In pretence or in truth

Introduction.

Paul writes to the Philippians “in bonds.” 

• in my bonds, v. 7
• my bonds, v. 13
• by my bonds, v. 14
• to my bonds, v. 16

The Philippians are partakers with him, by grace, through his labours, v. 7

All things worked for good, “falling out” unto the furtherance of the gospel, v. 12

• The effect of his bonds, immediately, v. 13
• The effect of his bonds, by extension, v. 14

“Since our troubles may tend to the good of many, we ought to rejoice.” Matthew Henry

The primary text under consideration.

Philippians 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Verse 15, Some preach Christ 

• of envy and strife
• of good will

Verse 16, Some preach Christ

• of contention, supposing to add affliction to my bonds

Verse 17, Some preach Christ

• of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

Verse 18, Christ is preached

• in pretence
• in truth 

“…Paul, in the words ‘in pretence’ and ‘in truth,’ is speaking of the motives of the preachers, not of the substance of their preaching.” Alfred Barry, in A Bible Commentary for English Readers (Charles John Ellicott, editor, Vol. VIII, p. 69).

Explanation and application.

Verses 15 and 16 and 18 give us the clues – “preach Christ,” “not sincerely,” “in pretence” – to understand Paul speaking of the motivation of the preaching, not the content. Had there been doctrinal error preached regarding Christ, Paul could not and would not have rejoiced. We can compare and contrast what Paul said elsewhere, and know he did not condone false preaching.

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Philippians 3:2-3 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Application and Conclusion.

Since “Christ is preached” Paul can and does rejoice in it. He will continue to rejoice. He is not rejoicing in the envy, contention, and pretence, but that, in spite of that, the message of Jesus Christ was going forth.

Immediate application.

When Christ-preaching preachers strive with us, annoy us, and work in self-serving ways, we can still rejoice in their “preaching Christ.”

This does not mean, however, that we must be indifferent as to the motivation in which, and the spirit by which the gospel is preached. Nevertheless, we can rejoice that “preaching Christ” was done. Good results from God might attend their bad intention.

Other possibilities?

When preachers of other denominations and affiliations “preach Christ” (to the extent they actually preach Christ), we can rejoice in that element of their preaching, even if we cannot rejoice in other doctrines they are teaching.

Note: I would in honesty add that I sometimes struggle with the spirit of the conclusion and its application.

Related, see also The Order of Philippians 1:16-17.

The true canonical Holy Scriptures

“The canonical Holy Scriptures in the original text are the infallible truth and are free from every error; in other words, in the canonical Sacred Scriptures there is found no lie, no falsity, no error, not even the least, whether in subject matter or expressions, but in all things and all the details that are handed down in them, they are most certainly true, whether they pertain to doctrines or morals, to history or chronology, to topography or nomenclature. No ignorance, no thoughtlessness, no forgetfulness, no lapse of memory can dare be ascribed to the amanuenses of the Holy Ghost in their penning of the Sacred Writings.”

Johann Andreas Quenstedt (1617-1688), from Theologia didactico-polemica, sive Systema theologicum, in duas sectiones, didacticam et polemicam (Didactic-polemical theology, or the theological system, into two sections, didactic and polemical).

Mutual Encouragement

Baptist preacher Joseph Swain wrote “Mutual Encouragement.” It first appeared in his Walworth Hymns (London: J. Matthews, 1792), Hymn XLVII, beginning on page 56. It consists of three stanzas in 7s. meter (8 lines). The last two lines of each stanza encourages the believer to look beyond the sins, snares, fears, and foes, to hear the joyful news, “Child, your Father calls—Come home!” The hymn has passed down relativity intact, appearing in such American Baptist hymnals as The Psalmist (Supplement, 62), and The Primitive Hymns (397).[i]  Walworth Hymns suggests it be sung with Bath Abbey Tune.[ii] Bath Abbey was composed by Benjamin Milgrove (1731-1808) and published in 1781 as “Hymn X” in Twelve Hymns and a Favourite Lyric-Poem written by Dr. Watts. Milgrove served as precentor and organist at Lady Huntingdon’s Chapel in Bath, England. The tune was perhaps first called Bath Abbey in John Rippon’s A Selection of Psalm and Hymn Tunes (147). Apparently the suggested tunes in Swain’s hymn book were those used in the Walworth Chapel.

1. Brethren, while we sojourn here,
Fight we must, but should not fear;
Foes we have, but we’ve a Friend,
One that loves us to the end;
Forward, then, with courage go;
Long we shall not dwell below;
Soon the joyful news will come,
“Child, your Father calls—Come home!”

