Affusion is no baptism

“Under no circumstances could we be induced to sprinkle or pour water upon a subject in the name of the Trinity and call it baptism. It is not only not commanded by Christ, but it is positively forbidden to be done by him for the act he commanded. If he did not specify the action of baptism, he did not enact a law for baptism, and it has no place in the Christian system. If Christ did specify the act, he did thereby prohibit any other than that act. If immersion be that act, and I have no more doubt of it than I have that the author of Christian baptism is ‘the Christ of God,’ then affusion is no baptism, but the counterfeit of, or human substitute for Christian baptism, and whenever performed for baptism is in contravention of the expressed will of Christ.”

J. R. Graves

The Baptist, Saturday, July 24, 1875, p. 6

Pisgah

Awhile back, I looked at my email inbox and noticed I had 58 unread emails. The number 58 made me think of Pisgah, the tune on page number 58 in The Sacred Harp (all of ’em). The tune appears there with the old standard hymn by Richard Burnham, “Jesus, thou art the sinners friend.” As much as I love and have sung this song in The Sacred Harp, my mind actually associates this tune more with the hymn beginning “When I can read my title clear,” by Isaac Watts. That is the hymn that was attached to the tune in a church song book we used when I was growing up. It has been my go to tune for singing any common meter hymn for which I did not have a tune.

When I was growing up, I was a bit confused by the first line, as to just what it meant. This began to clear up when I discovered the original title of the hymn. These words are titled “The Hopes of Heaven our Support under Trials on Earth,” and first appeared in Isaac Watts’s Hymns and Spiritual Songs in 1707. Just to restate Watts’s title, the Christian’s hope of heaven is what supports us when we go through trials on earth. That is a great comfort.

1. When I can read my title clear
To mansions in the skies,
I’ll bid farewell to every fear,
And wipe my weeping eyes.

2. Should earth against my soul engage,
And fiery darts be hurled,
Then I can smile at Satan’s rage,
And face a frowning world.

3. Let cares like a wild deluge come,
And storms of sorrow fall!
May I but safely reach my home:
My God, my heaven my all.

4. There shall I bathe my weary soul
In seas of heavenly rest,
And not a wave of trouble roll
Across my peaceful breast.

“A clear title is a title without any lien from creditors or other parties and poses no question as to legal ownership. An owner of a car with a clear title is the sole undisputed owner, and no other party can make any legal claim to its ownership. Born again Christians who have had their debt of sin blotted out by Christ’s redemptive work have a clear title indicating that God in Heaven has redeemed his soul and is the sole owner of the child of God.” -- Bob Swisher

I have read that the tune Pisgah was first published in the 1817 2nd edition of The Kentucky Harmony, by Ananias Davisson. I have not seen that book and cannot confirm the accuracy of the statement. However, the 3rd edition of A Supplement to The Kentucky Harmony is online. I can confirm that not only is it in that book but it does indeed appear with the words “When I can read my title clear.” The tune is credited to Lowry. In the 1819 Tennessee Harmony, the publisher, Alexander Johnson, takes credit for a different arrangement of the same melody.

The tune is named for Pisgah, a mountain mentioned in the Bible as being on the east side of the Jordan River. From Pisgah, God showed Moses the Promised Land. See Deuteronomy 34:1ff. Note that in stanza two Isaac Watts’s original has “hellish darts.” Most hymn books have instead “fiery darts,” probably to bring it to match the adjective describing darts in Ephesians 6:16.

Charles S. Nutter and Wilbur F. Tillet in The Hymns and Hymn Writers of the Church: An Annotated Edition of the Methodist Hymnal (p. 231) notes how William Cowper alludes to this hymn by Watts.

Cowper in his poem titled “Truth” compares the lot of the infidel Voltaire with that of a poor and believing cottager who

Just knows, and knows no more, her Bible true—
A truth the brilliant Frenchman never knew:
And in that charter reads, with sparkling eyes,
Her title to a treasure in the skies.

Sarah’s nursing of Isaac

“[Henry Smith] preached a sermon on Sarah’s nursing of Isaac, and thereupon ground that general doctrine, that it was the duty of mothers to nurse their own children, allowing dispensation to such who were unsufficienced by weakness, want of milk, or any avouchable impediment. He pressed the application without respect of persons, high or low, rich or poor, one or other; taxing them with pride, or laziness, or both, who would not do the office to the fruit of their own womb.”

The Works of Henry Smith: including Sermons, Treatises, Prayers, and Poems. With life of the author, Vol. I, Thomas Fuller, editor. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1866, p. ix.

Henry Smith, an English Puritan minister, lived circa 1560 to circa 1600, preached in London, and was considered one of the best orators of his day.

William Kiffin answers Robert Poole

QUERIE V. How can you vindicate by the Word of God, your Anabaptisticall way, from the sinfull guile of notorious Schisme, and disection from all the Reformed Churches?

