The New Covenant

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:8-13 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Comments from Crossway:

The old covenant was thus breakable but not bad itself. Though the apostle Paul is often enlisted in Christian theology to criticize the old covenant, he asserts in more than one place that the OT law is fundamentally good (e.g., Rom. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8).

Given such theological continuity, why does the writer of Hebrews emphasize discontinuity in stating that “Now hath [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Heb. 8:6–7)? And, following a full citation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 (Heb. 8:8–12, the longest quotation of the OT in the NT), the passage continues, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13). It is crucial in this respect that the author of Hebrews introduces the Jeremiah quotation with the editorial phrase, “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord...” (Heb. 8:8). That is, the fault of the old covenant (8:7) lay in how the people themselves were faulty and prone to breaking it (Heb. 8:8a), thus incurring the need for the “new covenant,” which follows in the passage (Heb. 8:8b–12).5 Indeed, the writer to the Hebrews explains that Yahweh instituted the better promises of the new covenant for this reason: “They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord” (Heb. 8:9).

--

It is a new covenant, unlike the old covenant.

The old covenant was breakable.

The new covenant is sure.

Peer review, smear review

Some people believe that “peer review” supposedly “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7’ sticker does for your t-shirt – provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.” I say supposedly, because though in theory that may be true, in practice “not so much.” Or – perhaps – you still get peer-reviewed junk just like you get junk t-shirts even when they have been “inspected by #7”! Here is a fine example of that:

Academics Expose ‘Grievance Studies’ Field by Submitting Hoax Papers to Journals -- “In one particularly telling example, the academics submitted a paper to the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture detailing the canine rape culture supposedly prevalent within dog parks.” 

The essay was made up out of whole cloth, and the peer-reviewed journal hastened it into print. The linked article details other such cases. Seven of twenty outlandishly outlandish articles were accepted and printed in so-called peer-reviewed journals. See also:

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals -- “A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that ‘the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’.”

Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken? -- “...many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.” 

In 1936, Albert Einstein—who was used to people like Planck making decisions about his papers without outside opinions—was incensed when the American journal Physical Review sent his submission to another physicist for evaluation. In a terse note to the editor, Einstein wrote:

“I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.”

Probably most people perceive peer review as a reliable process, based on objective and unbiased facts. When peer-reviewed journals receive and print preposterous pieces (like those mentioned above), it becomes obvious that could not be further from the truth. Additionally, I think our recent journey into the Covid-19 era really highlighted the manuevering and bullying used to quell opposing opinions. Whether scientific, religious, cultural, or other peer-reviewed journals, most all have bought stock in a flawed process.

As someone has pointed out, the purveyors of a system supposedly rooted in science instead have a belief in peer review that is not scientific (i.e., not based on evidence). “How odd that science should be rooted in belief.” All is not well with the peer review process! Be aware and beware.

The Three T Translation Test

“The KJV is the only English Bible that we use because it’s the only English translation that passes the ‘three T’ translation test: (1) It’s made from the right underlying Text; (2) It uses the right Translation method, and (3) It offers a translation that is Technically precise — right down to the pronouns (which are often theologically significant!).”

Robert Hammond, pastor of Long Hill Baptist Church

O Lord, I will praise thee

Irish preacher Thomas Kelly (1769-1855) wrote a number of good hymns. One of my favorites is “Poor and afflicted, Lord are thine.” “Praise the Saviour, ye who know him” has an unique rhyming scheme, coupled with a somewhat distinctive meter, with three lines of 8 syllables, followed by one line of 5 syllables. Its chief setting seems to be with the German melody Acclaim.

1. Praise the Saviour, ye who know him,
Who can tell how much we owe him?
Gladly let us render to him,
All we are and have.

2. Jesus is the name that charms us,
That for conflict fits and arms us;
Nothing moves, and nothing harms us,
When we trust in him.

3. Trust in him, ye saints, for ever,
He is faithful, changing never;
Neither force nor guile can sever
Those he loves from him.

4. Keep us, Lord, O keep us cleaving
To thyself, and still believing,
Till the time of our receiving
Promised joy in heav’n.

5. Then we shall be where we would be,
Then we shall be what we should be;
That which is not now, nor could be,
Will then be our own.

Thomas Kelly had an earlier hymn that began “Praise the Saviour, ye who know him, Jesus well deserves your praise.” The hymn above seems to have been added to newer editions, possibly by around 1850. In Hymns on Various Passages of Scripture, it is Hymn 228, associated with the Scripture “O Lord, I will praise thee.”—Isaiah xii.1

Click HERE to read the hymn story posted by Melody Publications.

What the Bible Says, 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.