2. In the way a thousand snares
Lie, to take us unawares;
Satan, with malicious art,
Watches each unguarded part:
But, from Satan’s malice free,
Saints shall soon victorious be;
Soon the joyful news will come,
“Child, your Father calls—Come home!”

3. But of all the foes we meet,
None so oft mislead our feet,
None betray us into sin,
Like the foes that dwell within.
Yet let nothing spoil our peace,
Christ will also conquer these;
Then the joyful news will come,
“Child, your Father calls—Come home!”

Joseph Swain was born at Birmingham, England in 1761. His parents died while he was very young, and here he was apprenticed to an engraver. He later removed to London to work with his brother. He was convicted of sin and converted in 1782. John Rippon baptized Swain on May 11, 1783. A newly-formed Baptist congregation at Walworth called Swain to pastor in December 1791, and he was ordained to the ministry February 8, 1792. His pastorate here was barely over four years, ended by his death April 14, 1796. He was survived by his widow and four children. It was while pastor here at Walworth that Swain compiled and published Walworth Hymns. He also published these works:

• A Collection of Poems on Several Occasions, London, 1781
• Redemption, a Poem in Five Books, London, 1789
• Experimental Essays on Divine Subjects, London, 1791
• Walworth Hymns, with a supplement, London, 1794
• A Pocket Companion and Directory, London, 1794
• Redemption, a Poem in Eight Books, London, 1797 (published posthumously)[iii]

Joseph Swain is buried at the Bunhill Fields Burying Ground. His gravestone, dislodged by a bomb during World War II, now resides between markers for Daniel Defoe and William Blake.

Other hymns by Joseph Swain include: “How sweet, how heavenly is the sight” (XXV, Walworth), “Love is the sweetest bud that blows” (VI, Walworth), “O thou in whose presence my soul takes delight” (Redemption, in Five Books), “On earth the song begins” (XXXVII, Walworth), and “Pilgrims we are, to Canaan bound” (LII, Walworth).

---

[i] Primitive Hymns maintains Swain’s title (Mutual Encouragement), and had one typographical error (“conrage” for “courage”). The Psalmist changes the title to” The Christian Soldier Encouraged.”
[ii] Bath Abbey was recommended in the Baptist collections of Swain, Benjamin Beddome, and John Rippon, and probably others. Matthew Spring wrote about Milgrove in “Benjamin Milgrove, the musical ‘Toy man’, and the ‘guittar’ in Bath 1757–1790,” Early Music, Volume 41, Issue 2, May 2013, pp. 317–329. This tune is presented in shaped notes in A Compilation of Genuine Church Music (208). [Thanks to Ethan Hardy and Wade Kotter for information about this tune.]
[iii] This book contains a memoir of Joseph Swain’s life.

T. Cassidy and Dean Burgon Society

Saving these links here.

• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (1/4)
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (2/4)
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (3/4)
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)
• Dr. Waite Reply to Thomas Cassidy (Cached: The Reply of Pastor D. A. Waite)

John 1:1 in Sinaiticus

The following is the text copied from the Codex Sinaiticus website (with a picture below), regarding John 1:1.

[I am unable to type exactly in the style of the uncial, especially the macron or line above the nomina sacra. The last two letters in the last line are the first two letters of the word in verse 2.]

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟC 
ΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟCΗΝ 
ΠΡΟCΤΟΝΘΝΚΑΙ 
ΘCΗΝΟΛΟΓΟCΟΥ

Which we read in modern printed texts as:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

I have read and heard some claims that that the differences in John 1:1 (e.g., a god instead of God) are because of Codex Sinaiticus. I am no fan of Sinaiticus; I think it is a bad manuscript that should not be followed. However, as far as John 1:1 is concerned, Sinaiticus appears to have the same text in that verse as the Stephanus, Scrivener, Westcott-Hort, NU, SBLGNT, etc.

If someone is translating this verse differently, it is a translation issue rather than textual.

Acts 5:30, slew and hanged

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Q. Was Christ killed and (then) hanged on a tree as the King James Bible says, or was Christ killed by hanging him on a tree? Does not the KJV suggest that Jesus was hung on a tree following his being killed? Do modern English versions more accurately translate this verse?

A. First, the KJB does not say “slew and then hanged.” That is a misreading. Consider the answer, and some further commentary on the phrase “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” It is unnecessary to claim that either the KJV or modern English versions “more accurately” translate this verse. Both are accurate and correct in the sense that they convey the meaning of the text. The King James & earlier English translations, as well as some modern translations, in their own ways accurately reflect what Peter and the apostles said. The words joined by “and” in the KJV are διεχειρίσασθε (slew, having laid hands on) and κρεμάσαντες (hanged, having hanged). Both are aorist participles. There are multiple ways to translate Greek participial phrases into English. One must realize that English and Greek do not necessarily use participles in the same way.

