Miracles in Acts

 

You should be able to click on the image to enlarge it

Acts 8:1-8

Chapter 8 divides into three parts – 1-4 Troubles without: the church scattered; 5-25 Reaching out: Philip and Samaria; 26-40 Reaching out: Philip and the eunuch.

Troubles without: the church scattered, 1-4

Verse 1: “And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except the apostles.” Acts 11:19 calls this “the persecution that arose about Stephen.” “Judæa and Samaria,” two regions mentioned in Acts 1:8: “witnesses unto me…in all Judæa, and in Samaria…” “Acts 1:8 didn’t happen till Acts 8:1 happened.”[1]

Verse 2: the burial of Stephen by a kind act of devout persons in the church, even in the midst of persecution. Compare Acts 5:6, 10. The death of Stephen brings much lamentation. Lamentation (κοπετον) is passionate expression of grief or sorrow, sometimes accompanied with physical expressions such as beating of the breast (cf. Genesis 50:10; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 5:16).

Verse 3: Saul, abruptly introduced in 7:58 and “consenting unto” the death of Stephen, emerges as the principal party in the persecution of the church. He entered houses and took Christians forcibly to prison. “Hale” means “drag or draw forcibly.”[2] Surprisingly, the person who emerges as the leading persecutor of Christians was a disciple of the leader who advised caution in dealing with them. Compare Acts 22:3 with Acts 5:34-39.

Verse 4: in consequence of the persecution, the church was scattered but not stopped. As the persecution intensified, they “went every where preaching the word.” The persecution changed their situation and location but not their message.

Reaching out: Philip and Samaria, 5-25

Direction through persecution and scattering

Verses 5-25: Luke provides an example of the scattered church preaching the gospel, first Philip and then the apostles in the city of Samaria.

“Although we might be tempted to see in the mission to Samaria the church’s first attempt to evangelize Gentiles, this would be a wrong interpretation. To the Jews the Samaritans were not Gentiles but schismatics, part of the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ For Luke they were people who kept the law and showed a greater piety than many Jews (Luke 10:33-37; 17:11-19)...” Nevertheless, ‘the overcoming of the hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans...may be seen as a step towards the greater problem of bringing Jews and Gentiles together.’”[3]

Verses 5-8: The success of Philip. Via the scattering, “Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” He preached the gospel, and performed miracles (v. 6). The miracles included casting out unclean spirits, and healing those “with palsies, and that were lame.”[4] As in the case of Stephen (Acts 6:8), not only the apostles, but also one of the seven performs miracles. The people of Samaria “gave heed unto those things which Philip spake” which brought great joy.

Notes:

---

[1] “Acts 1:8 didn’t happen till Acts 8:1 happened. Write that down, because it’s important in what it teaches us. Acts 1:8 didn’t happen, go into all the world, didn’t happen until Acts 8:1 happened.” From “The family knows the family’s secrets,” Steve Brown, Key Life radio, Monday, July 26, 2021. https://www.keylife.org/programs/key-life/the-family-knows-the-familys-secrets/ Accessed 29 July 2021 7:15 am
[2] Συρω/συρων (haling) is the word used of the disciples dragging their nets (John 21:8) and the dragon drawing a third of the stars of heaven (Revelation 12:4). See also Acts 14:19 and 17:6.
[3] Acts: an Introduction and Commentary, I. Howard Marshall, p. 162.
[4] Palsy seems to be a general debilitating condition of incapacity or helplessness. Cf. Luke 5:18-24; Acts 9:33; and Hebrews 12:12.

Mark Ward Giving 10 Reasons Against a Single Standard English Bible

... and sowing discord while charging KJV-Onlyists with sowing discord.

The more succinctly titled video “Do We Need a Standard English Bible?” is a response to an address by Lloyd Read at the West Coast Baptist College Spiritual Leadership Conference called “Readability of the Bible.”

Starting at about 8 minutes in the linked video, Mark gives “10 Quick Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Insist on a Single Standard English Bible.” Though he frames the title that way, a more proper title would have been “10 Quick Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Insist on the KJV being the Single Standard English Bible.” (Of course, he does not believe in any standard Bible.)

Some of the objections deserve a thoughtful response, and some are quite lame. For example, No. 10 “To insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative structure above that of the local church.” There are plenty of denominations that have hierarchies that tell the local churches what to do in all sorts of matters. Our church is an unaffiliated independent autonomous congregation. We congregationally choose to fellowship or not fellowship with any number of churches. No authoritative structure is needed or required.

1. God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have a standard Bible translation.

A ghosting, something almost everyone uses against what others believe to settle the debate and walk away – “God nowhere in Scripture says that.” (If Mark can tweak “false friends” to what he wants, I can tweak “ghosting” to mean what I want.)

If you’re looking for the prooftext that says “Thou shalt have one standard Bible translation,” then you’re done. Of course, very few theological questions are settled that way. Obviously, there is a standard. “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” What God inspired (1 Timothy 3:16) is the standard. If so, then an accurate translation of what God has inspired also should be the standard.

Is there a standard canon? Most Protestants will argue so, against Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Marcionites, Mormons, and so on. Here most will probably agree. However, the canon is not just a list of 66 books that are the right books, but it includes the text of those books. The difference in text is where we differ. I believe the content of the Textus Receptus (TR) is “standard” against the content of the Critical Text (CT). If I am right (and I know some of you don’t think so, but bear with me)… if I am right, then a translation of the words of the TR is “standard” against a translation the words of the CT. Which translation of the TR then becomes the rub for some. Here is an intriguing thing. Almost no one who uses an English Bible thinks their translation is the standard, except those who use the KJV! Then, it seems the debate for a standard sacred English text comes down to a debate about the King James Bible. Is it not so? And the KJV is the standard to which most translations compare themselves? The KJV is what almost every English Bible either aspires to be or desires to replace. Is that not so?

Oddly, there is one body, and one Spirit, one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all … and hundreds of English Bible translations, with perhaps at least dozens vying to be the standard sacred text. (I know at least 10 that use “Standard” in their names: American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, Legacy Standard Bible, Literal Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version.)

We might also use Mark’s reason against his reason, “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have multiple Bible translations…” and/or “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have continuously updated Bible translations…” and/or … ad infinitum.

These are some things for his hearers and my readers to think about; things that Mark probably will not raise for you to think about.