Ans. They that run may reade what fire this pen and heart was inflamed withall in the writing and inditing this querie; but first of all, if by Reformed Churches, you mean those Churches planted by the Apostles in the Primative times, which are the platforme for all Churches in all ages to look unto, to be guided by these Apostolicall Rules left them; wee then shall vindicate by the Word of God our Anabaptisticall way, as you are pleased to call it, from that guile; and first, although wee confesse our selves ignorant of many things, which we ought to know and desire, to waight daily for the further discoveries of Light and truth, from him which is the only giver of it to his poor people, yet so far as we are come, we desire to walke by the same Rule they did, and first of all, wee Baptize none into Christ Jesus, but such as professe faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. 6.3. by which faith they are made sonnes of God, and so having put on Christ, are Baptized into Christ, Gal. 3.26, 27. and that Christ hath commanded this, and no other way of Baptisme, See Matth. 28.19. Mark. 1.4, 5. Luke 3.7, 8. and that this also was the Practise of the Apostles, See Acts 2.41. and 8.12.36, 37 and 10.47, 48. and that being thus baptized upon profession of Faith, they are then added to the Church, 2 Act. 41. and being added to the Church, wee conceive our selves bound to watch over one another, and in case of sinne, to deale faithfully one with another according to these Scriptures, Levit. 19.17, 18. Matth. 18.15. and if they remain obstinate, to cast them out, as those that are not fit to live in the Church, according to that Rule, 2 Cor. 5.4, 5. Matth. 18.19, 30. by all which, and many other parteculars I might name, it appears through Mercy, we can free our selves from that guile; and truely, if your eyes were opened to peruse your own practises and wayes, you would then see wee could better free our selves from that notorious guile of Schisme from those Reformed Churches, then you can free your selves from the notorious guile of Schismying from Rome; For 1. You hold their Baptisme true, their Ordination of Ministers true, their maintenance by Tythes and Offerings true, their people all fit matter for a Church, and so true, and yet you will seperate from them for some Corruptions; now for our parts, wee denie all and every one of these amongst you to be true, and therefore doe seperate from you; so then, when you have made satisfaction for your notorious Schisme, and returne as dutifull Sonnes to their Mother, or else have cast off all your filthty Rubbish of her abominations which are found amongst you, we will returne to you, or shew our just grounds to the contrary.

Pages 12-13 of A briefe remonstrance of the reasons and grounds of those people commonly called Anabaptists, for their seperation, &c. Or certaine queries concerning their faith and practice, propounded by Mr. Robert Poole; answered and resolved by William Kiffin. London: 1645.

The genealogies of Jesus

The inspired authors were giving the theology and redemptive history of Jesus Christ. They had neither interest in nor reason for answering skeptics. There is obvious intentional difference, with no concern about contradictions. Perhaps that should guide us in our approach. The most obvious distinction is that the trees trace two different lines from David forward. Also Shealtiel and Zerubabbel are in both lines.

Different Timing – Matthew gives the genealogy first, before he relates the virgin birth; Luke gives the genealogy later, after he relates the baptism of John.

Different Types - ascending and descending; Matthew begins in the past and descends to the present; Luke begins in the present and ascends to the past.

Different Trees - Solomon versus Nathan; Matthew traces the line via David’s son Solomon; Luke traces the line via David’s son Nathan (1 Chronicles 3:5; Zechariah 12:12)

Different Terminal -Abraham versus Adam; Matthew begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph; Luke begins with Joseph and ends with Adam.

Different Theological Purpose - Royal Messiah lineage (from Abraham and David) versus Universal Saviour/Creation lineage (from God and Adam).

Different Target - Matthew gives a truncated genealogy of three groups of 14 generations. Luke gives an expanded genealogy of 77 generations, 7 X 11.

• A descending genealogy begins with a person and traces forward to their descendants. (Who came from that person)
• An ascending genealogy begins with a person and traces backward to their ancestors. (Where did that person come from)

Different Explanations:

• 1. Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph and Luke the genealogy of Mary.
• Objection:
• Mary is not mentioned in Luke.
•         Answer:
• Biblical genealogies follow the line of the men, not women.
• 2. Matthew is the genealogy of Mary and Luke the genealogy of Joseph.
• 3. Both genealogies are about Joseph
• “Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian historian from the early 3rd century, gave an explanation for the differing genealogies of Jesus which he claimed he had received from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus. According to this claim, Heli died childless, and Jacob married Heli’s widow in accordance with levirate law. The firstborn son of Jacob and Heli’s widow was Joseph, and he was considered the legal son of Heli, though the biological son of Jacob. (For this to be so these brothers, Jacob and Heli, were uterine brothers, having the same mother but different fathers.) Africanus’s letter to Aristides is not extant, but the church historian Eusebius cited it.”
• Objection:
• Nathan’s genealogy is 13 generations longer than David’s son Solomon.
• In itself somewhat immaterial, for anyone who spends much time doing genealogical research. The timing of different lines can get way off. Some grandchildren can be older than some children, for example.
• 4. Joseph was adopted as a child, and thus had both a “natural” genealogy and an “adopted” genealogy. 
• 5. Both genealogies are for Joseph, and the contradictions between them are a matter of poor record keeping in those days. (Often held by those who reject the inspiration of Scripture.)
• 6. The people in the genealogies had multiple names; the two genealogies refer to the same people by different names. 
• 7. Luke is the genealogy of Joseph, and Matthew is the record of the succession of kings from the throne of David, through Solomon, to Christ. That is, Matthew presents a royal genealogy to affirm Jesus’ claim to David’s throne; Luke provides an actual biological lineage through Joseph.
• 8. Augustine emphasizes the different placement – Matthew before the birth of Christ, and Luke after his baptism. He took this as Matthew relating ordinary biological generation, but that Luke highlights the priestly lineage.