• KJV: “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”
• ESV: “whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.”
• LSB: “whom you put to death by hanging Him on a tree.”
• NASB: “whom you put to death by hanging Him on a cross.”
• NET: “whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.”
• NIV: “whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.”
• NKJV: “whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.”
• WEB: “whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.”

Now, all that said, I agree with Mark Brown, who pointed out that such controversy over Acts 5:30 is a solution looking for a problem. A problem we did not have. Christian readers were not floundering around trying to figure out what this verse meant until some modern version swooped in to save the day. (Looking at the 60 some-odd versions at Bible Gateway, it looks like the Revised Standard Version of 1946 may have been the first major translation to include “by hanging.”) The KJV reading that we have is heir to the English translation tradition going back to Tyndale. For example, the readings in Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV are as follows.

• TYN: “whom ye slewe ād hanged on tre”
• CVD: “whō ye slewe ād hanged on tre”
• MTW: “whom ye slewe and hanged on tre”
• TVR: “whom ye slewe and hanged on tree”
• GRT: “whom ye slewe, and hanged on tre”
• GNV: “whome ye slew, & hanged on a tre”
• BSP: “whom ye slewe, & hanged on tree”
• KJV: “whom yee slew and hanged on tree”

I have not checked any of the non-descript translations between 1526 and 1885, but it seems that common English Bible readers were able to understand this verse quite well until 1881/1885, when the English Revision committee changed the phrase to “whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree” (which could also be misunderstood). The Bible commentary edited by Charles John Ellicott, who would become one of the English Bible revisers, never batted an eye over “slew and hanged” in its comments: “Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.—This synonym for crucifying comes from the LXX version of Deuteronomy 21:23, where it is used in a wider sense, including analogous forms of punishment, such as hanging or impaling.”

We do not interpret this verse (or Acts 10:39, q.v.) outside of its context in Acts or the New Testament. If so, we might raise other problems looking for a solution. Does “hang” mean he was hung by the neck until dead? Does tree mean a tree out in the woods? Does “killed” or “murdered” mean an act of man apart of God? And so on. We do not know these answers to these questions by one verse seated on a throne. We know the answers in their immediate contexts and wider biblical context. Same with “slew and hanged” (two parts of one and the same act), “slew, hanging him” (a clause of relation), or “put to death by hanging” (the manner of execution).

Some Greek versions.

All have ο θεος των πατερων ημων ηγειρεν ιησουν ον υμεις διεχειρισασθε κρεμασαντες επι ξυλου. This is not a case of textual variation. The differences are translational choices.

• TR1550: ο θεος των πατερων ημων ηγειρεν ιησουν ον υμεις διεχειρισασθε κρεμασαντες επι ξυλου
• WHNU: ο θεος των πατερων ημων ηγειρεν ιησουν ον υμεις διεχειρισασθε κρεμασαντες επι ξυλου
• TR1894: ο θεος των πατερων ημων ηγειρεν ιησουν ον υμεις διεχειρισασθε κρεμασαντες επι ξυλου
• SBLGNT: ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου·
• THGNT: ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου·
• NA/UBS:  ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου

Final comments.

There are probably a few sincere readers who have misunderstood this statement. We should be glad to help. However, within the Bible version debates this truly is a solution looking for a problem. All the debaters know what the verse means.

The point of slew and hanged on a tree is about Jesus being made a curse (Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Galatians 3:13). Not only did the Jews have the Romans kill Jesus, but he was also hanged on a tree, by this signifying he was cursed. (Also the English word “slew” could be more broadly used in 1611, as was the Greek word διεχειρίσασθε from which it was translated.)

We should refuse to adopt and then debate someone else’s misunderstanding of this passage, and then debate said passage based on your misunderstanding. It is true they slew their Messiah, the Christ. It is  true that he was hanged on a tree. There is no issue with the King James translation, only the misunderstanding of  reading it as if it says that they slew him, then hanged him on the tree instead of what is written.

A Church’s Music

It seems to a large degree I have lost or failed to keep up with a part of the original focus of this blog – “Music.” Below is an interesting exposition of the church music at Refuge Reformed Church of Ogden, Utah. Pastor Brian Sauvé explains the church’s Sunday music program. I do not know this church or its pastors. (Therefore, this is not intended as a personal recommendation. It is a topic of interest.)

[Q.] “How do you do music at your church on Sundays?”

[A.] Here’s the breakdown:

We sing almost exclusively from the Cantus Christi 2020 hymnal, accompanied by a piano. Most of the settings are in four-part harmony.