A standard text promotes unity, and unity is a positive goal presented in the Bible. “…till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). See also Psalm 133:1; John 17:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6.

I submit that the King James Version is currently the only possible Bible on which we could unite as a standard. It is still the most popularly read Bible. It is the only English Bible generally considered an actual standard.

2. The KJV translators specifically deny that their translation was perfect or God-inspired.

Where is that? Mark said he’d be brief because he had addressed it elsewhere. So we’ll have to look elsewhere. However, in distinction to what Mark says, the translators did say that their translation was perfect in the sense of complete, that it could not be justly excepted against, and that they were making a more exact translation to replace the others that preceded it.

3. To say we have to have a standard and our favorite translation is it so get in line puts KJV-Onlyists in a group of awkward bedfellows: medieval and early modern Catholics.

A red herring, guilt by association, and attempting to poison the well. A doctrine is not judged by heretics who held something similarly, but by searching the scriptures whether these things are so.

4. To say we have to have a standard and the KJV is it puts you in tension with other languages’ Bibles.

I agree that this has not always been addressed properly, but that in itself does not deny the principle of a standard. Most people accept the idea of one standard in one language, though a few people try to make the KJV the standard for all languages.

5. To say we must have a standard and the KJV is it amounts to telling God he didn’t do things right, because he didn’t prepare any instructions for us on how to create or identify this standard.

6. To say we have to have a standard and it’s the KJV amounts to asking God to give us additional revelation beyond his word.

Numbers 5 and 6 basically the same argument, just stated differently, and are essentially included in No. 1. (See that answer above.)

7. To say that the KJV is the standard empirically leads to schools that don’t teach Greek, or teach it poorly.

Answering in the spirit and near letter of Mark’s No. 1, “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have schools that teach Greek.” See how that works?

8. To say that the KJV is the standard introduces a point of division among Christians that doesn’t come from God.

“What exactly is the status of believers who read a different translation?...Does Read really think I’m not a Christian?...What exactly is our status? Are we disobeying? He is dividing from me, separating, over my choice of Bible translation. If his doctrine isn’t taught in Scripture, then this division shouldn’t be there; and the Bible has something to say about dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily.”

This from the guy who has written a book, blog articles, and journal articles against KJVO (and is writing another book and perhaps issuing a 2nd edition of his first book); does interviews, and has (as of 30 Sept 2023) 225 videos on YouTube mostly to do with Bible versionism, as well as another site which says “creating YouTube videos on Bible translation” of which one can become a member for up to $65/month (as of 30 Sept 2023). Ward conceived, designed, and organized the KJV Parallel Bible to show the differences and make comparisons in the Greek texts behind the KJV and modern English Bibles. He’s all over the place spreading his views. And I’m “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily?” Nay but, O man, who art thou?

Interestingly, I have heard folks make almost the same arguments against Baptists “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily” because of their view on baptism! As far as Read’s doctrine not being taught in Scripture, I am quite sure Read believes that it is. I certainly believe mine is, or, God being my helper, I would not hold my doctrine. Is Mark trying to set up some kind of authoritative structure in which he rather than I decides whether my doctrine is taught in Scripture? He doesn’t have to believe my doctrine, but he doesn’t get to decide whether I think the things I believe are scriptural.

There was a time (a very long time) when practically every English Christian was reading and believing the King James Bible. Then some come along and make a new translation, then another, and another, and another – and I, staying the course, am “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily?” And they have no part in it? Pshaw.

Mark asks what is their status (those who use new translations), are they disobeying? Yes, I believe so. I am not one who believes there can not be any changes, updates to words and spelling, etc. It has been done a number of times since 1611, and could still be done. However, each new translation adds a new category of Bible users. Each becomes another case of “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily” – and should be wrong by Mark’s own measuring stick. 

Mark also asks, “Does [Lloyd] Read really think I’m not a Christian?” I can’t speak for Read, but I have read quite a few folks on Facebook who think Mark is not. I do not agree, but it is not some wild anomaly to find Christians who think others who claim to be Christians are not Christians. I know Calvinists who think Arminians are not saved, and Arminians who think Calvinists are not saved. Many fundamentalists think Catholics are not saved, and surely, if Catholics really believe their own doctrine, must think many non-Catholics are not saved. The Campbellites think we Baptists are not saved, and we try to return the favor. Regardless, I think Mark is wrong, dead wrong, in what he believes about the Bible, and is dangerously wrong in what he is doing.

Honestly, Mark thinks we introduce a point of division that doesn’t come from God, but I suspect that he chooses and will choose to stay divided from KJV-Onlyists. He even advises folks to divide from their KJVO church. Sophistry much, Mark?

9. To say that we must have a standard and it’s the KJV turns a matter of local church prudence into a totem, a banner, a tribe.

Mark says he objects to tribalism, but having a standard sacred text – which he opposes – would actually promote unity and counter tribalism! A standard text promotes unity, and unity is a positive goal presented in the Bible. “…till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). See also Psalm 133:1; John 17:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6. The King James Version is the only possible Bible on which we could reasonably unite. It remains the most popularly read Bible. The only Bible that a majority of Christians consider standard is the King James Bible. Let those who oppose “tribalism” think on these things.

10. To insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative structure above that of the local church.

Numbers 9 and 10 are somewhat like two sides of a coin. We are divided into many “tribes,” denominationally. While that in itself is not a constructive condition, it is a fact. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide and more than 200 in the United States. While we need less tribalism rather than more, one more based on using a Bible that most all of the English-speaking tribes were already using before the explosion of new translations should not be all that noticeable. And surely some of the issues creating the more than 200 U.S. denominations (and then subdivisions within them) are more troubling than using the King James Bible only. But, then again, I guess Mark says he has been called as the apostle to KJVOs, so he has to fulfill his calling!!

And then there is the fact that there used to be basically only one English Bible for over 300 years (roughly 1640s to 1940s; the RV and ASV seem to have never been popularly accepted). The folks who use the King James Bible are not the ones who introduced the tribalism.