• What the Bible Says, God Says: B. B. Warfield’s Doctrine of Scripture -- “Unfortunately, the author too easily accepts Warfield’s premise that his ‘originals only’ view was not an innovation.”
• The Rainbow Belongs To God, Not A Sinful Sexual Culture -- “God introduced the rainbow in Genesis 9. It was a part of a promise He made. A whole twisted movement hijacked it.”
• The Plague of “Narcigesis” -- “This is the act of interpretation where the meaning of the text is not only forced into the text, but is centered around the listener or teacher/preacher.”
• Texas Baptists Offer Lessons to Southern Baptists on Female Pastors -- “Here is an interesting development in the debate over female pastors among Baptists.”
• Should I Leave My Critical Text Church? Answered by Christian McShaffrey -- “Christian love bids us to remain united insofar as it is possible, but because it is not always possible, an additional option is then added.”
• Objective Truth Is One Thing, But Objective Moral Truth Is Another -- “If we can provide evidence that objective truth claims such as these are a reality in our universe, we must eventually account for such objective, transcendent moral laws.”
• N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar? -- “None of the currently popular hand-editions of the Greek NT takes us beyond Westcott-Hort in any substantive way as far as textual character is concerned.”
• McGrath on the Personality of Calvin -- “Though McGrath is very much admiring of Calvin's achievement, this work is not hagiography.”
• Luther and Melanchthon -- “In my personal affairs I am less resolute in battle, while you are more stouthearted. In matters of the common weal you are the way I am in my personal affairs.”
• Letis on Warfield, Infallibility, and Innerancy -- “...it was under Warfield’s influence that conservative Reformed and evangelical Christians began to speak of the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible rather than the ‘infallibility’ of the Bible.”
• Legalism and Scripture: We’re All Legalists -- “Jesus didn’t charge the Pharisees with being too scrupulous about the law. He condemned them for disregarding the law in favor of their traditions.”
• Intentionally Smaller Congregations: A Divine Design? -- “Smaller churches have strategic divinely-designed size advantages.” (video)
• How Church Membership is Misunderstood, Misapplied, and Abused -- “We’re not lords; we’re servants. We’re not owners; we’re stewards. We’re not cattle drivers; we’re shepherds.”
• Churches Cooperating in Discipline -- “The first step my own church takes to cooperate with other churches in discipline is to ask everyone joining the church, have you ever been disciplined from a local church?”
• Big Government -- “The G.I. Bill, enacted in 1944, put higher education, job training, and home ownership within the reach of millions of World War II veterans.”
• Answering Some Twitter Claims About the Text Issue -- “Has Nestle-Aland abandoned Westcott & Hort’s methodology?...Nestle-Aland has modified the Westcott & Hort method of textual criticism, but they still largely agree with that method.”
• A Definition of “Woke” -- “a shorthand to describe someone who...”
• 105 Verses in the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament Without Any Manuscript Support -- “These notes by Dr. Maurice Robinson detail 105 places in the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament where the complete verse reading is not to be found in any Greek manuscript.”

I love the King James Bible, but...

Consider an outré approach to expressing belief about the Bible, that has exploded into the mainstream. Will Kinney has dubbed this the “praise and then blast” syndrome. This is especially popular when discussing the King James Bible. When I was a young preacher, honest detractors disparaged the KJV head on. Take no prisoners. Apparently that is not “PC” in our perpetually-offended culture. You have to play nice. Start with deference to the old man before you kick him to the curb. And so, we have gotten the perpetually pervasive putrid phrase “I love the King James Bible, but...” And watch out for those buts; some of them can be quite a doozy. I love the King James Bible, but... – then they proceed page after page to blast away at all the alleged “errors” they think they have found in this Bible they profess to love so much! If spouses preferred that approach, they might get slapped – a lot. “I love my spouse, but…”

The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.” Its revisers in 1885 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression ... the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.” It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt. Then they began to wildly whack away at the monument. By the time of the Revised Standard Version, the noble monument had “grave defects.”

“Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.” (RSV revisers, 1971 edition)

In previous writings on my blog, I have mentioned this passive-aggressive “I love the KJV, but...” phrase. Today I post some such statements that I have collected off the internet for possible future reference/use. Many include complaints about “archaic words,” but it takes all kinds. Here are some gleanings. [Bracketed comments are mine.]

• I love the King James Version, but I fear it is filled with so many archaic words that I find it easier to read the passage in Hebrew. [Fortunately, biblical Hebrew does not have any archaic words, right?]
• I love the King James Version, but if you are just beginning, then I would recommend the New Living Translation, since it is pretty easy to read and it doesn’t have any “thous” and “thees” to make it confusing. [Yep, they use other things to confuse you.]
• I love the King James Version, but if that’s the only version you use, you’d better do some digging in the original languages. [So you would not recommend that folks using modern translations should do some digging in the original languages?]
• I love the King James Version, but it has some significant problems because the language has changed. [The more significant problems are likely your ineptitude of study.]
• I love the King James version but don’t read it because I’m thrown off by the THEE and THOU and THUS. [Yes, I can clearly see you are thrown off by the “thuses.”]
• I love the King James Version, but it has a few problems. This is why it’s good to use multiple versions of the Bible when we study the text. [Especially since these multiple versions have no problems?]
• I love the King James Version but sometimes the words used are not what we are accustomed to choosing in our daily conversation today. [I know thousands of words I do not use in daily conversation.]
• I love the King James version, but finally decided to make a change. I’m glad I did. [I am glad I didn’t.]
• I love the King James Bible, but it waters down the truth about obeisance to state power. [Huh? Dilutes deference to governmental authority?]
• I love the King James Bible, but it could also be made gender neutral / gender inclusive. [I think we’re good. Go find something modern if you want gender neutral / gender inclusive, and leave the KJV alone.]
• I love the KJV, but you have to read with your eyes open. [I usually do.]
• I love the KJV, but use the ESV while doing official church functions and such...for the sake of polity. [Sounds like you have bad church polity.]
• I love the KJV, but I can say the same of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. [You can say anything you want.]
• I love the KJV, but it is not the best for study. [It has been studied for over 400 years. That is a pretty fair recommendation!]
• I love the KJV, but I get more out of the 1984NIV. [Better hold on to it. The NIV committee is how many iterations away from that one by now?]
• I love the KJV, but I wouldn’t go over to China and give it to its people. [Yep, probably give them a Bible in Chinese, or whatever language they read, instead.]
• I love the KJV, but there are passages that are beautiful more than meaningful. [Actually, it is beautiful and meaningful. Fortunately, you cannot accuse most modern translations of being beautiful!]
• I love the KJV, but sometimes, it doesn’t convey the truth as it should. [IOW, how you think it should.]