We don’t amplify anything. I conduct the congregation from the front, but don’t sing into a microphone. Sometimes I sing the melody, but often I sing the Tenor part.

We sing 10 songs per service. Three of them stay the same each week (David Erb’s setting of Psalm 134, The Lord’s Prayer, and the Doxology).

The other seven usually consist of about five Psalms and two hymns. These are scattered at different points of the service, including two that we sing seated during the distribution of the bread and wine for Communion.

Why we sing in four parts:

1. It allows men to sing like men, women to sing like women, children to sing like children.

2. It takes effort. We don’t want to offer to the Lord that which costs nothing.

3. It is objectively beautiful, far more so than the best contemporary worship band I’ve ever heard—and we’re not even particularly gifted or anything.

4. Much of the great musical inheritance of the Church is in parts. Lose this skill and you lose access to the richness of that blessing.

How we learn to sing songs in parts:

Every Tuesday evening, barring the last Tuesday of the month, we have a potluck followed by a Psalm-singing workshop. I use the “Sing Your Part” app to teach each group their parts, then we practice. The actual practice is only 45 minutes, so the whole thing only takes 90 minutes each week.

We typically have about 50% of our Sunday attendance at Psalm sing on Tuesdays. This lets us learn, on average, one new song per month.

I couldn’t even read music when we started learning this stuff. Any church [can] do this if they decide to.

[Originally written in an X post on July 24, 2023, by Brian Sauvé.]

The order of Philippians 1:16-17

King James Bible:
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

English Standard Version:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Q. Why does the English Standard Version (ESV) reverse the order of verses 16 and 17 in Philippians chapter 1?

A. The ESV (as well as most modern translations) is following the NA-UBS (CT) texts, which flip-flop the order of verses 16-17 from what is found in the Received Text. The CT follows Codex Vaticanus, while the RT order agrees with the majority of extant texts. 

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου

17 οἱ δε ἐξ ἀγάπης εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι 

↑ Received Text

versus

↓ Critical Text

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν.

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι,

17 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν, οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου.

Here is an example of a defense of the CT/Vaticanus reading from the Contending for the Faith commentary (Charles Baily, editor). “The King James Version follows the Received Text in reversing the order of verses 16 and 17. This change seems to have been made to conform the text to the order of the two classes of preachers mentioned in verse 15; but the change is not supported by the best textual witness, and it is not followed in most translations. The authentic text has a chiastic (crisscross) order; that is, verse 16 discusses what is mentioned in verse 15b, and verse 17 refers to the content of verse 15a (Loh and Nida 23-24).”

How it appears in Vaticanus

In contrast, the Received Text makes more sense. It follows through with the same order of sense and argument in verse 15, then verses 16-17, and then verse 18. Some indeed preach Christ even of (a) envy and strife; and some also of (b) good will: the one preach Christ of (a) contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of (b) love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in (a) pretence, or (b) in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

The Contending for the Faith commentary’s argument rests on accepting the Vaticanus reading, and making an argument to explain it. My argument is based on accepting the majority reading as found in the Received Text, and making an argument based on that. While I believe the TR/KJV reading is correct, I don’t, however, suppose that Paul’s sentence order alone makes so strong of a case to prefer one reading over the other. Other factors should be included, such as the majority of textual evidence, and faith in God’s providential preservation of his word (versus the modern reconstruction of it from variant choices of corrupted manuscripts).

The Latest of Modern Movements

Can we estimate the effect upon the rising generations to have nothing settled? Are the Holy Scriptures a mere nose of wax to be turned and twisted to suit the caprice of the reader? or Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the WORD OF GOD, and the only infallible guide of faith and manners? Every earnest person must answer these questions.

William Aberhart, in God’s Great Prophecies series, Lecture No. 12: “The Latest of Modern Movements,” or “What about the Revised Version of the Bible?”

We have not known thee as we ought

1. We have not known thee as we ought,
Nor learned thy wisdom, grace and power;
The things of earth have filled our thought,
And trifles of the passing hour.
Lord, give us light thy truth to see,
And make us wise in knowing thee.

2. We have not feared thee as we ought,
Nor bowed beneath thy watchful eye;
Nor guarded deed and word and thought
Remembering that God was nigh.
Lord, give us faith to know thee near,
And grant the grace of loving fear.

3. We have not served thee as we ought,
Alas! The duties left undone!
The work with little fervour wrought,
The battles lost, or scarcely won.
Lord, give the zeal, and give the might,
For thee to toil, for Thee to fight.

