“The churches should care far more about the Bible says about them than what the Academy thinks and intimidates. Forsake any passion to be accepted by the Sanhedrin and join the ranks of Jesus’ fishermen. The Sanhedrin came to its end in AD 70 – the fishermen are still here, fishing.”
Peter Van Kleeck, Sr.
Though I have not found a scan of the book, the hymn below on baptism is supposed to have appeared in Hymns and Spiritual Songs by Samuel Hall (Newport, RI: Samuel Hall, 1766). Hymns and Spiritual Songs, also known as “The Newport Collection,” is considered the first Baptist hymnal published in America.
The hymn appears in several publications, and what I post below is somewhat of a composite of those. The meter is 11s pretty much throughout, and could be sung to a tune like Bellevue/How Firm a Foundation. It’s only 16 stanzas!
This is Hymn XCVII (p. 74-75) in Divine Hymns: Or Spiritual Songs; for the Use of Religious Assemblies and Private Christians, by Joshua Smith and Samuel Sleeper, Portland: Printed for Thomas Clark, 1803. The heading contains this note: “A Hymn on Baptism, by Anna Beaman of Warren in Connecticut, composed about the time she was baptised.” (According to David Music in I Will Sing the Wondrous Story, p. 138, it appeared in Smith’s first printing of Divine Hymns in 1791.)
The author of the hymn, Anna Keeney, married Parke Beaman December 15, 1757 in Kent, Litchfield County, Connecticut. The book The Descendants of Thomas Beeman of Kent, Connecticut (Gwen Boyer Bjorkman, Bellevue, WA: 1982), lists nine children of this couple, but does not give the death of Anna. Parke and Anna are supposed to be buried in the Kent Hollow Cemetery.
Connecting U. S. History and Baptist History: Baptist Presidents of the United States.
Thus far four men affiliated with Baptist churches have risen to become the President of the United States. Three were Democrats and one was a Republican. Two were northerners and two were southerners.[i]
1. Warren G. Harding (29th President. Republican from Ohio, 1921–23), Harding was a member and trustee of the Trinity Baptist Church, Marion, Ohio. He joined the church on May 6, 1883, when he was 17 years old and it was then still called the Free Baptist Church. Organized in 1824, Trinity was a Freewill or Free Baptist Church until joining the Northern Baptist Convention in 1911. Historians have generally ranked Harding as one of the worst Presidents. This is based on the idea that he accomplished little while in office, and for the corruption occurring during his administration – several of his appointees went to prison for various scandals. However, but I don’t think he was accused of improprieties beyond allowing it to go on.
2. Harry S. Truman (33rd President. Democrat from Missouri, 1945-1953), Truman is probably best known for following Franklin Delano Roosevelt, being plain-spoken, and authorizing dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Some have called him a “cussin’ Baptist” (not an unique moniker). I know little about his presidency otherwise, or of his Baptist beliefs. At the age of 18, Truman was baptized at the Benton Boulevard Baptist Church in Kansas City, Missouri, where he was living at the time. In 1916 he later became a member of the First Baptist Church of Grandview, Missouri, (then called the Grandview Baptist Church). In 1945 Truman wrote, “I am a Baptist because I think that sect gives the common man the shortest and most direct approach to God.” (Source: Michael Devine, director of Harry S. Truman Library and Museum)
3. James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr. (39th President. Democrat from Georgia, 1977-1981). Carter is often remembered for speaking of being born-again (and by some for giving away the Panama Canal). His presidency is by many thought of as ineffective, and after one term the American people replaced him with Ronald Reagan. At the time of his presidency, he was a Southern Baptist, but his church is now also affiliated with the more liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. He was a popular Sunday School teacher at Maranatha Baptist Church, Plains, Georgia. My in-laws once traveled to visit his Sunday School class. As a Baptist he would be considered on the liberal end of the spectrum. No questionable moral dealings or improprieties are associated with his presidency.
4. William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton (42nd President. Democrat from Arkansas, 1993-2001). He was baptized by Park Place Baptist Church in Hot Springs, Arkansas. One of the most remembered acts of this Southern Baptist president is the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Though a Baptist, the president and his family attended the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C. while he was president.