Mark’s number 10 assumes all tribes are somewhat like his tribe – congregationally governed. However, there are plenty of denominations that have “an authoritative structure above that of the local church” –  they have governing hierarchies that tell their local churches what to do in all sorts of matters (in some cases, including Bible versions). Mark’s argument cannot touch them. On the other hand, it does not touch congregationalism either! Our church is an unaffiliated independent autonomous Baptist congregation. We do not insist other churches do anything. We do not try to govern them. We simply congregationally choose who to fellowship or who to not fellowship, based on a number of spiritual and scriptural criteria. Other churches do as they wish and we do the same. If what they wish is biblically unacceptable to us, we simply and straightforwardly do not have fellowship with them. In most cases, we just “Let them alone.” No authoritative structure is needed or required.

Funny thing. Jeff Riddle and Christian McShaffrey were taken to task for words in the appendix of their book Why I Preach from the Received Text. They were charged with advising folks to leave their Critical Text churches and find a TR church. I wonder if any of these same folks will take Mark Ward to task for advising folks to leave their KJVO churches? He quite plainly states “…you need to leave.” Start about 22:37 in the video to get the context.

In reason No. 8 (starting about 15:33), Ward says KJV-Onlyists tend not to tackle this question head-on – then he goes on toward to end of the video to incite division and dividing from KJVO churches.

Says Mark, “I’m not [boasting]. I’m heartbroken every time I tell an assistant pastor who graduated from West Coast, ‘I’m sorry, brother, but out of respect to the clear but erroneous doctrinal commitments of your pastor, you just need to have a simple conversation with him in which you object to KJV-Onlyism by citing 1 Corinthians 14, and then you need to leave.”

There is something odd that Mark does, in sort of calling out someone as the only KJVO who can match him. As sort of the only one. Starts about 24:08.

“A final little comment. Joe Shakour was one of the panelists for the Q&A that followed Lloyd Read’s session. Joe is a sharp guy, and we’ve had some cordial private conversations. If there’s anyone in mainstream KJV-Onlyism who I think has the chops and the disposition to engage my thinking, it’s Joe.”

See also “Answering my Best Opponent,” at about 1:20.

“I get the sense with him, as with no one else ‘across the aisle’ from me that he has actually taken a lot of time to listen to me.”

However, though said like whoever is the only one, there’s always another one. For example, in this video when Mark says: “Joe is a sharp guy, and we’ve had some cordial private conversations. If there’s anyone in mainstream KJV-Onlyism who I think has the chops and the disposition to engage my thinking, it’s Joe.”

Contrasted to, “I get the sense with him, as with no one else ‘across the aisle’ from me that he has actually taken a lot of time to listen to me.” That, before banning this other brother from commenting at his YouTube channel!

I have heard Mark do this sort of thing several other times, but didn’t take the extra time to try to find more quotes. What’s up with that? Everybody can’t be his best opponent? Maybe he thinks this is someone he’s getting over to his side, then kicks him to the curb when he finds he isn’t coming? Then finds a new friend? I don’t know, I just find it weird. Anyone else ever noticed this?

And there is the silly Siri thing, starting about 20:26. I reply.

Mark: Siri, can’t people just use a dictionary to look up archaic and unfamiliar words in the KJV?

Siri: No. How are people supposed to look up words they don’t realize they’re misunderstanding?

Robert: If a person has a word and dictionary, they can look it up whether or not they realize they are misunderstanding it.

I hate to say it “out loud,” but I have come to the conclusion that there is a lot of disingenuousness in what Mark says. (I didn’t originally think this way, and have fought coming to this conclusion.) “Nobody has answered me” is a tactic of claiming victory and does not describe the actual facts (because many have answered). At the least, this should be “many have tried to answer me, but uneffectively and I still think I’m right.”

Here is another claim I find disingenuous, and have called his attention to it in the online comments to this video:

Mark mentioned at about 23:58 that his next book, “KJV Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know,” will “leave KJV-Onlyism” out of it. How so, if it is only about KJV words? Passive-aggressive Anti-King James Onlyism is still Anti-King James Onlyism. In fact, “leaving it out” by way of just not mentioning it seems to be disingenuous, when probably at least a plurality of Mark’s videos (likely many many more than that) somehow connect to the King James Bible and KJV-Onlyism. If he wants to “leave KJV-Onlyism” out of it, how about teaching about the very false friend “you” in modern Bibles as well? It is a word people often don’t know they don’t know (the essence of a false friend in Mark’s world). Because Mark is only focused on KJV-Onlyism? Don’t hold your breath.

Mark Ward has gained a large following online. The video focused on in this post has received 6450 views and almost 400 comments at the time I write this – many of which sound quite groupie-esque, even though they may be made by otherwise mature Christians. Perhaps Mark could do a U-turn, change course, and use his language skills to help people understand the King James Bible instead of as a cover to draw away disciples after himself. If not, I pray that God might mute his influence and his manner of teaching that leads Bible-believing Christians to doubt the Bibles they hold in their hands and read with their eyes.

Acts 7:59 at the Bar

Q. Did the KJV unintentionally obscure a strong proof of the deity of Christ at Acts 7:59?

A. No.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

A late-September discussion in a Facebook group found itself focused on Acts 7:59. The persistent pertinacious anti-KJVO pugilist Rick Norris punctually presented himself with arguments available. He quickly unveiled the master question: “Did the KJV unintentionally obscure a strong proof of the deity of Christ at Acts 7:59?” Witnesses were called to the stand and sworn in.

Joseph A. Alexander, testifying with due deference to the old translations, allows that the translators of Geneva and King James “no doubt [had] a good design, but with a very bad effect.” What bad effect, Brother Alexander? “Why, of course, these translators utterly concealed ‘a strong proof of the divinity of Christ.’” David Brown concurs, under oath, “A most unhappy supplement of our translators is this word ‘God’ here; as if while addressing the Son, he was really calling upon the Father. The sense is perfectly clear without any supplement at all…” . Conclusively, Albert Barnes asserts in his testimony, “The word God is not in the original and should not have been in the translation” (p. 428).

Supporting witnesses include Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishop’s Bibles (which did not translate the verse the KJV way), as well as the 1842 “Baptist Bible” (The Holy Bible, Being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments Made by Order of King James, Carefully Revised and Amended by Several Biblical Scholars), and Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson. Apparently only part of the legal team, Rick Norris does not actually testify to how he believes the question should be answered, merely aggregating the testimony of others (an appeal to authority?).

Having read the King James Bible for as long as I have been able to read, it never occurred to me that the King James translation of Acts 7:59 somehow obscured the deity of Christ in Acts 7:59. No, far from it! I have always thought that it clearly teaches the deity of Christ – calling Christ God!