4. We have not loved thee as we ought,
Nor cared that we are loved by thee;
Thy presence we have coldly sought,
And feebly longed thy face to see.
Lord, give a pure and loving heart,
To feel and know the love thou art.

The hymn “Seeking God” was written by Thomas Benson Pollock (1839-1896) and is one of two hymns he contributed to the 1889 Supplemental Hymns to Hymns Ancient & Modern. In this book it appears matched with the tune Westbourne. The meter is 8s., 6 lines. Above the text appears the statement, “I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost; O seek Thy servant,” based on Psalm 119:176. It is often paired with the tune St. Chrysostom by Joseph Barnby.

Thomas Benson Pollock was a British Anglican priest and writer. With his brother James Samuel Pollock (1834-1895), he worked with people in poor areas, forming St. Alban’s Mission in Birmingham. He was a member of the committee for Hymns Ancient and Modern, and served as the chairman in 1895–96.

Puzzling Times, 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.

• 6 Ways to Find (and Protect) the Time You Need to Read Books -- “The point is that we can find the time necessary to read books. But this requires thought on a number of related topics.”
• What Gen Z Gets Right and Wrong in the Abortion Debate -- “...empathy alone can’t sustain hurting women, lead them with truth, or offer the fullness of life that the Savior can. The Christian gospel provides more than empathy alone.”
• Puzzling Times -- “In Texas, two small companies have cut out their own niches with special touches that make their puzzles stand out from the ordinary.”
• Publishers of King James Material -- “This is not an endorsement of every publisher listed, but is nevertheless a good resource gathered in one place.”
• Nacogdoches: We Have a Nac for That -- “Nacogdoches has just the right amount of relaxing, small-town charm, mixed with plenty of activities for those who enjoy being on the go.”
• McGough Family Documents -- “Shown below are two portions of John McGough’s son-in-law’s (Perry Nelson) 1818 song book. It appears that it contains some poetry by a William Parker (probably the William who was Perry’s brother-in-law).”
• Later, Gators? -- “This is our second visit to the Mineola Nature Preserve, and we’ve just learned that some of the ponds are home to alligators.”
• King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism -- “Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ.”
• Is surrogacy pro-life? -- “Surrogacy is fundamentally wrong...it enables people to act as if they are entitled to another's reproductive abilities...It also treats children like property that can be bought, sold, or killed at will.”
• Chocolate Tres Leches -- “...when one of the tres leches—three milks—poured over the warm cake is chocolate, you know you’re in for sinfully sweet goodness.”
• Biography of Silas Mercer -- “His mother died while he was an infant; his father was a zealous member of the Church of England...”
• Beaverdam Baptist Church- Org. 1836, Wilkes County, Ga. -- “As was most often the case, a small crowd of close neighbors, seven men, and seven women, wanted to start a church.”
• An evaluation of Ruckman’s denials of a pre-Christian Septuagint -- “...literature in defense of the KJV before the Ruckman era [did not] deny the Septuagint existed before Christ...”
• Andrew Willet (1562-1621): Reformed Interpretation of Scripture -- “Medieval in his use of argument but Reformational in his exegesis, Willet presents the modern reader with comprehensive, critical research.”
• Academic Symposium on the Septuagint -- “Those who arrive a day early for the conference are invited to meet at the Rawlings Scriptorium on the campus of Liberty University on Friday, August 2, 2024 at 4 pm for a guided tour.”

An Outline of Matthew 10

Matthew 10: The Twelve  (cf. Mark 3; Luke 6; Acts 1)

I.                   1-2. The Calling of the twelve.

A.   Called, 1.

1.     Chosen, Luke 6:13

2.     Ordained, Mark 3:14

B.    Given power, 1.

 

II.                3-4. The names of the twelve.

A.   Simon, who is called Peter; Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphæus; Lebbæus, whose surname was Thaddæus; Simon the Canaanite; Judas Iscariot.

1.     Compare Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13 (26).

 

III.             5-15 The sending of the twelve.

A.   To Israel, 5-6

B.    Preach the kingdom, 7

C.    Heal, cleanse, raise, cast out, 8a

D.   Give as given (freely), 8b

E.    Depend on hospitality, 9-13

F.     Recompence and judgement, 14-15

 

IV.            16-23 The warning to the twelve.

A.   Opposition and persecution, 16-23

1.     The Spirit speaking to the opposition, 19-20

B.    Faithful to the end, 23b

 

V.               24-42 The promise to the twelve.

A.   Fear them not, 24-31

B.    Finding in losing, 32-39

C.    Not lose reward, 4-42

On Running Well

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

Paul – despite his strong opposition to Mark (Acts 15:37-39) – and Mark – despite his lack of persistence – both learned that a “messed-up middle” does not of necessity keep one from finishing well. Immediately after Paul told Timothy about the departure of Demas (II Timothy 4:11), he spoke of the return of one who had departed – John Mark. “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” God even chose this young disciple to pen one of the Gospel accounts, the 2nd book of the New Testament. Those who do not run well in the middle stages are not destined to fall by the wayside. By the grace of God they start running again and go the distance, finishing well. Let us run the race that is set before us. Run with patience. Run with our eyes on Jesus.