Acts 2, Pentecost, and Tongues

The Holy Ghost is a Spirit (John 3:8; John 4:24) and therefore unseen. Yet, the work of the Spirit is manifest to the ears and eyes. The sound is not wind, but comparable to a mighty wind that rushes. The source is from heaven. (Filling the house might also suggest the sense of touch. The evidence like wind that “filled all the house” compares to the filling of the disciples – “they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.”)  The sight is not fire, but comparable to fire. What appeared like tongues of fire divided to rest on each disciple. Cloven tongues – the idea seems to be “tongues that are parting asunder.” The tongue is the physical organ of the mouth representing language. The Greek διαμεριζομεναι expresses to be distributed, divided in parts, divided asunder. As an adjective in English “cloven” means split or divided in two. Compare verses such as Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24; Acts 2:45 (parted); Luke 11:17-18; Luke 12:52-53; Luke 22:17 (divided). In the animal world, cloven means a type of divided hoof (e.g. Deuteronomy 14:7). 

Verse 4: God poured out his Spirit on the church, the approximately 120 believers present in one place in one accord – not on all the Jews present “dwelling at Jerusalem.” Verses 1-4 speak of “they,” the 120, the church at Jerusalem. It is not until verse 5 that Luke speaks of Jews from all over the empire. These (about 120) “were all” (1) filled with the Holy Ghost, and (2) spoke in tongues (ετεραις γλωσσαις cf. vs. 6, 8; Isaiah 28:11). Tongues are a miracle of speech, words spoken – “began to speak.”

Verse 5: This group by “religious ethnicity” were Jews and Jewish proselytes; by geography, they were from “every nation under heaven.”  “Dwelling at Jerusalem” – dwelling is κατοικεω/katoikeo “to dwell, settle, inhabit.”  This suggests Jewish Diaspora who had returned to Jerusalem to live rather than people traveling and gathered there solely for the feast of Pentecost.  Jews from regions beyond had their own synagogue in Jerusalem (Cf. Acts 6:9). Nevertheless, the law required all Jewish males to travel to Jerusalem three times in the year (Exodus 23:14–17; 34:22–23; Deuteronomy 16:16) – Feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Therefore, there should have been people there for the purpose of the feast. Jews did travel to Jerusalem for Pentecost, then return to their homes – so both types would be present.

Some Bible students believe the miracle in the baptism of the Holy Ghost manifested in the ears of the hearers. However, that is not what Luke records – it is a miracle in the tongues/speaking and in the disciples, not in the ears/hearing of the dwellers at Jerusalem. All 120 disciples spoke in tongues, apparently, and when they spoke to a “dweller,” they were speaking in that dweller’s native language.

John Walvoord writes:

Any view which denies that speaking in tongues used actual languages is difficult to harmonize with the Scriptural concept of a spiritual gift. By its nature, a spiritual gift has reality, and being supernatural, needs no naturalistic explanation. (The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978, p. 182.)

Notes on tongues in the Old and New Testaments

• There is at least one reference to the gift of tongues in the Old Testament – Isaiah 28:11 (As mentioned by Paul in writing to the Corinthians – 14:21. Referencing the Isaiah passage, he notes that tongues are “for a sign,” and especially for unbelievers.)  
• There is one reference to the gift of tongues in the Gospels – Mark 16:17
• There are three references to the gift of tongues in the Acts of the Apostles – Acts 2:3-11; 10:46; 19:6 (Some Bible students think they find the gift of tongues suggested in Acts 8:17-18. Regardless, Luke does not directly mention speaking in tongues there.)
• There is one (quite lengthy) reference to the gift of tongues in the Epistles – I Corinthians 12:10:-14:39

Notes on tongues and the day of Pentecost

• The disciples and the crowd present all shared a common language (vs. 7, 12, 14, 37, 40). 
• The 120 began to speak with other tongues, as a spiritual gift rather than natural manifestation (v. 4).
• The languages spoken by the disciples were “other tongues” (v. 4). They were tongues/languages – not some non-communicable sounds or utterances.
• The words used by Luke are words about language, not noise: v. 4, speak (λαλειν), other tongues (ετεραις γλωσσαις), utterance (αποφθεγγεσθαιι); v. 6, heard (ηκουον), speak (λαλουντων), language (διαλεκτω); v. 8, hear (ακουομεν), tongue (διαλεκτω); v. 11, hear (ακουομεν), speak (λαλουντων), our tongues (ημετεραις γλωσσαις).
• Others present heard the disciples speak in their own languages (v. 6) the wonderful works of God (v. 11).
• Those who spoke in tongues were predominantly or noticeably Galileans (v. 7), uneducated (Acts 4:13), and not native speakers of the languages being spoken. 
• Peter preached to them in a common language (12-14, 37-38).

See Genesis 11:1-9 for the beginning of multiple languages. God confounded man’s language at the tower of Babel, in the land of Shinar. Before that time “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech” (Genesis 11:1).

Verses 6-7: The crowd react to hearing the disciples’ speaking in tongues. They “came together” – had not all been together in one place. They were confounded (v. 6, συνεχυθη, bewildered, surprised, or confused) because separately they are each hearing their own languages spoken. They were amazed and marvelled (v. 7, εξισταντο, astonished, wondering; εθαυμαζον, admiring, filled with wonder) because all the speakers appeared to be Galileans. See Luke 22:59; Matthew 27:73; Mark 14:70. Peter has speech and or accent recognizable as a Galilean. διαλεκτος is used 6 times in Acts (1:19; 2:6, 8; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), once translated “language” and translated “tongues” five times. γλωσσα is used 6 times in Acts (2:3-4, 11, 26; 10:46; 19:6), translated “tongues” five times and once “tongue” singular (the physical organ). (Cf. also “amazed” and “in doubt” in verse 12.)

Verses 7-8: The crowd asks themselves two questions: (1) “are not all these which speak Galilæans” and (2) “how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” The crowd was not amazed by sounds they could not understand, but precisely because they could understand – in their own language, and in the dialect of their nativity! They further marveled because of the apparent miraculous nature of the events. It was neither ordinary nor expected.