If I wanted to be picayunish, I could accuse various commentators who are objecting to “God” in verse 59 with obscuring a strong proof of the deity of Christ. Notice two comments easily located on BibleHub:

“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God] The last word is supplied to make the sense clear in English, but from the words which follow it is better to read ‘the Lord’ instead of ‘God,’ for it is the Lord Jesus who is invoked.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Seriously, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, are you saying it is the Lord Jesus rather than God who is invoked? Don’t you believe Jesus is God?

“Calling upon God.

“God is not in the Greek. From the vision just described, and from the prayer which follows, it is evident that Jesus is meant.” (Vincent’s Word Studies)

Well, Mr. Vincent, do you mean it is evident that Jesus is meant instead of God? Don’t you believe Jesus is God?

Why do they comment as if Jesus is not God? See the point? I don’t think they mean to obscure the fact that Jesus is God, but it can be taken that way. Why not turn Norris’s devices against these commentators in the way he wishes to turn it against the King James translation? At times he clamors for “just weights and measures” – except when he doesn’t.

Let’s consider a few other things.

For the record, this is a translational issue, not a textual variant. The Textus Receptus, Critical, & Majority Greek texts have the same reading here: και ελιθοβολουν τον στεφανον επικαλουμενον και λεγοντα κυριε ιησου δεξαι το πνευμα μου.

επικαλουμενον when translated calling upon or calling on into English expects an object. The word “God” is supplied to make the sense clear in English, and is appropriately italicized in the KJB. A number of translations add that object for smooth English reading, some choosing “God” and some “Lord.” The commentary produced under the editorship of Charles John Ellicott, chairman of the NT company editing the KJV in the 1870s, admits as much: “The word ‘God,’ in the sentence ‘calling upon God,’ it should be noted, is, as the italics show, an insertion to complete the sense.” (See BibleHub link)

Notice the following translations of Acts 7:59, many available on Bible Gateway.

• WYC: And thei stonyden Steuene, that clepide God to help, seiynge, Lord Jhesu, resseyue my spirit. [And they stoned Stephen, that called God to help, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.] (Though Wycliffe was translating from the Latin, the Vulgate’s I have researched do not have the word “God.” So this is in Wycliffe also an issue of English translation, not Latin vs. Greek. Note: This is verse 58 in the Vulgate.)
• GNV 1557 NT: And they stoned Steven, who called on God, & sayd, Lord Jesu receive my sprite.
• GNV: And they stoned Steven, who called on God, & said, Lord Jesus receive my spirit.
• AKJV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• RV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• ASV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• AMP: They continued stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive and accept and welcome my spirit!”
• NASB: They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• JB PHILLIPS: So they stoned Stephen while he called upon God, and said, “Jesus, Lord, receive my spirit!”
• WE: They kept on throwing stones at Stephen. He spoke to God and said, “Oh, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
• NKJV: And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
• GNT: They kept on stoning Stephen as he called out to the Lord, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• NASB1995: They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• CJB: As they were stoning him, Stephen called out to God, “Lord Yeshua! Receive my spirit!”
• JUB: And they stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• OJB: And they went on stoning Stefanos as he called upon Hashem, saying, “Adoneinu, receive my neshamah.”
• WILLIAM D. MOUNCE: They kept stoning Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• MEV: They stoned Stephen as he was calling on God, praying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
• NMB: And they stoned Stephen, who was calling on the Lord and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!
• EMT (Esposito): And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Interestingly, even William D. Mounce (that is the same Bill Mounce who is a member of the NIV translation committee) saw fit to add God to his 2011 Mounce Reverse Interlinear™ New Testament. Obviously, this is not some KJVO conspiracy. It is a normal and common way to translate such a sentence, even into the most modern of times. When we read that Stephen was “calling upon God” and that the person called upon is the Lord Jesus, it does not obscure the deity of Jesus Christ, but well supports it. Shame on those so dead-set to fight either the King James translation or King James Onlyism that they would suggest otherwise!

---

The Acts of the Apostles Explained, Joseph Addison Alexander, pp. 311-312.
A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, New Testament, Volume I, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, p. 487.
Notes Explanatory And Practical On The Acts Of The Apostles, Albert Barnes, p. 130.

The internal witness is one alone

The internall witnesse is one alone: namely, of the holy Ghost inwardly speaking to our heart, and perswading vs that those writings are inspired of God, and sealing them vp in our hearts. Eph. 1.13. and 1. Ioh. 2.20.27. Ye haue an oyntment of the Lord, and this oyntment teacheth you of all things: for whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God, can easily discerne his power speaking in the Scriptures: as it is said 1. Cor. 2.15. The spirituall man discerneth all things: and Esa. 53.1. The arme of the Lord is not reuealed to all men. So Luk. 8.10. and Mat. 13.11. The mysteries of the kingdome of heauen are not reuealed to all men, but to those to whom it is giuen of God. And this testimonie properly maketh for our confirmation, and this alone doth satisfie vs, being knowne of them alone that are conuerted vnto Christ, which doth euermore agree with the Scripture, without which the testimonie of the Church can be of no waight with vs. For as none but God alone is a fit witnesse to testifie of himselfe in his word: euen so the word neuer findeth credite in our hearts, till such time as it be sealed vp vnto vs by the inward testimonie of the spirit.

More modern spelling:

The internal witness is one alone; namely of the Holy Ghost inwardly speaking to our heart, and persuading us that those writings are inspired of God, and sealing them up in our hearts, Eph. 1:13; 1 John 2:20, 27, Ye have an anointment of the Lord, and this anointment teaching you all things. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, can easily discern his power speaking in the Scriptures. As it is said, 1 Cor. 2:15, The spiritual man discerneth all things, and Isa. 53:1, The arm of the Lord is not revealed to all men. So Luke 8.10. and Matt. 13.11. The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are not revealed to all men, but to those to whom it is given of God. And this testimony properly maketh for our confirmation, and this alone doth satisfy us, being known of them alone that are converted unto Christ, which doth evermore agree with the Scripture, without which the testimony of the church can be of no weight with us. For as none but God alone is a fit witness to testify of himself in his word: even so the word never findeth credit in our hearts, till such time as it be sealed up unto us by the inward testimony of the Spirit.