Liberal/critical

• 1. Neither genealogy is an actual historical family lineage. They are rather literary constructs shaped by each Gospel’s theological purpose.
• 2. Both genealogies are for Joseph, and the contradictions between them are a matter of poor record keeping in those days.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John circulated as a collection of the Gospels shortly after they were written; then as part of the canon of the New Testament. Why would the two genealogies continue to be circulated together if they were contradictory and unreliable? Maybe there’s something we’re missing that earlier readers got!

Matthew Henry: The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation doth not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (Luke 3:23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est lege--as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; nay, had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.

The rest below is just a mish-mash of stuff I copied. I am leaving it as is, just to have access to it.

https://www.oneforisrael.org/jesus-genealogies-contradictory-or-complimentary/

the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Heli, 

which was the son of Matthat, 

which was the son of Levi, 

which was the son of Melchi, 

which was the son of Janna, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Mattathias, 

which was the son of Amos, 

which was the son of Naum, 

which was the son of Esli, 

which was the son of Nagge, 

which was the son of Maath, 

which was the son of Mattathias, 

which was the son of Semei, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Joanna, 

which was the son of Rhesa, 

which was the son of Zorobabel, 

which was the son of Salathiel, 

which was the son of Neri, 

which was the son of Melchi, 

which was the son of Addi, 

which was the son of Cosam, 

which was the son of Elmodam, 

which was the son of Er, 

which was the son of Jose, 

which was the son of Eliezer, 

which was the son of Jorim, 

which was the son of Matthat, 

which was the son of Levi, 

which was the son of Simeon, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Jonan, 

which was the son of Eliakim, 

which was the son of Melea, 

which was the son of Menan, 

which was the son of Mattatha, 

which was the son of Nathan, 

which was the son of David, 

which was the son of Jesse, 

which was the son of Obed, 

which was the son of Booz, 

which was the son of Salmon, 

which was the son of Naasson, 

which was the son of Aminadab, 

which was the son of Aram, 

which was the son of Esrom, 

which was the son of Phares, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Jacob, 

which was the son of Isaac, 

which was the son of Abraham, 

which was the son of Thara, 

which was the son of Nachor, 

which was the son of Saruch, 

which was the son of Ragau, 

which was the son of Phalec, 

which was the son of Heber, 

which was the son of Sala, 

which was the son of Cainan, 

which was the son of Arphaxad, 

which was the son of Sem, 

which was the son of Noe, 

which was the son of Lamech, 

which was the son of Mathusala, 

which was the son of Enoch, 

which was the son of Jared, 

which was the son of Maleleel, 

which was the son of Cainan, 

which was the son of Enos, 

which was the son of Seth, 

which was the son of Adam, 

which was the son of God.

Abraham begat Isaac; 

and Isaac begat Jacob; 

and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; 

and Phares begat Esrom;

and Esrom begat Aram; 

and Aram begat Aminadab; 

and Aminadab begat Naasson; 

and Naasson begat Salmon; 

and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; 

and Booz begat Obed of Ruth;

and Obed begat Jesse; 

and Jesse begat David the king; 

and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 

and Solomon begat Roboam; 

and Roboam begat Abia; 

and Abia begat Asa; 

and Asa begat Josaphat; 

and Josaphat begat Joram; 

and Joram begat Ozias; 

and Ozias begat Joatham; 

and Joatham begat Achaz; 

and Achaz begat Ezekias; 

and Ezekias begat Manasses; 

and Manasses begat Amon; 

and Amon begat Josias; 

and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; 

and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 

and Zorobabel begat Abiud; 

and Abiud begat Eliakim; 

and Eliakim begat Azor; 

and Azor begat Sadoc; 

and Sadoc begat Achim; 

and Achim begat Eliud; 

and Eliud begat Eleazar; 

and Eleazar begat Matthan; 

and Matthan begat Jacob; 

and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, 

of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

---

Africanus taught that one genealogy reckons by nature (Matthew) and the other by law (Luke). Heli and Jacob are uterine brothers (i.e., having the same mother but different fathers). Heli died childless, and his brother Jacob by levirate marriage raised up seed to him – Jacob was the father of Joseph by nature, but Joseph was the son of Heli by law. Therefore, Joseph was properly the son of both, one physically and one legally.

The Epistle to Aristides

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-48.htm#TopOfPage

page 139-140

The opinion that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary was unknown to Christian antiquity. In the fifteenth century it was first propounded by Latin divines to do honour (as they supposed) to the Blessed Virgin. It was first broached by Annius of Viterbo, A.D. 1502. Christian antiquity is agreed that: —

1. Both genealogies are those of Joseph.

2. That Joseph was the of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were own brothers or half-brothers; so that, m—

3. On the death of one of the brothers, without issue, the surviving brother married his widow, who became the mother of Joseph by this marriage; so that Joseph was reckoned the son of Jacob and the son of Heli.

4. Joseph and Mary were of the same lineage, but the Hebrews did not reckon descent from the side of the woman. For them St. Luke’s genealogy is the sufficient register of Christ’s royal descent and official claim. St. Luke give his personal pedigree, ascending to Adam, and identifying Him with the whole human race.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Volume VI, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, A. Cleveland Coxe, editors. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1886

Commentaria Breviarium de Temporibus in Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus loquentium, by Annius, Joannes [Nanni, Giovanni ; Annio da Viterbo], 1498

https://archive.org/details/bib_fict_4102734/page/n17/mode/2up

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html#FN_25

What is a “normal” genealogy, when dealing with a miraculous virgin birth?