Verses 9:11: The words of verses 9-11 appear to be the dwellers at Jerusalem speaking among themselves about their various origins, rather than a commentary of the author Luke on them. The Bible mentions most of these people or locations elsewhere. 

• Parthians (Acts 2:9), and
• Medes (II Kings 18:11; Esther 1:19; Daniel 5:28), and 
• Elamites (Genesis 14:1; Ezra 4:9; Isaiah 21:2; Jeremiah 25:25; Daniel 8:2), and 
• the dwellers in Mesopotamia (Genesis 24:10; Judges 3:8; Acts 7;2), and 
• in Judæa (Acts 1:8; 9:31; II Corinthians 1:16; Galatians 1:22), and 
• Cappadocia (I Peter 1:1), 
• in Pontus (Acts 18:2; I Peter 1:1), and 
• Asia (Acts 6:9; 16:6; 19:10; I Corinthians 16:19; I Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:4), 
• Phrygia (Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23), and 
• Pamphylia (Acts 13:13; Acts 14:24; Acts 15:38; Acts 27:5), 
• in Egypt (Genesis 12:10; Genesis 39:1; Exodus 1:8; Isaiah 19:1; Matthew 2:13-19; Acts 21:38), and 
• in the parts of Libya about Cyrene (Jeremiah 46:9; Ezekiel 30:5; Matthew 27:32; Acts 11:20; 13:1), and 
• strangers of Rome (Acts 19:21; Romans 1:15; II Timothy 1:17), Jews and proselytes (Acts 6:5; 13:43), 
• Cretes (Acts 27:7, 12-13, 21; Titus 1:5) and 
• Arabians (II Chronicles 17:11; 21:16; 26:7; Galatians 1:17; 4:25).

The list mixes people (citizens) and places (countries), beginning with Parthia, the easternmost region mentioned, and ends with Rome, westernmost and northernmost. Egypt and Libya, in the middle, represent the southernmost (and on the continent of Africa). Rome to Parthia was roughly 3500 miles – about the equivalent of driving across the United States from New York, New York to San Francisco, California, and then driving from San Francisco up to Portland, Oregon. Several well-known persons from early post-apostolic Christianity resided in North Africa, including: Clement, of Alexandria (ca. AD 150 – ca. 215); Tertullian, of Carthage (ca. AD 155 – ca. 240); Origen, of Alexandria (ca. AD 184 – ca. 253); Cyprian, of Carthage (ca. AD 200 – 258); Athanasius, of Alexandria (ca. AD 297 – 373); and Augustine, of Hippo (AD 354 – 430).  “Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians” appears to modify “strangers of Rome.” If so, the list names thirteen locations and peoples. If only “Jews and proselytes” and not “Cretes and Arabians” modifies “strangers of Rome,” then fifteen are named rather than of thirteen.

The gift of tongues to the disciples for the multitude gathered at Jerusalem foreshadows God moving his kingdom from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth. For more exposition on tongues, see “Testimony on Tongues.”

Verses 12-13: The emphasis once again returns to the reaction of the crowd, which is in two parts (Cf. vs. 6-7) Part of the crowd reacted in amazement and bewilderment (we do not understand, v. 12) and another in mockery (let us explain it, v. 13).  

And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

They had called the master a winebibber (Luke 7:34). It should be no surprise that they thus accuse his servants (Matthew 10:24-25).

Regions of Pentecost

My not-so-artistic attempt to portray the geographical regions and peoples represented in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ).

Testimony on Tongues

The following links were previously posted on “Seeking the Old Paths” in May and June of 2007. “Tongues – an evangelistic tool” is an earlier draft of what became Appendix E in my Acts Commentary, on the biblical purpose of tongues.

• Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Ghost
• Testimony on tongues – history in the book of Acts
• Testimony on tongues – the filling of the Spirit
• Testimony on tongues – the baptism of the Holy Ghost
• Testimony on tongues – direct Scripture references
• Testimony on tongues – Biblical evidence of true disciples
• Testimony on Tongues – Was/is it an evangelistic tool?

Pro-Life Reply: My Body, My Choice

The Pro-Life Reply to: “My Body, My Choice”

In this video, Kirsten Watson, mother of 7, including twins, explains how to respond to “My Body, My Choice” and reinforce the pro-life argument for the most vulnerable members of society. Be informed and better prepared in less than 5 minutes. Some of the points she makes are:

• When a woman is pregnant, there is more than one body involved
• A right isn’t a right if I only apply it to me
• A woman’s right over her own body does not give her the right to end the life of any other human being
• Mothers and fathers have a natural and legal obligation to support their children after birth, so it should follow that they have this obligation before birth
• “My body, my choice” encourages men to use women, not respect them

From the mind of God to the mind of man

 Brief (and mostly negative) comments about this book.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: a Layman’s guide to How We Got Our Bible, James B. Williams, editor. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999.

Authors: James B. Williams, Ernest Pickering, Mark Minnick, Randolph Shaylor, Paul W. Downey, John E. Ashbrook, John K. Hutcheson Sr., John C. Mincy, Mark R. Simmons, William H. Smallman, J. Drew Conley, Keith E. Gephart.

The Committee on the Bible’s Text and Translation: J. Drew Conley, Paul W. Downey, John K. Hutcheson Sr., Mark Minnick, Randolph Shaylor, Mark R. Simmons, James B. Williams.