Guillaume (William) Bucanus, Body of Divinity or Institutions of the Christian Religion; framed out of the Word of God, and the writings of the best divines, methodically handled by was of questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know and practice the will of God. Written in Latin. Translated into English by Robert Hill and Fellow at St. Johns College in Cambridge, for the benefit of the English Nation. Printed at London: By George Snowdon, and Leonell Snowdon [, and R. Field], 1606, pp. 40-41.

I Am His, and He Is Mine

The hymn below was written by George Wade Robinson. Robinson was born in 1838 in Cork, Ireland. He was a Congregationalist minister, hymn writer, and poet. He died January 23, 1877 at Southampton, leaving a wife and six children. The hymn beautifully expresses the joy of knowing “I am his and he is mine,” and the beauty of seeing what “Christless eyes have never seen.”

1. Loved with everlasting love, 
Drawn by grace that love to know; 
Spirit, breathing from above, 
Thou hast taught me it is so! 
Oh, this full and perfect peace! 
Oh, this transport all divine! 
In a love which cannot cease, 
I am his, and he is mine. 
 
2. Heav’n above is softer blue, 
Earth around is sweeter green! 
Something lives in ev’ry hue 
Christless eyes have never seen: 
Birds with gladder songs o’erflow, 
Flow’rs with deeper beauties shine, 
Since I know, as now I know, 
I am his, and he is mine. 
 
3. Things that once were wild alarms 
Cannot now disturb my rest; 
Closed in everlasting arms, 
Pillowed on the loving breast. 
Oh. to lie forever here, 
Doubt and care and self resign, 
While he whispers in my ear- 
I am his, and he is mine. 
 
4. His for ever, only his: 
Who the Lord and me shall part? 
Ah, with what a rest of bliss 
Christ can fill the loving heart! 
Heav’n and earth may fade and flee, 
Firstborn light in gloom decline; 
But, while God and I shall be, 
I am his, and he is mine. 

The hymn is most often sung with the tune Everlasting Love by James Mountain (1844-1933), an English pastor and evangelist. The tune of Mountain with the words of Robinson was published in Hymns of Consecration and Faith. Listen to the song HERE.

George Wade Robinson is sometimes credited as the author of “One sole baptismal sign” in J. Leifchild’s Original Hymns. However, this book was printed in 1842 and George Wade Robinson would have been only four years old at the time.

A Friend on the Trail, 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.

• A Friend on the Trail of Tears: How a Baptist Missionary Became a Cherokee -- “Evan Jones...Though largely forgotten today, the legacy of his labors through incredible turmoil and danger deserves a place among the annals of Baptist missionaries.”
• Americans Are Losing Faith in the Value of College -- “Today the average total cost of attending a private college, including living expenses, is about $58,000 a year...at the University of Michigan (a public university), tuition, fees, and expenses for out-of-state juniors and seniors total more than $80,000 a year.”
• Do the Bible’s Critics Use a Double Standard? -- “Comparing trends in Homeric and biblical studies, a historian asserts that critics of the Bible apply artificial criteria that Homeric scholars have long since repudiated.”
• Hand Carved Slate -- “An inanimate antique object of cold stone suddenly had a voice, and connections between mourning, monuments, and music were forged in this instant.”
• Gravestone Symbols from A to Z -- “When you were learning to read as a child, you probably learned the alphabet from A to Z. Likewise, learning gravestone symbols from A to Z will help you learn to ‘read’ a cemetery.”
• “How do I . . . ?” 10 Answers to Your BillionGraves Questions -- “Have you ever tried to find a gravestone in a large cemetery? One with tens of thousands of gravestones? If so, you know how time-consuming, and even frustrating, it can be.”
• It Still Reigns -- “To see oneself and one’s landscape so accurately and aesthetically rendered was life-changing—as it remains today: a book of the heart.”
• It’s Rocket Science (And So Much More) -- “In the predawn hours one Friday in May, a yellow school bus hurtles down U.S. Highway 281 with 19 students, one teacher and a lot of uncertainty.”
• Mississippi Baptist ministers to the Confederate Army during the Civil War -- “Like many of his neighbors in northeast Mississippi, he did not believe in slavery, yet he went to Corinth and enlisted in the Confederate Army.”
• Stone-carved graves are going extinct. A Somerville artist is bringing them back to life. -- “There are only a handful of stone carvers left in this country doing the work by hand in the traditional manner. The trade might not be completely ‘dead,’ but it’s certainly on life support.”
• Stones Over Bones: Carving a Deathshead -- “After a full year of approvals, sourcing the slate, tracing the photos, cutting the shapes, and transferring the design, I can't tell you how good it felt to finally cut into these.”
• Theology and the Great Tradition of English Bibles, by Cameron A. MacKenzie -- “When I was a young man, on two separate occasions my father surprised me with gifts. On the first occasion, he presented me with a copy of the Concordia Triglotta and on the second, with a facsimile of the first edition of the King James Bible (1611).”
• The Particular Baptists in Australia -- “Originally contrived as a place of convict settlement with little attention initially paid to its development, the established church never really was to occupy a position in the colony akin to that which it had enjoyed in England.”
• Why some retired clergy lose faith and leave church -- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
• 95 Theses Against Modern Translations -- “One cannot overstate the importance of the translation and preservation of God’s Word, because God has placed His Word above His own name.”

75 souls - Acts 7:14

Acts 7:14 – Those searching for contradictions in the Bible feel they have one here: “threescore and fifteen souls” – seventy-five (Acts 7:14) versus “threescore and ten” – seventy (Genesis 46:27). Some appeal to the Greek Septuagint to resolve the “contradiction.”[1] However, the Baptist theologian John Gill offers this explanation:

But there is no contradiction; Moses and Stephen are speaking of different things; Moses speaks of the seed of Jacob, which came out of his loins, who came into Egypt, and so excludes his sons’ wives; Stephen speaks of Jacob and all his kindred, among whom his sons’ wives must be reckoned, whom Joseph called to him: according to Moses’s account, the persons that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, and so exclusive of his sons’ wives, were threescore and six; to which if we add Jacob himself, and Joseph who was before in Egypt, and who might be truly said to come into it, and his two sons that were born there, who came thither in his loins, as others in the account may be said to do, who were not yet born, when Jacob went down, the total number is threescore and ten, (Genesis 46:26-27) out of which take the six following persons, Jacob, who was called by Joseph into Egypt, besides the threescore and fifteen souls, and Joseph and his two sons then in Egypt, who could not be said to be called by him, and Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Pharez not yet born, and this will reduce Moses’s number to sixty four; to which sixty four, if you add the eleven wives of Jacob’s sons, who were certainly part of the kindred called and invited into Egypt, Genesis 45:10 it will make up completely threescore and fifteen persons…nor was there any need to alter and corrupt the Septuagint version of Genesis 45:27 to make it agree with Stephen’s account; or to add five names in it, in Acts 7:20 as Machir, Galaad, Sutalaam, Taam, and Edom, to make up the number seventy five: and it may be observed, that the number is not altered in the version of Deuteronomy 10:22 which agrees with the Hebrew for seventy persons.[2]

Notice also “all his kindred” (which is 75) in Acts 7:14, compared to “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins” and “all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob” (which is 70) in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5. “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives” (Genesis 46:26) excludes them from the count. And “for Joseph was in Egypt already” (Exodus 1:5; Genesis 46:27) differentiates those descendants (Joseph and his sons) who came into Egypt a different way, or at a different time. Gill notes in his commentary on Genesis 46:26-27:

such as were his seed and offspring. This is observed for the sake of what follows, and to exclude them: besides Jacob’s sons’ wives;

 

these do not come into the account, because they did not spring from him: all the souls [were] threescore and six;

 

thirty two of Leah’s, leaving out Er and Onan,[3] sixteen of Zilpah’s, fourteen of Rachel’s, and seven of Bilhah’s, make sixty nine; take out of them Joseph and his two sons, who were in Egypt before, and you have the exact number of sixty six.[4]

---

[1] For example, Ellicott’s Commentary: “Here, however, Stephen had the authority of the LXX. of Gen. xlvi. 27, which gives the number at seventy-five...Stephen, as a Hellenistic Jew, naturally accepted, without caring to investigate, the number which he found in the Greek version” (E. A. Plumptre, p. 39). “And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls” (Genesis 46:27 in the Brenton translation of the Greek Septuagint, p. 64). Additionally, this does not deal with Deuteronomy 10:22 in the LXX (70).
[2] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-7-14.html
[3] Er and Onan, who died before in the land of Canaan, are excluded from the count. Genesis 38:7-10.
[4] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/genesis-46-26.html

The So-Called “Mistakes” in Stephen’s Sermon

APPENDIX N – THE SO-CALLED “MISTAKES” IN STEPHEN’S SERMON

Those who reject the inspiration, inerrancy, and accuracy of the Bible find much fodder in Stephen’s speech for fermenting and fomenting their censure of the Bible. Those who accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible may find difficulty in some supposed discrepancies. Obvious issues exist that need a biblical explanation, harmonization, and resolution. Other issues give evidence of unbelievers digging for minutiae where few Bible students would ever imagine any difficulty. Anglican commentator R. B. Rackham lists 15 such difficulties – others ten (Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History), seven (Longenecker, Acts), five (Koivisto, “Stephen’s Speech”), some more and some less.

1. The chronology of the call of Abraham. Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1
2. The timing of the death of Abraham’s father, Terah. Acts 7:4; Gen. 11:32
3. The years of slavery, 400 versus 430. Acts 7:6; Gen. 15:13-16; Exod. 12:40-41
4. Adding to Genesis 15:13-14, “serve me in this place”. Acts 7:7; cf. Gen. 15:16
5. The number of those who went to Egypt. Acts 7:14; Gen. 46:26-27
6. The place of burial of Abraham and his descendants. Acts 7:15-16; Joshua 24:32
7. The purchase of the burial grounds. Acts 7:16; Gen. 23:17-20, 33:19
8. The education of Moses. Acts 7:22; Exodus 4:10
9. Adding the age of Moses when he left Egypt. Acts 7:23
10. The reason that Moses fled Egypt. Acts 7:29; Exod. 2:14-15; Heb. 11:27
11. Horeb versus Sinai. Acts 7:30; Exodus 3:1
12. Worship of the host of heaven not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Acts 7:42
13. Chiun and star of your god versus star of Remphan. Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26
14. Babylon in Acts versus Damascus in Amos. Acts 7:43; Amos 5:27
15. Few murders of the prophets in the Old Testament. Acts 7:52; cf. Matt. 23:35-37
16. The law given by angels. Acts 7:53; Exodus 31:18

Numerous objections present themselves as perfidious quibbling. Stephen speaks the truth. Undoubtedly, he uses rhetorical devices such as summary and expansion, which is a natural part of discourse. Neither summation nor elaboration equal factual error.

Liberal interpreters of the Bible do not try to resolve the “problem passages,” because they do not believe the Bible is inerrant (without error). They instead assert that Stephen’s errors provide a valid reason to doubt and attack the inerrancy of the Bible.[1]  Those who hold inerrancy (or some measure of it) offer various resolutions. Some resolutions merely exchange one problem for another. Three common solutions posited by theologians and commentators (to explain the difficulties) are:

• Stephen made a mistake. In “…Luke’s record of Stephen’s apology…Inerrancy in this case would have primary reference to the fact that a speech of this substance was actually delivered on that occasion.” One must distinguish between the fact of what Stephen said and the accuracy/truth of what he said. [2] (Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 78)
• Stephen quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, rather than the Hebrew. “Stephen, or Luke, follows the Septuagint translation, as being then the best known…” Bengel’s Gnomon, p. 572)
• Stephen followed traditional Jewish teachings. “It is thus likely that Stephen is following a well-known tradition that his audience also knows…” (Bock, Acts, p. 284, see also pp. 282, 288, 306)

These resolutions, striking a mediating position between errancy and inerrancy, seem satisfactory to many contemporary Christians (removing any felt need to harmonize the difficult parts with the Old Testament). Nevertheless, regardless of their seeming propriety, each of them still affirms that Stephen makes numerous errors of fact in his address to the council. This manner of resolving the supposed mistakes of Stephen’s sermon relegates it to a mere historical record while removing its theology for beneficial instruction of the Lord’s people and churches.