Acts 2:30 fruit of David’s loins

https://thecripplegate.com/is-lukes-genealogy-through-mary/

Levirate marriage, Mary’s genealogy, Legal Adoption, Consanguinity, Historical reservation (i.e. they are quoting others’ genealogy)

Bart Ehrman: “it differs from Matthew’s in numerous ways, many of them irreconcilable”

John Gill: “It is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli, and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord.”

https://thecripplegate.com/is-lukes-genealogy-through-mary/

Jesse Johnson, objecting to Luke’s genealogy being the line of Mary: “come together in Zerubbabel, then divide again at Shealtiel, then unite again at David. Identifying Luke as Mary’s doesn’t help this problem.” I’d say that identifying it as Joseph’s does not solve that problem either!

The Big Picture; or, a Forest Full of Trees

The Big Picture; or, a Forest Full of Trees.
1 Chronicles chapters 1-9.

In 21st century, genealogy is an interesting and fascinating hobby, which can be very rewarding in connecting us to our past. However, at the time the books of Chronicles were written, it was much more important than that. These books were written to a returning people who had been carried captive to a distant land, subjugated by a foreign power (cf. 1 Chronicles 9:1ff.). They have now returned back to their homeland, and they must reestablish themselves as a nation under God and its citizens. For the Jews, genealogies establish one’s tribe, clan, and family. The appointment of David to reign over the house of Israel, and the appointment of the Levites to serve at the house of God (tabernacle, temple) are important features.

There is a brief mention of Saul, followed by the Chronicler putting great emphasis on king David, especially his preparing for the Temple and his son Solomon building the Temple. See, for example, 1 Chronicles 22:2-5 (David prepares material), 1 Chronicles 22:6-19 (Solomon is charged), 1 Chronicles 23:1-26:32 (David organizes Temple worship), 1 Chronicles 27:1-29:9 (David and Solomon). Note also the emphasis on the religious reforms of Asa (2 Chronicles 14:1-15:15), Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17, 19:1-20:30), and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:3-31:21). Not only does the Chronicler positively emphasize the purpose of the book by adding material not in Samuel and Kings, he also emphasizes negatively omitting material found in them. Notice, for example, omissions of 2 Samuel :11:2-12:15; 1 Kings 11:1-40.

Except for the genealogies going back to Adam and forward to those in the exile and return – as well as not going back to Samuel – Chronicles covers the same timeframe as the books of Samuel and Kings.[i] Here is a rough parallel comparing them. 

Kingdom of Saul 1 Chronicles 10 1 Samuel 13–31

Kingdom of David 1 Chronicles 11–29 2 Samuel 1–1Kgs 2

Kingdom of Solomon 2 Chronicles 1–11 1 Kings 2–11

The Divided Kingdom 2 Chronicles 1–39 1 Kings 12–2 Kings 25

Two very significant verses:

1 Chronicles 17:24 - Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified for ever, saying, The Lord of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee.

2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The book of Chronicles begins from the first man in Genesis; the first word of 1 Chronicles is “Adam.” The first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles consists of genealogies. Those mentioned in them run from the first man Adam to six generations after the return from exile in Babylon (1 Chronicles 3:17-24). This covers a period composed of about 3700 years. The Chronicler retells stories of Israel’s past in order to revive Israel’s hope for the future. He was probably living in Jerusalem about 300 years before the coming of Jesus Christ. His writing points Israel toward the new king to come. The present Jews in Jerusalem were born in exile. They had returned to their homeland and needed to reconnect with their ancestry, the Law of Moses, and worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

The time period of the kingdom history covered in 1 & 2 Chronicles is the same as that described in 2 Samuel through 2 Kings. Although the time period covered is the same, the perspective is different. For example, the Chronicler includes David’s preparations for the temple, and the worship service of the temple. These are not found in 2 Samuel.

• God does not just work in the moment. He works over time.
• Each generation and individual was used to carry forth God’s promise.
• Individuals may not have known they were being used by God, or may not have understood how they were being used by God.
• The story of salvation preserved, culminating in the promised seed, Jesus Christ.
• God sees the big picture. God is in it for the long haul.

From Adam to the end of David’s reign as king covers almost 3000 years. Adam to the Flood 1656 years (1:1-4); Flood to Isaac 452 years (1:28); Birth of Isaac to the reign of David 886 years.

1 Chronicles 1:1-4. Adam to the Flood, 1656 years.

“Can’t see the forest for the trees” is an expression being too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole. What can we acquire from these genealogies?

On the whole and in the parts:

• A continuation of the genealogies started in Genesis chapters 5, 10, etc.
• Some elucidation on variant spellings in the Bible (e.g. Seth/Sheth, Enos/Enosh, Cainan/Kenan, Enoch/Henoch).
• The verification of historical families (especially from the sons of Noah; cf. Gen. 10:32).
• Some connection of names and places (e.g., Tarshish, Kittim, Sheba, Zidon, Kedar, Midian).
• The delineation of the descent of the Jewish people (cf. Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64).
• The identification of the “seed” of Abraham and of David (Galatians 3:16; John 7:42).
• Some preparation for the first New Testament book (which starts with genealogy, Matthew 1:1). If I got through 407 verses in 1 Chronicles 1-9, I should be able to get through 17 verses in Matthew 1!
• Genealogies connect the present to the past, and look to the future. 1 Chronicles 1-9 is a descending genealogy, starting in the past and working to the present.[ii] Most modern genealogists start in the present and work backward (ascending genealogy).[iii]
• By including Ham and Japheth, the Chronicler connects people of every tongue and nation to the biblical record.