This book purports to be sort of “central” or “neutral” in the King James controversy, “with the goal of healing the wounds” and “To expose the two extreme positions on the King James controversy: KJV Onlyism and KJV Discreditism.” (Introduction: The Issues We Face, pp. 8-9)

In the “Introduction” to this book, J. B. Williams first approvingly cites James White’s inflammatory and inaccurate KJVO categories that have hung on far too long in the fray (p. 2). He mentions a group he calls “KJV Discreditors,” who make extreme statements against it. Williams asserts that the “extremes have produced a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism.” He calls the defense of the King James Version a “cancerous sore” that has resulted in “a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism...” (pp. 2-3). It seems quite clear to me that the focus of this book is primarily on and against “King James Only” advocates. The word “Discreditism” is used only once (p. 8) and “Discreditors” is used twice (p. 3). Williams names one “discreditor” in the text of his “Introduction” (p. 3), Jack P. Lewis, author of The English Bible from KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982).[i] While the authors may sincerely wish to avoid the extreme of “KJV Discreditism,” it certainly does not come into balanced focus in this book.

Williams sets up four points (pp. 5-6) as the so-called “Historic View” about the Bible, the Christian Faith, and the King James Version “of all the recognized Christian leaders of the Christian Faith for the past three hundred years.”[ii] 

• 1. Only the originals are verbally and plenarily inspired, and the KJV is a translation of copies of the original documents.[iii]
• 2. The KJV was revised in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1659, and 1769, indicating “that it is impossible for the 1611 translation to be verbally inspired and inerrant.”
• 3. The “KJV was free from theological errors” but not “inspired in the same sense as the original documents.”
• 4. An accurate translation is God’s way of speaking to men.

With this myopic set up, Williams alleges “The first noticeable deviation from the accepted and historic agreement was published in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.”[iv] Like Doug Kutilek, Williams also states that Wilkinson’s book “was unknown and unused until a Baptist minister, J. J. Ray, published God Wrote Only One Bible in which he heavily plagiarized Wilkinson's book...” (p. 6)

Interestingly, both Kutilek and Williams acknowledge that they know that Ray believed there were some errors in the KJV that should be corrected! (See J. J. Ray, pp. 30-31) Yet they do not let that get in the way of a good polemic exercise.

In the “Conclusion” Keith Gephart claims “We need to be preaching Christ, not beating our drums for or against the King James Bible!” However, like the “Introduction” and points in between, his primary focus has been against “King James Onlyism.” 

This book fails to be what it purports to be, and fails to do what it purports to do. In the end, it adds one more screed in the long line of “Fundamentalist” books against “King James Onlyism” – in the “polite and kind” way of the times, of course.

---

[i] Williams also quotes Adlai Loudy, Sake Kubo and Walter F. Specht, and the Preface to the Revised Standard Version on page 3 in his “Introduction.”
[ii] Are we truly to believe that Williams is aware of “all the recognized Christian leaders” in this time frame. Of course not, it is the leaders he recognizes, and he does not recognize leaders who held a higher view of the King James Bible, some of which history I have pointed out in various blog articles.
[iii] Rather than “300 years historic,” this terminology is specifically Warfieldian. This book even mentions B. B. Warfield “is well known for his defense of the position that the autographs are inspired and inerrant” (p. 25). Rather than defend the positions, Warfield basically created it, shifting from apographs to autographs and from infallibility to inerrancy. See The Ecclesiastical Text: Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind by Theodore Letis, pages 72-81.
[iv] Of course, he must avoid mentioning the earlier pro-KJV book by Philip Mauro, an author who contributed essays to the 12-volume The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth.

Eaten from within

“Thought in the West was de-Christianized somewhat like a caterpillar is devoured from the inside after the ichneumon fly has laid its eggs; the eggs laid in the caterpillar hatch into larvae, which in turn develop to feed on their host. The outer form of the caterpillar remains undamaged for some time until it too is finally destroyed...Similarly we are seeing the results in modern thought of what has been going on undercover for a long time. The false impression is created that the Christian faith has come to an end. What has happened is that a stream of ideology, which was anti-Christian from the start, has finally run its course. This ideology was at first intermixed with the Christian faith; but in the course of its refinement it rejected the Christian faith as essentially incompatible.”

Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?, pp. 38-39

Come, Holy Spirit, come

I’d guess that most of our Sacred Harp songs focus on God the Father and Jesus. The Holy Spirit gets to make his mark from time to time. One popular “Holy Spirit song” is No. 68b, “Come, Holy Spirit, come” sung to the tune Abbeville.

Benjamin Beddome (1717-1795) wrote the words. Beddome, born at Henley-in Arden, Warwickshire, 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 Exposition of the Baptist Catechism) in addition to his hymns – which number was over 800. His hymns were written to be sung after his sermons on the Lord’s Day morning. This hymn apparently was first published in John Rippon’s A Selection of Hymns from the Best Authors. Beddome died September 23, 1795 at Bourton-on-the-Water, Cotswold District, Gloucestershire, England, and is buried there in the St. Lawrence Churchyard.

In 1818 a collection of Beddome’s hymns was published, called Hymns Adapted to Public Worship, or Family Devotion (London: Burton and Briggs, 1818), possibly produced at the instigation of Robert Hall, and at least with his recommendation. This poetry is Hymn No. 132, placed in the section “Influences of the Holy Spirit” under the heading “Invocation.” It has four stanzas in Short Meter. The Sacred Harp, 2012 Edition, includes the first two stanzas.

The music is by a Baptist layman in Georgia, United States, Elisha James King. King was a brilliant music student of B. F. White. He taught and composed music, and with his mentor became co-compiler of The Sacred Harp, 1844. E. J. King was born in Georgia in 1821, the son of John King and Elizabeth DuBose. His bright music prospects ended when he died August 31, 1844 – the same year The Sacred Harp was published. He left a legacy of 24 tunes in the book, most of them quite popular. Some were original compositions. Some were arrangements of earlier tunes. The latter is the case of Abbeville. The location of his burial is currently unknown, but “them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”

1. Come, Holy Spirit, come!
With energy divine;
And on this poor, benighted soul,
With beams of mercy shine.

2. From the celestial hills,
Light, life, and joy dispense:
And may I daily, hourly feel
Thy quickening influence.

3. Oh melt this frozen heart,
This stubborn will subdue;
Each evil passion overcome,
And form me all anew.

4. The profit will be mine,
But thine shall be the praise;
Cheerful to thee will I devote,
The remnant of my days.

Love thy neighbour, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify when possible.)