Honorable mention.
Abraham Lincoln was raised by Baptist parents. They were members of the Little Pigeon Baptist Church, near Lincoln City, Spencer County, Indiana. Lincoln himself, however, was never baptized nor a member of any church.
Baptist preacher John Gano is supposed to have baptized George Washington (1st President) during the Revolutionary War. This is a matter of controversy (i.e., some historians believe it happened and some do not). Two of John Gano’s grandchildren claimed in an affidavit that their aunt, John Gano’s oldest daughter, told them that her father had baptized Washington. Nevertheless, it seems that Washington remained outwardly affiliated with the Episcopal Church.
Information about all the presidents can be found at https://guides.loc.gov/presidents-portraits/chronological.
[i] Missouri may best be considered a “border state” rather than “Northern.” However, I think Truman’s baptizing church may have been affiliated with the Northern Baptists. (This needs a more research; currently, First Baptist of Grandview is affiliated with Southern Baptist Convention.)
Review of A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership (ebook).
Stone, Meredith J. A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership, Waco, TX: Baptist Women in Ministry, 2023.
A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership is a brief 21-page booklet provided by the Baptist Women in Ministry organization, written by the organization’s executive director. Meredith J. Stone has a PhD from Brite Divinity School (TCU), is Executive Director of Baptist Women in Ministry (organized 1983 as Women in Ministry, SBC), and is author of Empire and Gender in LXX Esther (2018).
The book is an easy read to provide an overview of the approach taken by some Baptist women who promote full access for women in Christian and church ministry. The author seeks to address questions of women in church ministry, leadership roles, ordination, etc. She acknowledges, “These questions have been the source of conflict for decades, and the heart of the matter is how we interpret biblical passages related to women’s roles and leadership” (p. 1).
The booklet starts with an unlabeled “Introduction,” followed by eight sections: Women in the Bible (3-4); Women and Creation (5-7); Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament (8); Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament (9-10); Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church (11-13); Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations (14-15); Conclusion (16-17); and Discussion Guide (18-21).
Stone initially inserts a misguided application of the priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church. This may appeal to unthinking Baptists, but lays a shifting foundation for the work. Just because some Baptists interpret the scripture on their own (which they are free to do), is no guarantee that the interpretation and resulting practice is correct. Just because a Baptist Church is free to govern itself and make its own decisions apart from the influence of any other church does not mean she should make decisions contrary to the word God. The priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church only function properly in submission to God and his revealed word. In this introduction, Stone signals early on that the authority of many biblical passages (at the least the ones that challenge “women in ministry”) will be dismissed on cultural and literary grounds (p. 2). These passages will be painted as complicated matters of interpretation which have been unshackled by “women in ministry” in recent years.
Women in the Bible. In this section Stone highlights certain women in the Bible that seem to fit her agenda – Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Mary, Anna, Lydia, Priscilla, Philip’s daughters – noting, “While some women in the Bible exist in submissive roles to men, other women have authority and are prominent leaders” (p. 3). While all these women have an important place in the Bible, the author primarily throws their names out and hopes the reader will come down on her side – rather than, for example, dealing with why none of the prominent women in the New Testament are ordained officers in the church.[i]
Women and creation. Without attacking the creation account directly, Stone delivers a dose of doubt by calling Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 two different creation accounts – rather than clearly affirming the second is giving the details of the same creation account.[ii] She renders Adam amorphous by claiming a better translation of “man” in Genesis 2:4-25 is “person.”[iii] A silly illustration of the animals created before the woman is made – trying to side line any discussion of the order of creation of Adam and Eve as ridiculous. That Eve was created to be a helper (Genesis 2:20) is dismissed because the Hebrew word is also used in reference to God (pp. 5-6). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is pitted against Romans 5:12-19 without resolution, beyond in her own mind simply impeaching 1 Timothy 2 (p. 6). Genesis 3:16 becomes merely “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” (p. 6).[iv]
Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament. Galatians 3:28 is not exegeted for meaning, but simply given as a prooftext of equality of ministry (p. 8). 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 11:4 provides cover for women praying and prophesying, while the head covering is lifted as merely a respectful temporary item of the cultural context. Stone grabs on to a controversial passage that even liberals dispute the meaning of, that Paul supposedly “calls” Junia an apostle, so that supports the position of the author. Meanwhile, almost no one actually thinks Junia was an apostle.[i] Notably, when Jesus chose the twelve, he did not appoint any women.
Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament. Stone mentions Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The teaching of these texts may be set aside since they are in the epistle genre (p. 9) – a communication between two parties which a third party will not understand. This denies the perspicuity of most of the New Testament. Yet oddly, a third party like Stone is able to figure out that it does not mean anything in our culture today. This was only for particular wives in particular congregations in this particular time. The author writes, “A decision must be made as to how to interpret the passages in light of each other” (p. 10). However, no real decision is made other than that no interpretation is needed for the passages since they should not have to obey them in modern times.[v]
Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church. Often Stone uses a “double down” technique. First, the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 for women to be silent are contextual and not universally applicable (p. 11). Further! verse 36 should be considered a refutation of the command in verses 34-35, making “you” mean “you male Corinthians.” So, it means that only women in this very specific context at this time in Corinth were to remain silent, but wait … it actually means Paul was not telling them to be silent! The author plans to have her cake and eat it too. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the author focuses on “assume authority” (αὐθεντέω) as a hapax – a word used only once in the New Testament. She thinks it can only mean inappropriate power, and just in case, also limits it to a particular congregation (pp. 12-13). To be carefully complete, Stone rejects other matters in the context as irrelevant in “modern practice in worship” (p. 13). For a general principle, the author extracts that it means they were to act “in a way that is appropriate to one’s culture” (p. 13).[vi] To throw in the kitchen sink, Stone mentions that verse 15 is not consistent with salvation by grace through faith (making this a troublesome passage, without offering any explanation of it beyond simply using it to bolster her case for women in ministry). She feigns disbelief that such a passage exists, since women having children is not the cause or means of salvation.
Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations. A careful observer should notice a plan of action in A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. Stone accepts any “favorable” mentions of women in the Bible as prescriptive – promoting the idea that women should be in leadership. Stone rejects any “unfavorable” mentions of women in the Bible as descriptive – literary, cultural, and not teaching anything concerning women in leadership. It is “shocking” how it all works out in a way that is always consistent with what she is promoting! Nevertheless, we should again be reminded that the exceptions prove the rule.
Conclusion. The conclusion reminds the reader that the book is intended to offer a perspective so “more women will be able to embrace and embody their callings…” (p. 16). In other words, the book did not set out to see what were the most valid interpretations of various passages of scripture, but to interpret them in way to fulfill the book’s purpose. For example, Stone highlights Joel 2:18-32 and Acts 2:14-18 and we are supposed to just accept it as meaning women should be in leadership roles in the church without any dealing with the prophecy, fulfillment, and its context. Apparently only the context should be noted when it can be used to nullify a command. One simple thing to note about Acts 2:14-18 is that Peter believed everything he preached on this day of Pentecost, including what he referred to from the prophet Joel. Yet he and none of the other apostles ever interpreted that as a reason to engage in the ordination of women.
Discussion Guide. The book concludes with a “Discussion Guide” with discussion questions. These are divided into general discussion questions, followed by specific questions related to each section of the book. The questions are more oriented toward feelings – “what does this text mean to you” than facts – “what does this text actually say.”
This book can be “recommended” as a good example of the application of a particular hermeneutic (the theory and methodology of the interpretation of biblical texts) that will support and promote the leadership of women in church ministry.[vii] Of this type of hermeneutic, former feminist Rosaria Butterfield states:
“Ordaining women is the gateway to gay theology. There is no denomination that ordains women that will not eventually ordain homosexuals. I’m not a prophet. I don’t need to be. You just have to read your church history. The reason it is the gateway is that it is the same hermeneutic – different Bible passages, but the same hermeneutic – that is used to ordain women is used to ordain homosexuals.” (“How Parachurch Ministries have Failed to Stand against the LGBTQ Movement.” You can start listening about 32:00 for context, and the quote is at about 35:14 in the video.)