John Milton was not “Geneva Bible Only”

About two years ago I made an effort to root out some World Wide Web claims that folks like John Bunyan and John Milton only used the Geneva Bible. At the time I decided to focus my research on John Bunyan.[i] I found that assertion definitely was untrue concerning Bunyan. I tried to get some sites to correct their error. I found that once a horse is out of the barn, it can be hard to get it back in.

Background.

A PhD at a museum of a major Christian University sent a very gracious reply that they looked into it and agreed that Bunyan’s primary use of the Geneva Bible seemed to be a legend. Yet their website Geneva Bible page continues to perpetuate the legend.

A major purveyor of Bible resources (very well-known, whose name I will not mention at this time) had something on their site about John Bunyan and the Geneva Bible. I received from a representative of this company an obstinate reply, defending their use of the so-called “fact” because it was “widely available online”! In the reply, this representative even copied and included the following statement from a blog: “It was the Bible of Shakespeare and Paul Bunyan and Cromwell’s Army and of our Pilgrim Fathers.” Yes, the person did not care enough to even notice that this quote was defending “Paul Bunyan” (not John Bunyan!) using the Geneva Bible. I’m glad Paul did, if he did! Babe the Blue Ox may have used it too. On the other hand, satisfied with the Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox proof, they never considered the documentation I provided.

I corresponded with the then CEO of GenevaBible.com. He referred me to a single source, an undocumented claim found in the article on the Geneva Bible at Harvard Divinity School library. I guess if Harvard posts it, it has to be true! This led to a very polite exchange with a librarian there (at Harvard). I provided 3 or 4 scholarly resources and one primary resource –Bunyan himself – showing that the Geneva was not his primary Bible. Though the correspondent seemed to be listening, that library page nevertheless still says the Geneva Bible was the Bible of John Bunyan.

Whether it is a claim of a KJVO author, a textual scholar, or just Joe Blow, the World Wide Web exacerbates and multiplies myths and mistakes.[ii] It gives them a false weight that makes them seem to be true. I found it on the internet; it must be true.

John Milton.

Since I found this “Geneva Bible Only” to be untrue concerning John Bunyan and the Pilgrims, I expected it was also untrue of John Milton.[iii] However, at the time I did not pursue it further. Now I present here just a little bit of information that I recently came across in A History of the English Bible as Literature by David Norton. Norton is King James Bible historian and is not “King James Only.”

“His work had enormous influence on both literary taste and religious ideas, and was written with intimate and, at times, open familiarity with the KJB. Moreover, Milton proclaimed the literary supremacy of the Bible.” (Norton, pp. 175-176)

John Milton was not a so-called “King James Onlyist.” He read and studied the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as well as English. But he certainly was not a “Geneva Bible Onlyist.” It is the King James Bible that was his primary English Bible.

“Now, Milton had owned from childhood, perhaps from his fourth birthday, a small quarto KJB (Barker, 1612) which shows abundant signs of use, and he was obviously thoroughly familiar with its text.” (Norton, p. 176)

Milton regarded the King James Bible “as the most accurate but yet improvable rendering of the original. The Hebrew and the Greek he did regard as dictated by God, as his very few comments on the language as language show.” (Norton, p. 176)

John Milton wrote versifications or metrical paraphrases of the Psalms. Initially they were looser/more poetry driven, but sets of Psalms composed in 1648 and 1653 (after his blindness) “show an increasing fidelity both to the originals and to the KJB…” (This is not now fidelity to the KJB as compared to the Geneva before – no, but more fidelity to the KJB and original Hebrew language, as compared to his earlier Psalms.) “The appearance of fidelity, which is often also a fidelity to the KJB, is bolstered by his inclusion of notes supplying the Hebrew or a literal translation of it.” (Norton, p. 179)

Of his later metrical Psalms, Norton writes “He obviously wants to be faithful to the KJB’s words – arguably he is responding to the power of some of its phrases – and seems to be experimenting to see how nearly they can be read as English poetry.” (Norton, p. 180)

Interestingly to this subject, David Norton does not even mention the Geneva Bible in Chapter 8, “Writers and the Bible I: Milton and Bunyan.”