“I would rather be a fool on fire than a scholar on ice.” -- Unknown

“The function of a New Testament church is best carried out by the form of the New Testament church.” -- Steve Atkerson

“Our job is not to know ahead of time who the sheep are; our job is to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ.” -- John Piper

“Bitterness continues to pave the way to your past; Forgiveness paves a way to your future.” -- Louie Giglio

“Holiness isn’t the way to Christ; Christ is the way to holiness.” -- Adrian Rogers

“Socialists want you to smoke pot. They need a populace that can understand their economic arguments.” -- Doug Wilson

“His death is proof that Jesus is human; His resurrection is proof that Jesus is divine.” -- Luke Martinez

“God is not against profit; God is against greed.” -- Tony Evans

“In some sense, God wills everything that happens.” -- Credited to Augustine of Hippo (but I have not located an original source of the statement)

“The Christian is supposed to love his neighbor, and since his wife is his nearest neighbor, she should be his dearest love.” -- Martin Luther

“The Lord’s mercy often rides to the door of our heart upon the black horse of affliction.” -- Charles H. Spurgeon

Message and Mission

“The message and mission of the churches of Christ are the same today as nineteen centuries ago. To a present-day church the commission to evangelize the world may seem an impossible task, but those early Christians, and the church they composed, believed the risen Lord could and would empower them sufficiently to do the work to which He had commissioned them. So believing, they simply showed themselves willing to do the Lord’s bidding, and trusted Him to supply the ways and the means to accomplish the work. Without benefit of modern inventions, church houses, extra-scriptural missionary societies, boards, committees, endowments, and guaranteed salaries, they succeeded to such a remarkable degree as to have never been equaled by any church or group of churches since.”

O. H. Griffith, “Foreword” in All the Sermons of Acts: a Study Course of Twenty-Six Expository Lessons, J. W. Griffith, Texarkana, TX: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1966, p. 5.

The waiting church at work: Acts 1:15-26

The waiting church at work

The selection of Matthias has been called “the first official act of the acts of the apostles.” Some believe the apostles and the early church “ran ahead” of God in choosing Matthias to fill the office of Judas.[1]  However, Luke neither suggests nor implies this. Luke, under inspiration, consistently speaks of the twelve in the following chapters.

Verses 15-25: Peter feeds the flock (Cf. John 21:15-17), provides leadership (v. 15),[2] refers to the apostle Judas and the testimony of scripture (vs. 15-20),[3] and outlines a course of action (vs. 21-22). They should fill Judas’s office, per the Scriptures. Someone who was a disciple from the baptism of John and witnessed Jesus’s resurrection should fill Judas’s place. It is reasonable to conclude that most, if not all, of the 120 had witnessed a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus Christ. At least two men filled the gamut of the requirement.

Verse 15: For disciples (μαθητων), see also Acts 6:1, 2, 7; 9:1, 19, 25-26, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:1, 7, 30; and 21:4, 16.

Verses 16-18: James and Judas Iscariot are the only apostolic deaths recorded in the Bible. James was a martyr (Acts 12:1-2). Judas committed suicide shortly after he betrayed Jesus (Matthew 27:5).[4] Doubters and disputers find difficulties when comparing the accounts of Judas’s death in Acts 1:16-19 with Matthew 27:5-8. Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall, burst asunder, and his bowels gush out? Both. A contradiction occurs only if one account excludes the possibility of the other account. This is not true of Acts 1:16-19 and Matthew 27:5-8. This is no contradiction that Judas could have both hanged himself and then fallen down, bursting asunder. “Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result.”[5] Through consideration of the biblical principle “here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:9-13), one can see that both accounts are correct. In his haste and distress, Judas even made a poor job of killing himself. After hanging himself, he fell, the rope breaking, in which he suffered further indignity appropriate to his crime.[6] Gill writes, “all that [Judas] got by his wretched bargain, was only so much ground as to be buried in.”[7] It is possible that verses 18 and 19 represent an explanation of Luke to Theophilus, rather than being words that Peter spoke to the disciples present. The 120 in all likelihood would have been familiar with the details of Judas’s death, while Theophilus probably was not.

Verse 19: “in their proper tongue” – that is, the speech of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Aceldama/ακελδαμα means “The field of blood.” See also Matthew 27:8. The chief priests took Judas’s blood money and purchased the field of Judas’s blood in Judas’s name (Matthew 27:6-7). Dwellers, κατοικεω; Cf. Acts 2:5, 9, 14; 4:16; 19:17.

Verse 20: “For it is written in the book of Psalms” “which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake.” Peter recognizes the Psalms as inspired Scripture. The references are Psalm 69:25 (“Let their habitation be desolate”), Psalm 109:8 (“let another take his office”), and perhaps Psalm 40:15.

Verses 21-22: Following the stressed theme of Acts 1:8, one must “be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” “companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John…” Compare Mark 1:1-4, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…Behold, I send my messenger before thy face…The voice of one crying in the wilderness…John did baptize…” It was a serious and solemn to limit the candidates to the qualified.

Verses 23-25: The 120 put forward two men who meet the qualifications (vs. 21-22) – Joseph called Barsabas, (surnamed Justus), and Matthias.  Cf. “ye which have followed me,” Matthew 19:28. They made prayer and supplication to God. Nothing further is known of Joseph, save that he was among those who cast their lots and among those who were in one accord when the church was baptized by the Holy Ghost a few days later.