---

[i] Overall, the Chronicler goes from the creation of Adam to the decree of Cyrus, almost 3500 years (approximately 3484 years after the 6th day of creation).

[ii] That is, finding the descendants of a specific person.

[iii] That is, finding the ancestors of a specific person.

The Burned-Over Place

Below is an illustration used by several different people. Harry Ironside told of hearing it when he was a small boy. This particular one is from M. R. DeHaan:

“Some early settlers were traveling together across the western prairies of the United States. One day they were horrified to see a fire fanned by strong wind coming their way.

“As the flames raced closer and closer, one man, to the amazement of the others, set fire to a large patch of grass downwind. The tinder-dry grass burned quickly and left behind a charred and barren area. Then he told them to move onto the burned-over place. They watched as the fire swept toward them until it reached the burned area—and then stopped! They were safe as the fire passed by them on both sides.

“The fires of God’s judgment will descend on a wicked world, but God has provided a burned-over place. At Calvary, the fire of God’s justice was met by Jesus. He bore our sin there and fully paid for our transgressions. He made full satisfaction for our sins, and we who have taken our stand by faith in the finished work of Christ are safe in the burned-over place. There is nothing left to burn.”

The fires of God’s judgment burned themselves out on Jesus Christ. The death of Christ is the burned-over place. All who are in Jesus Christ are forever safe. In Christ they are found standing where the fire has already been!

The flames of God’s judgment can never touch me,
For Jesus has borne all God’s wrath on the tree;
I now stand secure in the burned-over place,
A sinner, unworthy, yet saved by his grace!

 
-- By “Bosch” (probably Henry G. Bosch, 1914-1995, a Radio Bible Class associate of M. R. DeHaan)

On him almighty vengeance fell,
That must have sunk a world to hell;
He bore it for a chosen race,
And thus becomes our Hiding-place.

-- By Jehoida Brewer

Morning Has Broken

I struggle to see “Morning Has Broken” as a Christian or church hymn – not because of the words, but because I first knew it as sung by Cat Stevens when I was a teenager. Stevens was, I suppose, in my time, considered a folk-rock singer. Nevertheless, it has been published in many church hymnals (and long before Stevens recorded it).

This editors of the 1931 enlarged edition of Songs of Praise, With Music (Percy Dearmer, Martin Shaw, Ralph Vaughan Williams, London: Oxford University Press) asked Eleanor Farjeon to write a hymn of thanksgiving for the day to fit the tune Bunessan. In that book, the hymn is titled “Thanks for a Day” and seems to be based on the theme Psalm 118:24.

This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

1. Morning has broken Like the first morning,
Blackbird has spoken Like the first bird.
Praise for the singing! Praise for the morning!
Praise for them, springing Fresh from the Word!

2. Sweet the rain’s new fall Sunlit from heaven,
Like the first dewfall On the first grass.
Praise for the sweetness Of the wet garden,
Sprung in completeness Where God’s feet pass.

3. Mine is the sunlight! Mine is the morning
Born of the one light Eden saw play!
Praise with elation, Praise every morning,
God’s re-creation Of the new day!

The author of the hymn is Eleanor H. Farjeon, born February 13, 1881 in London, the daughter of British novelist Benjamin Leopold Farjeon and Margaret Jane Jefferson. Eleanor was an author primarily of nursery rhymes and children’s educational books. She died June 5, 1965, and is buried at the St John-at-Hampstead Churchyard in London, England.

The hymn is set to the tune Bunessan. Bunessan is considered a traditional Gaelic melody. It was first published in Songs and Hymns of the Gael, with Translations and Music (Lachlan Macbean, Stirling: Eneas MacKay, 1900, p. 60)[i] as the setting for the Mary MacDonald carol “Leanabh an àigh/Child in the Manger.” The meter is not common, 5.5.5.4.D. (or 10.9.10.9.). Many consider its best use as a tune for unison singing.

The “child of the manger” hymn, in English, is metered 5.5.5.3.D. (or 10.9.10.8.) and requires a musical slur on the first word of the 3 line.

1. Child of the manger, infant of Mary,
Outcast and stranger, Lord of all.
Child who inherits all our transgressions,
All our demerits on him fall.

 
2. Monarch have tender delicate children,
Nourished in splendour, proud and gay;
Death soon shall banish honour and beauty
Pleasure shall vanish, forms decay.

3. But the most holy child of Salvation,
Gentle and lowly lived below;
Now as our glorious mighty Redeemer,
See him victorious o’er each foe.

4. Prophets foretold him—infant of wonder;
Angels behold him on his throne;
Worthy our Saviour of all their praises,
Happy for ever are his own.

---

[i] Some sources say this book was first published in 1888. I have not yet confirmed that.