“[In his later metrical Psalms] He obviously wants to be faithful to the KJB’s words – arguably he is responding to the power of some of its phrases – and seems to be experimenting to see how nearly they can be read as English poetry.” (Norton, p. 180)

Conclusion.

There is a great deal of information that can be found online that contradicts the other online material that promotes the unsourced Geneva Only myth. For example, S. L. Greenslade refers to Milton and Bunyan – even Cromwell – in context of the English indebtedness to the Authorized Version of the Bible (The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, S. L. Greenslade, Editor. Cambridge: University Press, 1963, p. 492). The book earlier noted the KJB’s place of complete dominance in the minds of English people as “the” Bible. “Eventually, however, its [i.e., the King James Bible] victory was so complete that its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version.” (Cambridge History of the Bible, p. 168)

If you do not like the King James Bible, that is your choice. It is a free country. But people who tout “the evidence” need to learn to deal with all the evidence.

Sources.

• Norton, David. A History of the English Bible as Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
• Milton, John. The Works of John Milton. Editor, Frank Patterson et al. 18 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1931-38. (esp. Vol. XVIII, pp. 274-75 and 559-61)
• Greenslade, S. L., Editor. The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, Cambridge: University Press, 1963

---

[i] “Grace Abounding shows Bunyan’s response to the Bible – which in his case is always the KJB, known with an intimacy few have ever approached – to have had a pathological intensity.” A History of the English Bible as Literature, David Norton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000, p. 186.

[ii] A Puritan’s Mind added a disclaimer, which I do not remember being there when I originally found the Brown article on their site: “The following article does contain information which the author of this website disagrees with since they are stated in a “positive light” and not stated with prudence...” I am thankful for this, even though it does not go far enough in disclaiming the “Christian Urban Myth” nature of the article.

[iii] Michael H. Brown is one who gets his facts terribly wrong (seemingly almost deliberately so). As I have previously noticed, Brown asserts, “William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively” (p. i). Possibly worse still is those who casually and uncritically blast his erroneous essay around the world and back again.

John Clarke’s Bible

In the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook, Jonathan Burris asserted that early Baptist churches in America used the Geneva Bible rather than the King James Bible. He invoked the name of John Clarke.[i] He “substantiated” his claim by simply declaring that the Geneva Bible is what came over on the Mayflower, not the King James; and that “All of this is easily verifiable.” Let’s see what we can verify.

Mayflower.

First, I have previously reviewed the claim that the Pilgrims would have only brought and used the Geneva Bible (see HERE). Briefly, the Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, Massachusetts possesses two Bibles they are “reasonably sure” came over in the Mayflower – a Geneva Bible belonging to Governor William Bradford and a King James Bible belonging to John Alden. The carefully stated position of the museum is that they do not have “absolute proof” that there were any Bibles on the Mayflower. This is not quite the substantial evidence against the King James Bible that Jonathan Burris proposed.

John Clarke.

As I remember it, Burris wished us to take the matter of John Clarke’s Bible “on credit” rather than his presenting evidence to prove his claim.

It can be shown that John Clarke, pastor of the Baptist Church at Newport, Rhode Island, owned a Geneva Bible. In 1978, when Edwin S. Gaustad wrote Baptist Piety,[ii] he stated that this Bible then was “now in the possession of the Rhode Island Historical Society.” He described it as “a 1608 edition of the Geneva Bible, printed in London by Robert Barker.” He adds “it apparently first belonged to John Clarke’s father, Thomas (1570-1627)” and “contains vital statistics pertinent to the Clarke family.” The fact that John Clarke owned a Geneva Bible (which may have survived to the present primarily because of its Clarke family information) does not prove that he did not own or use a King James Bible.

To test the claim of Jonathan Burris, I reviewed John Clarke’s Ill News from New-England; Or, a Narrative of New-Englands Persecution in order to get a sense of what Bible Clarke used – especially hoping to find Bible verses quoted in his book by which to identify a particular translation. There is a lot of scripture in his book, but often times he is likely quoting from memory – just writing and not looking in a Bible to get it exact. In some places it seems like he adjusts Bible verses to fit in the form of the sentence he is writing. Nevertheless, my initial conclusion is that John Clarke’s Bible references favor the King James as the primary Bible he was using in 1652 when he wrote Ill News from New England. Consider this.

Review.

On the cover page of this book, Clarke excerpts from three verses in Revelation: 2:25; 3:11; 22:20. Two are the same in both Bibles, but 3:11 has “behold I come shortly” in the Geneva Bible – which is not what Clarke has.