Verse 26: Casting of lots. “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.” Proverbs 16:33; 18:18. The disciples humble their hearts to exclude their thoughts and feelings from the matter. The lot would render an impartial, unbiased decision, for which none could claim human favoritism or intervention. 

και εδωκαν κληρους αυτων και επεσεν ο κληρος επι ματθιαν

and [they] gave lots themselves, and fell the lot upon Matthias[8]

This method of decision by lot seems unconventional to modern Christians, but remains uncondemned in the context of Acts chapter one. On the other hand, it is the one and only record of either the apostles or early church using this method of guidance for church decisions.[9] The Acts of the Apostles as a whole does not present casting of lots as “the way” a church comes to consensus. See Acts 6:3-5, 13:1-3, and 15:22-23, for examples of consensus decision making. However, the presence of unity, prayer, guidance of scripture, and submission to God’s Providence offers a worthy example and useful principle for decision-making.

---

[1] The “anti-Matthias” theory misses Luke’s purpose of establishing the credibility and continuity of the apostolic witness, and rejects God’s sovereign choice of a replacement for Judas. Remember also that Jesus gave to the apostles the authority of binding and loosing, Matthew 16:19; 18:18. See Ephesians 2:20.
[2] Peter is the primary apostolic representative in the early chapters of Acts. Interestingly, Peter denied Christ the same night Judas betrayed him. Judas killed himself, but Jesus restored Peter (John 21, et al.).
[3] The selection of Judas Iscariot was intentional, not a mistake. The defection of Judas was known, prophesied. See Matthew 26:24-25; John 6:70; 13:18, 26-29; Psalm 41:9; 55:12-14; Zechariah 11:12-13.
[4] On “guide,” compare Psalm 55:13.

[5] Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Gospels, Volume 1, p. 319.

[6] Some Bible students, noting the close proximity in time of Judas’s hanging and Jesus’s crucifixion, have suggested that the earthquake when Jesus dismissed his spirit could account for the fall of the body of Judas from the place where he was hanging (as opposed to the hanging rope simply breaking. Cf. Matthew 27:3-5 with 27:50-51). How apt would be such an occurrence!

[7] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/

[8] The exact manner of casting lots in this case is not specified, but in general, it was some manner of throwing down marked pebbles or pieces of wood in order to distinguish between one thing or another, one person or another, etc. Some few have equated the casts of lots with voting, but it is best to understand this casting of lots in the way it is used elsewhere in the Bible. In “Exegetical Brief, Acts 1:26—Lottery Or Election,” John F. Brug, General Editor of Project Wartburg, writes, “In favor of the view that this verse refers to election by ballot is the fact that ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς is not one of the regular terms for casting lots and the verb συγκαταψηφίζομαι seems to refer to voting.” Perhaps “was numbered” in the second clause suggests a decision of the church at Jerusalem unanimously accepting and confirming the divine will. http://www.wlsessays.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/820/BrugLottery.pdf, Accessed 12 June 2020 3:42 pm.

[9] The law of Moses recognized casting lots; note several significant mentions of the casting of lots: Leviticus 16:8-10; Numbers 26:55-56; Joshua 7:14-18, 14:2; Judges 1:3, 20:9; 1 Chronicles 24:5-19, 25:8; Nehemiah 10:34, 11:1; Proverbs 18:18; Jonah 1:7; Matthew 27:35.

Frankenstein Greek text

Frankentext (or Franken-text), noun. Reconstructed textual readings which can be found in no extant manuscripts; that is, textual units (e.g., a verse) of a printed Greek New Testament whose exemplar cannot be found in any extant Greek manuscript (a portmanteau of Frankenstein and text).[i]

Thomas Ross talked about this problem in his debate with James Whiteout R. White. White seemed somewhat unable to comprehend it. (Listen to the opening statement of Ross, starting about 50:14 through 52:25. Ross lists 41 examples from Matthew and Mark alone. His statements are based on the work of Reuben Swanson and others in New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus, Matthew; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1995.)

The following comments are by Robert Adam Boyd from the Dwayne Green YouTube Channel, slightly edited for print medium (and used with Green’s permission). I do not believe I have changed any meaning with the lite editing, but to get the exact statements of Adam Boyd, please listen to “The Byzantine text is BETTER THAN the Critical Text” at about 7:38 to 8:49.

A great example is Matthew 19:29. The English Standard Version translation reads:

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

There are two variants here. The first one is “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands.” The only manuscript that says it that way is Vaticanus (Codex Vaticanus). All of the other manuscripts add the word “wife” – “or wife or children or lands.”

The other variant is “hundredfold.” There are a lot of manuscripts that say “hundredfold,” but Vaticanus is not one of them. Vaticanus says “manifold.” When you put those two variants together, you do not have any manuscript whatsoever that reads the way the ESV translation reads. So the ESV is translating, as you call it, a “Frankentext.” It’s not actually translating from any manuscript for the entirety of the verse.

[Note 1: Adam Boyd says he finds it “quite implausible that the original text of the Greek New Testament would not be preserved in at least one manuscript, and that that would happen more than a hundred times over the course of the Greek New Testament. I don’t believe that.” At about 6:25, Boyd says that are about 105 verses in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that, when you string together the variants, you cannot find any manuscript whatsoever that has that exact reading. See 105 Verses in the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament Without Any Manuscript Support, by Maurice Robinson.]

[Note 2: Robert Adam Boyd is an ordained minister, a linguist/translator with Wycliffe Bible Translators in Papua New Guinea, and the translator & editor of The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version. To be clear, Adam Boyd is a Majority Text proponent, while Thomas Ross and I are Textus Receptus proponents. Nevertheless, we agree about “Frankentext,” and Boyd does a good job giving a succinct singular example here.]