We’ve stopped worshipping Christ, and other quotes

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

“We’ve stopped worshipping Christ and started worshipping ‘Nice’.” -- Charity Nicholson

“There’s wolves in the pulpits, there’s theatrics for attention and money and influence, and leaders are manipulating God’s name for gain.” -- Lecrae Devaughn Moore

“John 6 illustrates that man wants the blessing of God but doesn’t want the being of God.” -- Keith Foskey

“Jesus saves sinners, but he doesn’t rewrite sin.” -- Chad Prather

“Wise Christians will make good use of the other people God brings into their lives.” -- Matthew Bingham

“I am not a scholar. I’m a minister of the gospel. I wouldn’t want to be demoted to being a scholar.” -- Christian Khanda

“A church’s response to God’s greatness and grace rarely rises above the example of its pastor.” -- Bob Kauflin

“He who spares the wolf sacrifices the sheep.” -- Nayib Bukele (probably from an old proverb)

“We need to focus on less empathy and more accountability.” -- Jeffery Mead

“The practice of homiletics is the meditative wrestling with the meaning of the word of God in order that it can be explained and applied to the people of God, thereby ministering grace.” -- Jay Chambers

“Only an autocratic government can afford to have historically ignorant citizens; it is a luxury we cannot afford.” -- Herbert Pickens Gambrell

“When your final authority is your ‘heart,’ you will ordinarily twist the Scripture to says whatever pleases your heart.” -- Dustin Benge

“God loves the unsaved too much to make me responsible for their eternal destiny, and He loves me too much to hang that impossible burden around my neck.” -- D. Mackey

Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?

“Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?” is a skewed question used as a means to an end. The better question is, “What did the KJV translators claim they accomplished?”

Here is what the translators (represented by Thomas Bilson & Miles Smith) write.

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your Majesty: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Work, which now with all humility we present unto your Majesty. For when your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your Majesty did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

Epistle Dedicatory

Translators to the Reader

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.

What did the translators mean by what they wrote?

“A faithful student of the word of God looks up all kinds of words. The one’s they think they know, the ones they know, and the ones they do not know. Looking up ‘false friends’ falls within one of these three categories.” Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. to Mark Ward

The translators were called on to establish out of the previous translations one principal translation for the use of the English-speaking people. That was their goal they focused on accomplishing.

An Association Dissatisfied

“Upon questions of policy…”

“5th. That we disapprove of the policy of supplementing the Nacogdoches, Wichta (sic) Falls and other churches in their pastor’s salaries, when such churches do not come in the scope of destitution but are able to maintain and support a pastor; for if such churches are not able to afford the luxury of a $1200 preacher alone, we believe that they should be resigned to listen to the words of truth coming from the mouth of a $500 preacher.” 

The above is from a resolution adopted by the Mt. Zion Association in 1898, during very stiff dissension on policies and practices in the Baptist General Convention Texas. A resolution was presented by Elder W. H. Hendrix, then a substitute by Judge R. W. Priest. After discussion, the substitute offered by Priest was adopted. After a preamble, there was a “one-point” statement affirming “our allegiance to all time-honored and blood-bought Doctrines of our Lord and master, Christ Jesus, as are taught in his Holy Word and expressed in the Baptist Declarations of Faith and Church Covenants” (p. 13) – and then 15 points discussing state convention policies.

Excerpt from a report on the “denominational troubles” among Baptists in Texas, Minutes of the Forty-Second Annual Session of the Mt. Zion Baptist Association, October 1-3, 1898, p. 14.

Von Mastrict on Apographa

X. Isti autem utriusque Instrumenti libri, pro canonicis & authenticis non habentur, nisi in linguis suis primigeniis & authenticis: cum 1. Sint instrumenta publica, quae iis tantum linguis valent, quibus condita sunt. Ut apparet, in diplomatis Regum, in Testamentis aliisque: ubi, oborta controversia, solum exemplar originale, agnoscitur pro authentico. Cum 2. Soli Prophetae & Apostoli, quippe immediate & infallibili Spiritus S. duetu instructi 2 Pet. I. 21. Scripturam  θεόπνευστος & authenticam, edere potuerint 2 Tim. III. 16. Sed quaenam tandem sunt linguae istae authenticate? Vetus Testamentum, Ecclesiae Judicae particulari datum, lingua hebraea conditum, omnes agnoscunt nisiquod particulae ejus quaedam, in Esdra, Daniele, Esther, Jeremia, lingua prostent Chaldaea. Novum, Ecclesiae Christianae universali scriptum, sola lingua Graeca conscriptum agnoscitur. Proinde, istis solis linguis, Scripruram recipimus, pro canonica & authentica. Idque non in Autographis tantum, quas, multas ob causas, sapientissimo consilio, providentia divina, perire passa est: sed in Aprographis quoque. Et sie olim Ecclesia Israelitica, nullam, praeter Hebraam V. T. nee Christiana, praeter Gracam N. Test. Habuit pro authentica.

X. But these books of both Instruments are not considered canonical and authentic, except in their original and authentic languages: since 1. They are public instruments, which are valid only in those languages in which they were created. As appears, in the documents of Kings, in the Testaments, and others: where, when controversy arises, only the original copy is recognized as authentic. Since 2. Only the Prophets and Apostles, since instructed immediately and infallibly by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1. 21.) could publish Scripture θεόπνευστος and authentic (2 Tim. III. 16). But what are these languages in terms of authenticity? The Old Testament, given to the Jewish Church in particular, was written in the Hebrew language, and is acknowledged by all, except some parts of it in Ezra, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, are written in the Chaldean language. The New Testament, written for the universal Christian Church, is acknowledged to have been written solely in the Greek language. Therefore, in these languages alone, we receive Scripture, as canonical and authentic. And this not only in the Autographs, which, for many reasons, by the wisest counsel and providence of God, suffered to perish: but in the Apographs also. And the ancient Israelitish Church had none, besides the Hebrew Old Testament, nor the Christian, besides the Greek New Testament, as authentic.

