told Paul of his broad calling, and then sent him to Ananias in Damascus. Ananias affirms the message of Jesus to Paul, but also gives him immediate instructions. Jesus informs Saul that he is calling him into his service, to be a witness of what he has seen and will see. He will be both sent to and delivered from the Jews (the people) and the Gentiles. He will carry an eye-opening message with the power to turn them from darkness to light, from Satan to God. Cf. Colossians 1:13-14; I Peter 2:9; John 14:30. Not only is forgiveness of sins available to the Gentiles but also a joint inheritance among the sanctified.

For more information about the inclusions and omissions, see Appendix T, “Are Paul’s Conversion Stories Contradictory?”

---

[1] Bock, Acts, p. 355. See also Baker’s Bible Atlas, Maps 20 & 22, pp. 123, 125.

Random comments re Mark Ward and the King James Bible

After his debate with Dan Haifley, Mark Ward made a few stabs at “clarifying” his debate answer to Haifley about not giving children a King James Bible – by which either he meant or has been interpreted by others to mean that giving a King James Bible to a child is a sin. If accurately copied from the transcript and properly tweaked by listening to the audio, here is what Mark said:

“There comes a point at which it’s so close to this ditch that actually it is a sin for a given Bible translation to be handed to children. I’m saying we’ve reached the point where there’s a sufficient number of readability difficulties that it’s time to turn away from the King James in institutional contexts. Would I say it’s a sin to hand to your child? Here’s what I’d say, quoting the King James: ‘to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.’”

In the original quote itself Mark seems to be “hedging his bets,” and has also done so in some of his “clarifications,” in my opinion. In a recent discussion on Dwyane Green’s channel, Mark was understood by one listener to mean the following. He writes,

“Here’s how I took his comment:

“‘If you, like me, believe the KJV has reached the point of not being sufficiently intelligible for your child’s reading...and yet you give it to them, to you it is sin (because you know better).’

“So if one doesn’t agree with his premise about readability, then he’s NOT saying to that one it’s sin.”

I think that is a “charitable” interpretation of what Mark said. It would be a sin for Mark to give a KJV to a child, because he “knows better.” It would not be a sin for me to give a KJV to a child, since I don’t know any better. Is that a fair interpretation of how he uses James 4:17?

Then that raises the question whether that is even a proper interpretation and understanding of James 4:17. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” [Or for the modern reader who doesn’t understand James 4:17 - “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (ESV). “So suppose someone knows the good deeds they should do. But suppose they don’t do them. By not doing these good deeds, they sin.” (NIrV).]

Is not this instruction about sinning by omission – omitting or failing to do the good one knows to do? Giving someone a Bible – regardless of what version one gives – is an act, is it not? It is not an omission. It seems that Mark’s use of James 4:17 here makes sin much more subjective than what James actually writes.

Here is a transcription from about 5:38 to 6:10 in the second of Mark’s video interviews with Dwayne Green about the debate. Mark says:

“I’m opposed to exclusive use of the King James in general by anyone. I think at the very least you ought to have the liberty in your conscience to read other translations. I really don’t want to lay the burden on someone’s conscience to require them to use a modern translation even though I just said I don’t think it should be used exclusively. I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin. I mean there must be millions – I don’t know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dear older saints who’ve grown up with the King James who do understand it sufficiently well…”

In light of the recent flare-up over whether it is a sin to give a child a King James Bible, there is this interesting comment: “I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin.” I suppose “back off” might be taken one of two ways. The most common way to take it, I think, is that he is abandoning that position, retreating from what he had previously sad. However, it might possibly mean to stop short of saying it, as in “I oppose the exclusive use of the King James, but stop short of saying that exclusive use is a sin.” I think Mark realized in reference to his making it a liberty of conscience issue, he needs to allow the liberty of conscience for those who want to exclusively read one translation.

On his opposition to the use of the King James Bible, I believe:

• Ward’s approach can be arrogant. He often implies only he is smart enough to know the answer.
• Ward’s method can be misleading. For example, his King James Quiz is defective in several regards, especially that it seems to try to direct a respondent to a wrong answer, so as to prove his point. Also there are no control questions.
• Ward’s interpretations can be inaccurate. He skews some definitions in his tests so that the range of meaning, not only in the translated word, but the original language word as well, is lost. His continual hammering on “halt” is an excellent example of this.
• Ward’s excess is unwise, and can start a chipping away at people’s faith in the Scriptures.

A somewhat peripheral general observation from me, on the multiplication of many different translations, and the continuing revision of the already multiplied ones:

If we would be faithful obeying “teach the generation following” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 48:13; 2 Timothy 2:2), there would not be a need for an every-generation update of the Bible.

Don’t stop

“The church can’t stop teaching what the Bible says about sexuality, because the world won’t stop its false teaching about it.

“When the world is screaming but the church is silent, then a generation only hears one worldview.

“Speak where the Bible speaks. Silence isn’t an option.”

Shane Pruitt, posted on Facebook, January 10, 2025

The God We Worship Now

The tune Aylesbury/Will Guide Us Till We Die in The Sacred Harp includes a text by Isaac Watts. This text was published in 1719 in The Psalms of David Imitated in the Language of the New Testament. It is a Short Meter psalm with words “imitated” from Psalm 48:10-14.

The first stanza of Aylesbury in The Sacred Harp (1991, 2012, p. 28) is the 6th stanza of the Second Part of Watts’s paraphrase of Psalm 48 (verses 10-14), titled “The Beauty of the Church; or, Gospel Worship and Order.” The second stanza is stanza five of the original and the third stanza is stanza one of the original. The likely reason for this order is that in 1844 The Sacred Harp only had one stanza, “The God we worship now,” and the others were added later.

1. The God we worship now,
Will guide us till we die,
Will be our God while here below,
And ours above the sky.

Psalm 48:14 For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.

2. How decent and how wise!
How glorious to behold,
Beyond the pomp that charms the eye,
And rites adorned with gold.

Psalm 48: 13 Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following.

3. Far as thy name is known,
The world declares thy praise;
Thy saints, Oh Lord, before thy throne
Their songs of honor raise.

Psalm 48:10 According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.

The 2nd-4th stanzas of the original paraphrase are:

2. With Joy let Judah stand
On Sion’s chosen hill,
Proclaim the Wonders of thy Hand,
And Counsels of thy Will.

3. Let Strangers walk around
The City where we dwell,
Compass and view thy holy Ground,
And mark the Building well.

4. The Orders of thy House,
The Worship of thy Court,
The chearful Songs, the solemn Vows;
And make a fair Report.

The tune Aylesbury began as a Psalm tune in A Book of Psalmody by James Chetham (1718), and later gained the current tune name. It is in some books also called Wirksworth.

Isaac Watts was born in Southampton, July 17, 1674, the son of a schoolmaster. His father was a Nonconformist, and was more than once imprisoned for his religious convictions.

Isaac learned Latin, Greek, and Hebrew early in his youth, and was writing good verse by the age of seven. At age sixteen, he went to study in the Stoke Newington Academy under Thomas Rowe, an Independent minister. Isaac became the assistant minister of the Independent Church on Berry Street, London, in 1698 and in 1702, he became the pastor. In 1712, he moved to Abney Park residence of Sir Thomas Abney, and stayed there the rest of his life.

The literary output of Isaac Watts is very large. Though best known for his hymns, he authored many theological works as well. “Behold the glories of the Lamb” is believed to be his first hymn written for the purpose of religious worship.

Isaac Watts died November 25, 1748, and was buried at Bunhill Fields. Additionally, there is a monument erected in Abney Park Cemetery and one in the South Choir of Westminster Abbey.