---

[i] “Frankenstein” technically refers to the scientist Victor Frankenstein in Mary W. Shelley’s novel by that same name; but in common parlance a “Frankenstein” is a monstrous creature stitched or spliced together from various odd sources. In the story, the creator (Dr. Frankenstein) loses control of his creation and that ultimately destroys Victor Frankenstein. Correspondingly, a “Frankentext” is a monstrous creature stitched or spliced together out of various odd parts of Greek manuscripts to create a new, previously unknown, Greek text.

John 7:8, not vs. not yet

The problem

In John 7:8, the Authorized King James Bible has a major difference from most modern translations.  Among modern translations, the NKJV and WEB (and perhaps others) agree with the sense of the KJV, and most if not all pre-1611 English translations also agree. The difference is not translational, but is an underlying textual difference. Here is the verse.

• AKJV: Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
• TR1894: ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν ταύτην ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται

• NASB: Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.
• NA-UBS: ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται

Comparisons from other translations:

Go not yet

• Geneva: Go ye up unto this feast: I will not go up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet fulfilled.
• NKJV: You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.
• WEB: You go up to the feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled.
• YLT: Ye – go ye up to this feast; I do not yet go up to this feast, because my time hath not yet been fulfilled;

Go not

• ESV: You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.
• LEB: You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, because my time is not yet completed.
• NET: You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully arrived.
• NIV: You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.

As a matter of interest, the NET has this note:

John 7:8 tc Most MSS (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

I offer this for the information it contains. I do not agree with the conclusion in the NET, and its peculiar attempt to reconcile the contradiction. NET here seems to accept the idea of “orthodox corruption” of Scripture (i.e., that orthodox Christian scribes altered the biblical texts to conform them to their own beliefs). However, it is significant that, even though they chose to disregard them, the NET translator admit most of the better witnesses have οὔπω, “not yet.”

As another matter of information, the Majority Text:

• RPMT: Υμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην: ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.
• EMTV: You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, because My time has not yet been fulfilled.

In the case of this verse, it is not only in the so-called better witnesses, it is in the majority of all extant witnesses.

The conclusion of the matter

AKJV v. 10: But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

NASB v. 10: But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as though in secret.

When we read the context – John 7:2-13 – we find not a minor difference in how translations word a sentence, but a glaring contradiction in the critical Greek text and translations therefrom. We find in verse 8 in the NASB, for example, that Jesus tells his brothers to go up to the feast, that he is not (οὐκ) going to the feast, and why. In verse 10, only two verses later, Jesus goes up to the feast – which he had told them he would not do. This reading makes Jesus’s statement contradictory. He said one thing and did another. This statement is false, inaccurate, and contradictory. This is not the way of Jesus the Son of God that the Bible presents.

However, in the KJV and TR there is no problem. Just like in the NASB, in verse 10 the King James Bible tells us Jesus went up to the feast. Significantly, this presents no contradiction with what Jesus said previously, because he had said, “I go not up yet” (οὔπω). He was not going when they went, not right now or at this time, not yet. “Not yet” does not mean “not at all.” Jesus said he would not go yet, and he did not go yet. His statement is true, accurate, and consistent. This is the way of Jesus the Son of God that the Bible portrays.

This text, textual variant, and translation presents an interesting account of the different approaches of critical text advocates and traditional text advocates. Using a contrived rule about the harder reading, the critical text advocates reject the majority and “best” readings to prefer the hardest/most unlikely reading. One that is theologically incorrect. Traditional text advocates accept the Greek reading that has traditionally been accepted (which in this case happens to be the majority and better readings) – and more importantly, the one that is biblically and theologically consistent with the person of Jesus Christ. He was not fickle and uncertain. He was not a deceiver or liar. He was all-knowing and knew what he would do – go, but not yet.

The keys of Scripture

“Now let us come back to the Scripture; we cannot do better than keep close to it, for our text is only to be understood by the context. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. The locks of Scripture are only to be opened with the keys of Scripture; and there is no lock in the whole Bible, which God meant us to open, without a key to fit it somewhere in the Bible, and we are to search for it until we find it.”

Charles H. Spurgeon (1834–1892), The Two Pivots, 1882, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Volume 45

Abide among us with thy grace

“But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent…” Luke 24:29

Josua Stegmann, son of Ambrosius Stegmann, was born at Sülzfeld, September 14, 1588. The elder Stegmann was the Lutheran pastor at Sülzfeld. Josua entered the University of Leipzig in 1608, and for a time served as an adjunct professor of the Philosophical Faculty. He later became pastor at Stadthagen. Stegmann died of a fever, on August 3, 1632. 

Josua Stegmann wrote “Ach bleib mit deiner Gnade” as a closing hymn, on the theme “abide with us.” It is a prayer for the Lord to abide with us, developed throughout the hymn. Catherine Winkworth translated the hymn from German into English. The translation, in Common Meter, was present in both Lyra Germanica, 1858, and Chorale Book for England, 1863. Both the translation and the original hymn have retained some popularity to the present.

1. Abide among us with thy grace,
Lord Jesus, evermore,
Nor let us e’er to sin give place,
Nor grieve him we adore.

2. Abide among us with thy word,
Redeemer, whom we love,
Thy help and mercy here afford,
And life with thee above.

3. Abide among us with thy ray,
O Light that lighten’st all,
And let thy truth preserve our way,
Nor suffer us to fall.

4. Abide with us to bless us still,
O bounteous Lord of peace;
With grace and power our souls fulfill,
Our faith and love increase.

5. Abide among us as our shield,
O Captain of thy host;
That to the world we may not yield,
Nor e’er forsake our post.

6. Abide with us in faithful love,
Our God and Saviour be,
Thy help at need, oh, let us prove,
And keep us true to thee.

The hymn might be sung with most any common meter tune, and appears with the following tune in the Chorale Book of England.