However, Luke’s inspired use of Stephen’s address implies its faithfulness to the truth. Luke introduces Stephen as “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” “full of faith and power,” and whose face was “as it had been the face of an angel” (6:3, 5, 8, 15). Further, he concludes that Stephen was “full of the Holy Ghost” when he spoke (7:55). Finally, to charge Stephen with mistakes here is to question the prophecy and promise of Jesus. Jesus promised to give them the words to speak when delivered up to the synagogues, cast into prisons, and brought before kings and rulers. “It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” See Matthew 10:19-20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11-12; 21:12-15; John 14:26. Theologians often interpret the New Testament as if they (the theologians) know more than its authors and the early Christian believers. However, regarding Acts 7, is it not likely that Stephen was aware of things of which we are unaware?

Notes:

---

[1] In addition, Christian literature is filled with commentary that assert Luke invented a speech to put in Stephen’s mouth. For a discussion of this, see “The Speeches in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I, the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 402-427. Cadbury arrogantly asks, “May we leave unchallenged the natural assumption of a simple-minded modern reader that when Acts gives the words of Peter or Paul they are words really uttered by the apostles?”
[2] This suggestion means that in Acts, Luke records by inspiration without error a speech in which Stephen made an error or errors. Considered as a general possibility, such a theory is not unreasonable. For example, Moses records, “Ye shall not surely die.” The serpent lied. It is not truth to promote or live by, but Scripture records his words accurately and without error. However, in the Genesis 3 context, it is obvious that the author is accurately recording a false statement. In Acts 7, it is not.

Stephen’s Address to the Council, Acts 7

Stephen’s Address to the Council, Acts 7:2-53[1]

Though he is not an apostle or an elder, the speech of Stephen in Acts 7 is the longest sermon recorded in the book of Acts. Stephen summarizes God’s dealings in the history of Israel in four major points.[2] He teaches the work of God through Abraham, the patriarchs, and Moses. He does not array Jesus against Moses, but identifies Jesus as the prophet of whom Moses spake (Deuteronomy 18). Afterward, Stephen applies his historical summation to the present circumstances (vs. 51-53).[3] 

1. God appeared to Abraham and gave him promises, vs. 2-8a
2. God providentially brought Joseph into Egypt, vs. 8b-16
3. God appeared to Moses and sent him to deliver the people from Egypt, vs. 17-38
4. God blessed Israel in spite of their backslidings, vs. 39-50
5. Stephen applies his historical summation to the present circumstances, vs, 51-53

Stephen applies his historical summation to the present circumstances (verses 51-53)

Verse 51: The application of the message begins. They have a sinful habit in their very nature. It is they, not Stephen, who are guilty of rejecting Moses. Moses prophesied of Jesus Christ. They rejected Jesus, thereby also rejected the testimony of Moses. “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” Stiffnecked (σκληροτραχηλοι) means stubborn, headstrong, inflexibly obstinate. For “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart” compare Deuteronomy 10:16 (“Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked”) and Romans 2:5 (“thy hardness and impenitent heart”). For the true circumcision, compare Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3. For “stiffnecked,” see also Exodus 32:9; Deuteronomy 31:27; II Chronicles 30:8; Jeremiah 17:23. “resist the Holy Ghost,” compare Isaiah 63:10 “But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.”

Verse 52: They reflect the nature of their fathers. They reflect their nature in their sinful deeds. Stephen portrays the consistency of the history of these people – persecution of the prophets. He marks their trait of persecuting and slaying the prophets who foretold “the coming of the Just One” culminating in being his “betrayers and murderers.”

Verse 53: “through the disposition of angels” see Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2; Cf. also Acts 7:30, 35; Deuteronomy 33:2; Exodus 14:19; Judges 2:1; Psalm 68:17. “disposition” (διαταγας, a disposition, arrangement, ordinance, distribution, a giving away or over to another; cf. also Romans 13:2). “of angels” – this perhaps was a cutting remark to the Sadducees present, a sect that did not believe in angels (Cf. Acts 5:17; 23:8).

Stephen’s accusers were concerned about “this holy place” (6:13), “this place” (6:14) – probably meaning the temple and Jerusalem. Stephen asserts that God would bring his people into “this place” (7:7) to serve him (meaning the land promised to Abraham). Yet Stephen emphasizes many places. Mesopotamia is the place where Abraham was called. Charran is the intermediate place Abraham lived between his time in the land of the Chaldæans and the place God would show him. Egypt is the place where God sent Joseph, then Jacob and his family, and where God birthed the nation of Israel. Chanaan is the place that God promised to Abraham and his seed. Sychem is the place where the patriarchs are buried. Madian is the place where Moses fled, found a wife, and had children. The wilderness of mount Sina is the place where Moses saw the burning bush. The Red sea is the place where God by a great sign and wonder separated the people from the Egyptians. The wilderness is the place where God’s people wandered forty years, and bore the tabernacle of witness. Babylon is the place where they were carried in captivity. In Madian in the wilderness of mount Sina, “the place where thou standest is holy ground” (7:33). God shows “the place of my rest” (7:49) transcends the “this place” of the unbelieving Jews. He is the God of all places! See John 4:21-24.

The crowd responds to Stephen’s message

Verse 54a: The convicting message of Stephen, “they were cut to the heart” – the Spirit of God, whom they resisted, drove the message into their hearts, cutting them with his sharp two-edged sword (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12).

Notes:

---

[1] Contra all complainers and naysayers, J. Vernon McGee accurately assesses Stephen’s speech to the council: “The address of Stephen is a master stroke.” McGee, Thru the Bible, Volume IV, p. 537.
[2] The figures introduced share a common history – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the patriarchs, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon. The common thread of the common history of this diverse group is the one God of glory (v. 2).
[3] All the Sermons, J. W. Griffith, pp. 57-59.

The argument from consistency

“Consistency, thou art a jewel!” – Unknown, though often attributed to Shakespeare

“The essence of Christian maturity is to have a high tolerance for ambiguity.” – Fred Smith

“Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson[i]

Emerson, Fred Smith, and Faux Shakespeare may all be on to something! “Consistency, thou art jewel” is an oft-quoted proverb used to good effect.  On the other hand, we often misunderstand the argument from inconsistency, or the argument for consistency.

Consistent is an adjective, and means “agreeing or accordant, not self-contradictory.” Consistency is the noun form, referring to such non-contradictory agreement or logical coherence of a thing (thought) and its parts. Logical inconsistency refers to making arguments that are not internally consistent. In logic or debate a consistent argument does not contain or lead to any logical contradiction.