XI. Neque tamen, istis linguis, adeol est affiz Scriptura S. ut non prossit, & debeat etiam, in alias linguas transundi, ad commune usum Ecclesiae: quibus itidem linguis, pro authenticis habentur, omnes versions, quatenus fontes exprimunt, ad quos semper sunt exigendae.

Yet, Holy Scripture is not so attached to these languages that it is not desirable, and should also be, translated into other languages for the common use of the Church: in which languages, likewise, all versions are considered authentic, insofar as they express the sources, to which they must always be referred.

Petro Van Mastricht (Petrus van Mastricht 1630 –1706), Dutch Reformed theologian, Theoretico-Practica Theologia (Theoretical-Practical Theology), The Rhine: W. Van de Water, et al., 1724, pp. 20-21.

The Baptists of England

The Baptists of England from this date [1575] to 1641 underwent severe persecutions, but they increased in numbers. After the abolition of the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber in 1641, when they were able to assert themselves, there were a surprising number of them in London and throughout England. Dexter himself gives the names of eleven churches in England as early as 1626. (The True Story of John Smyth, p. 42).

...

It is altogether possible that these ‘dissenters’ [mentioned in Kiffin manuscript] may not have known that there were immersionists in London, and that such persons may have lived on the same square with them. Under the persecutions of the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber it was not safe for one to announce himself a Baptist.

John T. Christian (1854-1925), Did They Dip? pp. 35, 156.

To Be With Christ

The author of the following hymn is unknown to me. At present, I earliest I have found it thus far is in The Christian Lyre (Joshua Leavitt, New York, NY: Sleight and Robinson Printers, 1830) – with the tune Whiting on page 146, and the entire hymn printed on page 147. The hymn is without attribution, in length eight stanzas of common meter, and is titled “The Saint’s Choice.” That title seems connected to Philippians 1:21-24, and that ultimately “the saint’s choice” is “to be with Christ.”

It seems most later hymn books abbreviated to use only 5 stanzas of the hymn. Many show the theme’s connection to Philippians 1:23, especially the last half – “…to be with Christ; which is far better.” I have posted the entire hymn, but numbering the stanzas as they appear in No. 383 in The Baptist Hymn Book by William C. Buck (Louisville, KY: J. Eliot & Co., 1842), and adding the other stanzas from The Christian Lyre in brackets.

1. Long have I tried terrestrial joys,
But here can find no rest:
Far from earth’s vanity and noise
“To be with Christ is best.”

[Fair is the Siren’s painted face,
And sin looks gaily drest
To cheat me; but I fly t’embrace,
“To be with Christ is best.”]

[Temptation, with malignant smart,
Betray the unguarded breast:
Safe from the poison of each dart,
“To be with Christ is best.”]

2. ’Tis desert here – and thorns and foes
Do all the road infest;
The danger of the journey’s short
“To be with Christ is best.”

3. When earth can no delights afford,
He spreads a heavenly feast;
Such dainties crown his royal board
“To be with Christ is best.”

4. By this I fly the desert through
And feel my soul refreshed;
What can obstruct me when I know,
“To be with Christ is best.”

5. There an eternity with thee,
I’ll think myself well blest;
I see thee here; but oh! to be—
“To be with Christ is best.”

[Loosed from my clog, I’ll dart the wing,
And seek on high my rest;
Sit in some heavenly grove and sing,
“To be with Christ is best.”]

This hymn has come down to us in the shape note tradition with the tune Communion (basically the same as Whiting) – for example on page 61 of The Social Harp.

Interesting comments by Joshua Leavitt about his tunebook and tunes:

When Joshua Leavitt sent out The Christian Lyre, he testified that “the work is not designed to please scientific musicians, so much as to profit plain christians…” He generally gave a melody and bass for the tune, but sometimes only the melody, writing, “As the number of parts is apt to distract the attention of an audience, or to occupy them with the music instead of the sentiment, the tunes here printed will generally be accompanied with only a simple bass, and sometimes not even with that. In a vast multitude of cases the religious effect of a hymn is heightened by having all sing the air only.”

He seems to have a good attitude about whether or not the work would be accepted by the public: “Possessing no musical skill beyond that of ordinary plain singers, I send out my work, without pretensions. If it aids the progress of Christ’s cause, I shall be rewarded. If not, I shall be accepted according to what I had, and not according to what I had not. And it will prepare the way for some other person to do it better.” (Preface, page 3)

If doctrine strengthens our minds, and other music quotes

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

“If doctrine strengthens our minds, psalm-singing fortifies our souls.” -- From “Psalm Roar” website

“Some Christians listening to a subset of their number sing is nowhere commanded or exampled in New Testament churches.” -- Mark Dever

“I have no use for cranks who despise music, because it is a gift of God.” -- Martin Luther

“Though the open-throated harmonies violate every rule of classical counterpoint, there’s an anarchic spirit and an invigorating sense of energy about shape-note singing.” -- Alfred Hickling

“We sing because we’re created to, commanded to, and compelled to.” -- Keith Getty

“Your voice may not be of professional standard, but it is of confessional standard.” -- Keith Getty

“What do you want to remember when you’ve forgotten virtually everything else? Sing that.” -- Chad Bird

“Leading worship is a pastoral role before it’s a musical one.” -- Bob Kauflin

“Gospel music is not a sound; gospel music is a message. Gospel music means good news. It’s good-news music.” -- Kirk Franklin