John Clarke refers to part of Romans 8:2, and that reference does not match either the Geneva or KJV. When he mentions part of Hebrews 12:14, it is the same in both the Geneva and KJV. When he writes “the word that in the 5 Rom. 11. is rendered attonement, is in 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. and in all other places translated by the word Reconciliation,” he could be speaking of either the Geneva or the KJV.

There are several lengthy quotes at the bottom of page 33 and top of page 34. These seemed to be for the purpose of quotation rather than just worked into writing a paragraph. What Bible or Bibles do these match? 

“Revel. 13. 10. He that leadeth into Captivity shall go into Captivity, he that killeth with the Sword must be killed with the Sword; here is the patience and faith of the Saints.” [Matches the KJV.]

• KJV: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
• Geneva: “If any lead into captivity, he shall go into captivity: if any kill with a sword, he must be killed by a sword: here is the patience and the faith of the Saints.”

“Rev. 12. 11. And they overcame him by the bloud of the Lamb, and by the Word of their Testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.” [Matches the KJV]

• KJV: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”
• Geneva: “But they overcame him by that blood of that Lamb, and by that word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.”

Rev. 6. 9, 10, 11. I saw under the Altar the Souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held; And they cryed with a loud voice saying, how long holy and true wilt thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwel on the Earth, &c. [Not an exact match for either, but closer to the KJV.]

• KJV: “…I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? ....”
• Geneva: “…I saw under the altar the souls of them that were killed for the word of God, and for the testimony which they maintained. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, Lord, which art holy and true! dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them, that dwell on the earth? …”

Rev. 20. 4. And I saw the Souls of them that were beheaded for the Witness of Iesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshiped the Beast, neither his Image, neither had received the marke upon their foreheads; or in their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Matches the KJV]

• KJV: “…and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
• Geneva: “and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which did not worship the beast, neither his image, neither had taken his mark upon their foreheads or on their hands: and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

Conclusion.

The Mayflower/Geneva Bible legend is overworked and needs a rest (or at least a very thorough and unbiased review). Jonathan Burris’s claim that John Clarke preferred and used the Geneva Bible will not withstand scrutiny. The results of my initial test yields the conclusion that the Bible quotes in 1652 favor John Clarke’s using the King James Bible rather than the Geneva Bible.[iii] 

My conclusion is tentative and needs to be tested more carefully. For example, retest with a greater sample of the work of John Clarke and other early Baptists in the American colonies. Compare using actual scans of Bibles printed in that period to check the quotes. I used the AKJV and 1599 Geneva on BibleGateway (which should be relatively trustworthy, but still not the truest test; it is what I had time to do while discussing this on the Facebook forum). Nevertheless, this test gives an idea how we can begin to verify such claims rather than just make them up!

---

[i] John Clarke was born in England in 1609, the son of Thomas Clarke. He arrived in British America in 1637. Clarke pastored the Baptist Church in Newport, Rhode Island, and was instrumental in gaining Rhode Island’s charter favoring freedom of religion. He died in 1676. A well-researched book on the life of John Clarke is John Clarke (1609-1676): Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty, by Louis Franklin Asher (Dorrance Publishing Company, 1997).
[ii] Gaustad’s book is primarily about Clarke’s co-labourer at the Baptist Church at Newport, Obadiah Holmes. Gaustad concludes that it is difficult to determine from his biblical quotations which Bible Holmes was using. This is due to the similarities of the Geneva and King James Bibles, that writers and speakers often quoted from an inexact memory (and therefore might not exactly match either of these Bibles), and that sometimes verses alluded to are not intended as quotations.
[iii] Burris switched his horses mid-stream, after seeing it could be proven that John Clarke used the King James translation, saying that maybe Clarke switched to the KJV later in his life. That is possible. It would not be unlikely that any Englishman living in this period started his life with the Geneva Bible and ended his life with the King James Bible. However, what “may be” as conjecture falls short of verifiable facts. Burris said his claim regarding the first Baptists in America and the Geneva was “easily verifiable.” Under its own weight, this easy verification must needs have devolved into speculation. John Clarke may have never (as a preacher) used the Geneva Bible and only used the KJV. That is also unproven conjecture (though there is proof of his use of the KJV in his life.) We know that Clarke owned a Geneva Bible which had belonged to his father. Whether he brought it when he came to America, or obtained it after his father’s death when he was back in England is a matter for further research. His father died in 1627. (For example, I own an old Scofield Bible which belonged to my father; that does not make it the Bible I preached from.) We know Clarke quoted from the King James Bible in 1652. How these facts fit together with what Bible John Clarke used in 1638 is currently unknown to me. For now any claim of John Clarke of Newport, Rhode Island preferring the Geneva Bible must be placed on a “Christian urban legend” shelf alongside such claims regarding John Bunyan and John Milton.