An OUP blog post says:

“A theory is inconsistent if we can prove a contradiction using basic logic and the principles of that theory.”

The proprietor of “The Logic of Science” blog writes:

“[Consistent reasoning] is a fundamental requirement of the law of non-contradiction. It is, therefore, vital to make sure that your views are internally consistent, and pointing out inconsistent arguments can be an extremely powerful debate tool (it’s actually among my favorites).”

Sometimes it is a too-powerful debate tool. Over the years, in discussions of religious topics (which I cannot bring to mind at the moment) I have seen debaters throw down the gauntlet of “inconsistency,” thinking they then might confidently walk away the winner. Sometimes their opponents and their hearers misunderstand and submissively agree. However, they may have only given proof of inconsistency, and not proof of which inconsistent position is wrong or whether neither or both might be.

A simple but extravagant example can illustrate the point. A person may invoke an unsound argument for a conclusion, even though the conclusion itself is true. An inconsistent argument is proof of an inconsistent argument. It does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. One might argue, Joe Biden is a Democrat because the ocean is blue. Donald Trump is a Republican because a strawberry is red.  These arguments are obviously non sequitur (Latin, “it does not follow”). The ocean is blue and strawberries are red, though those premises have little or nothing to do with the conclusion (the colors are related). Nevertheless, despite the hapless argumentation, the conclusions are true. Joe Biden is a Democrat. Donald Trump is a Republican

Be careful and be sure. Don’t immediately admit that inconsistency is proof of an error of your part and point – just proof of inconsistency. If your argument is inconsistent but your conclusion true, develop a consistent argument. If your conclusion is false, find the truth! (Proverbs 23:23; John 8:32) The truth shall make you free.

---

[i] From the essay “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a fuller quote is “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Precious in the sight of the Lord

Psalm 116:15  Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

Death.

Death is spoken of in several ways in the Scriptures – physical death (Genesis 5:5), spiritual death (Eph. 2:1, 5), eternal death (the second death, Rev. 20:14-15). In the context of Psalm 116, the word speaks of physical death, the time when our temporal bodies cease to function and return to the dust.

A clinical, medical, or scientific definition of death is the permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. A legal definition of death is the irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or irreversible cessation of all brain function. These are clinically measurable criteria, though ultimately imperfect and fallible. Folks who have been pronounced dead have later been found to have life – some before burial, fortunately.

The biblical definition of death is true and accurate, but not clinically measurable. “The body without the spirit is dead.” James 2:26.

Saints.

A saint in the minds of many people is a person of great virtue and holiness – and in the Roman Catholic sense especially a virtuous holy person who has been declared a “capital S” Saint. However, in the biblical sense a saint is a child of God, either living or dead. Jude 1:14 demonstrates the latter, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:13) So does Matthew 27:52 (“bodies of the saints which slept arose”). But primarily in the New Testament, saints are the living born again believers in the gathered congregations (e.g., Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10). They assemble together (Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2), the Spirit intercedes for them (Romans 8:27), act carnally (1 Corinthians 5-6), need perfecting (Ephesians 4:12), experience want (2 Corinthians 9:12), need refreshing (Philemon 1:7), have feet that need washing (1 Timothy 4:10), pray & are prayed for (Revelation 5:8; Ephesians 6:18), and have had the faith delivered unto them (Jude 1:3).

In context these saints are initially physical alive, since it talks about their coming physical death.

Precious.

Precious is an adjective that means highly esteemed; cherished; dear; beloved; of great value; valuable. Some things described in the Bible as precious are: costly stones, metals, jewels, ointments, & spices (1 Kings 10:2; 2 Kings 20:13); thoughts (Psalm 139:17), a good name (Ecclesiastes 7:1), the fruit of the earth (James 5:7), life (2 Kings 1:14; Psalm 49:8), faith (2 Peter 1:1), promises (2 Peter 1:4), and – most of all – “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

All of these things named are either costly, cherished, beloved, and/or highly esteemed, by God or man.

In the sight of the Lord.

“In the sight of the Lord” ties together precious, death, and saints. The separation of the body and spirit in physical death of the born again children of God (his saints – not Catholic saints, not imagined saints on earth – his saints) is valuable, cherished, and highly esteemed.

“In the sight of the Lord” – This fact is based on God himself (i.e., his truth and his perspective) and by extension to all who then understand death from God’s point of view. To be precious, death must be viewed in a certain light. God is truth (John 3:33), his word is truth (John 17:17), and God’s point of view is truth. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” 

To the dying saint going home, from God’s point of view, and in truth itself, death is gain (Philippians 1:21): a removal from mortal life in the temporal world to immortal life in the eternal world, a reunion of saints living on earth with saints already in heaven, a rest from strife and struggling, and a relief from pain and sorrow. 

To the living saint left behind, from God’s point of view, and in truth itself, death is a readjustment at which time we know that we can have sorrow for our loss, but that we “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13). The dead in Christ are with him in spirit (2 Corinthians 5:8), and when he comes again, the bodies of those saints will rise from their graves.

Death is not precious to the world. It is a hated and despised enemy. Like Ahab to Elijah, when death comes the world must say “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” And like Elijah and Paul, death answers, “I have found thee…for the wages of sin is death.” Those who have no hope beyond the grave cannot see that there is the victory over death – yea, cannot obtain victory over death, and can have neither feeling nor understanding that it is precious. 

To be precious, death must be viewed in a certain light – the light of God’s​ word, God’s will, and of God himself.

1 Corinthians 15:51-57.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Technology Too Far?

It’s worth asking the question: how far is too far? Our research offers some clarity on this. It’s “too far” when TMM attempts to replace active and embodied involvement with a local church. TMM can be a tremendous resource to reach the lost and engage with our culture. Technology can be an effective tool for reinforcing a church’s discipleship efforts. Technology can also benefit those providentially hindered by the momentary challenges of life. But certain forms of online and virtual technologies can also dilute the Christian life by devaluing and undermining a Christian’s regular and meaningful involvement in a local church...Scripture also commands us to take part in the reciprocal imperatives of the Christian life (1 Cor. 12:25, Gal. 6:2, Col. 3:13, et.al.) which cannot be adequately expressed or obeyed through technology-mediation, “online churches,” or “online church membership.”

Heath Woolman, Pastor of Fruit Cove Baptist Church in St. Johns, Florida, Technology-Mediated Ministry: How Far Is Too Far?