“I play the notes as they are written, but it is God who makes the music.” -- Johann S. Bach

“Cheerfulness is like music to the soul, it excites to duty, it oils the wheels of the affections.” -- Thomas Watson

“Music is spiritual. The music business is not.” -- Van Morrison

“A painter paints pictures on canvas. But musicians paint their pictures on silence.” -- Leopold Stokowski

Haplotes

ἁπλότης haplotes

simplicity, sincerity, purity of mind, Romans 12:8 (ἁπλότητι, simplicity); Ephesians 6:5 (ἁπλότητι, singleness); Colossians 3:22 (ἁπλότητι, singleness); liberality, as arising from simplicity and frankness of character, 2 Corinthians 1:12 (ἁπλότητι, simplicity); 8:2 (ἁπλότητος, liberality); 9:11 (ἁπλότης, bountifulness), 9:13 (ἁπλότητι, liberal); 11:3 (ἁπλότητος, simplicity).

Meanings: singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty; the virtue of one who is free from pretense and hypocrisy; not self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generosity.

“Something for you Greek professors to take note of here, consider the Greek word ‘Happilotese’. There are five different places in the Bible that Greek word is used, so we are told. All five places it is translated a different word. It is translated bountifulness, liberal, liberality, simplicity, and singleness. In II Corinthians 9:11 the King James translators put bountifulness. You look that up in your Greek lexicon, you are going to get all kinds of different definitions. How do you know which one is right? See, you don’t have God directing you to translate the Bible like they did, nor do you have the understanding of languages as they did. You can’t get the context of the Greek like they did to give us the perfect word of God. You may say, ‘Well I go to the Greek to get a deeper meaning.’ Do you mean coming up with different words than the translators, is that the deeper meaning of which you speak? Which one of those definitions is the real one in that verse? See, it is futile; you can’t do it. You will never do it. People who dig into the Greek always get something different than the translators got. Have you ever noticed that? I think I will stick to the King James Bible.” -- Dan Goodwin, Hath God Said?, page 85

Should we accept the putting forth of poor arguments if they come from a person in a position of authority? I hope not. 

I believe there is a good point garbled up within the paragraph, but too cumbersome to be clear. Many people go to the Greek and get it wrong for one reason or another, in such a case as haplotes, not realizing that (like most words) it has some range of meaning according to its context. (On the other hand, I think some of the English uses are synonymous.) Moving away from this example to something more generic. How often does someone look up in a concordance or lexicon and see that X (Greek word) is translated as Y (English word) 25 times. Then they may wrongly assume that when X is translated as Z that the translation is wrong. However, the translators rather are aware of a range of meaning that shows X should be translated as Z in certain contexts. In such a case, the Greek (or perhaps more aptly, thinking one knows more about the Greek than one does) has led the reader astray.

At Parbar westward

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

One preacher, trying to be funny, said that 1 Chronicles 26:18 is a verse that will solve your problems. How does that work? Well, by the time you find the verse and then figure out what it means, you will have forgotten about your problems!

There is perhaps some bit truth in that humor. Nevertheless, 1 Chronicles 26:18 is just as inspired and infallible as John 3:16 or Psalm 23. It is not just as perspicuous (clear, easy to understand).

“Happy are those who dwell in God’s house: for, as they are well fed, well taught, and well employed, so they are well guarded. Men attended at the gates of the temple, but angels attend at the gates of the New Jerusalem, Rev 21 12.” Matthew Henry

Coverdale Bible

Taverner: In the watch houses on the highway westward four: two in the house.

Great Bible: In Pharbar toward the west two at the going up, and two in Pharbar.

Geneva: In Parbar toward the West were four by the paved street, and two in Parbar.

(Geneva note: “Which was an house wherein they kept the instruments of the Temple.)

Bishops: In Parbar toward the west two at the going up, and two in Pharbar.

(Has the same note as Geneva.)

There are lots of ideas and opinions about what Parbar means: the annex, a building adjacent to the temple, the chamber of the vessels, the colonnade, the court, the courtyard, the covered courtyard, the large building, the portico, the western pavilion.

• “The word is supposed to be of Persian origin…”
• “It would seem that Parbar was…”
• “In 1 Chron 26:18 his structure was possibly…”
• “…the Jewish writers generally interpret it an outward place, but Dr. Lightfoot thinks…”

I like that the King James translators did not try to interpret Parbar, as many other translators have gone about doing.

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology: A Reply to The Authority of the Septuagint

I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.

The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025.[i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.)[ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.

In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and gets an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. Myrto Theocharous, in her summary, mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.

The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5).[iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.

Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with her conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.

In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.”[iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!

The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.”[v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology![vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly. In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169).[vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction.[viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!

Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6).[ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey.[x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session).[xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?

On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8.[xii] Who’s tilting at whom?

Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193).[xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2).[xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic.[xv]

Straight talk, no excursus.

The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology.[xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology.[xvii] They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.”[xviii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”

In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii).[xix] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.

Endnotes.

---

[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint
[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q
[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.
[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.
[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI
[vi]  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”
[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.
[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.
[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.
[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/
[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.
[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.
[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).
[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin. Greogry Lanier describes Prothro as “one of our Cambridge buddies who is now Roman Catholic.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4
[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.
[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/
[xvii] Gregory Lanier has also exhibited personal distaste for representatives of Confessional Bibliology. He has described them as “grumpy Protestants who really don't like what we’re doing.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4

[xviii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8
[xix] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”