I didn’t find this book existing in print. The book seems somewhat obscure, in that if you do not know of BWIM and their website, you probably won’t be aware of it. I only discovered it because someone promoting ordination of women and rebuking me for citing Rosaria Butterfield mentioned the BWIM site as providing valuable information about the calling of God on women’s lives to allay my ignorance on the subject. And thus, I came to give this review of the booklet.
As an example of what to not believe, I can point readers to A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. A cruise around the Baptist Women in Ministry site will demonstrate Rosaria Butterfield’s observation about hermeneutics and the ordination of women. BWIM does not just support women in ministry, but “is committed to supporting and advocating for any individual who identifies as a woman…to celebrating and supporting LGBTQ+ women and open and affirming congregations,” as well as “non-binary persons.” The book displays interpreting scripture in a way that fits the changing moods of society while rejecting the rather consistent historical interpretation of the churches for 2000 years. If the hermeneutic of this book is applied to homosexuality, it brings about the same approving results for ministry and ordination of homosexuals as it does for women.
As a valid exposition of biblical truth, A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership gets “0” stars, and no recommendation. It is not Baptist. It is not biblical.
A little humor at the expense of Baptist church names: Underachieving Christian Settles for Third Baptist Church.
In theory, “First” Baptist should mean the first Baptist Church established in a place – to distinguish it from other churches that were organized later. In the 1800s in Texas, a Baptist Church in a town was often simply called the Baptist Church of [name of town]. When other churches were organized it seems that the trend developed from calling the Baptist Church of [name of town] to calling it the first Baptist Church of [name of town]. And then this developed into the name First Baptist Church. (I can’t speak for how this occurred in other places, but I would expect it to be much the same.) Nowadays, the name “First Baptist” seems to have a different sort of connotation.
This morphed historical practice creates some odd situations, when the “First” Baptist Church isn’t the first Baptist Church. I won’t mention names, but these are some actual situations in the area where I live.
I know of one church named “First Baptist Church” which is the oldest existing Baptist Church in that particular town, but it is not the first Baptist Church. The first Baptist Church organized in the town died out, ceased to exist, but I suppose “Oldest Baptist Church” is not a very appealing name for a church.
I know of two different churches in neighboring counties in which the “First Baptist Church” was organized later than another church in the town – meaning they certainly are not the “first” Baptist Church. Both of these cases are cases of historically white churches not recognizing (at least in their naming) historically black churches that are older, and evidently first.
I know of two churches in a place that both used “First” in their names. They existed because of a church split. The churches added modifiers after “First” to distinguish which “First Baptist” was which. Eventually, the older church (the one really first) died out, ceased to exist, and the other church dropped the modifier to simply be “First Baptist Church” – but it still is not the “first.”
We Baptists sometimes are quite odd ducks.
A political post that will likely be disliked by the majority of readers on either side. In Texas in November, we will make a choice for U. S. Senator, predicted to be either Ken Paxton or James Talarico.
Almost three years ago I wrote the following about Ken Paxton:
The Republican Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29). For some members of the Republican party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Ken Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in his doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.
Recently, I compiled the following about James Talarico:
As bad, and probably worse, is the religious ignorance—and deliberate misrepresentation—from an oleaginous seminarian aspiring to be a slick politician. James Talarico is a very liberal member of a very liberal PCUSA church in Austin, Texas. He does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense (though probably having wide appeal among those who like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like). Talarico’s bizarre “biblical” claims include: God is nonbinary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy” (demonically using the virgin birth to promote murdering babies), the teachings of Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though we Bible believers know Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”).[i] James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. The problem is that his spiritual rhetoric is of the worst kind, departing from two thousand years of general understanding about what is the orthodox teaching of the churches from Scripture. Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible, are heretical! Summed up – like others he charges with being Christian nationalists, James Talarico also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of “Christian.” It is a version of Christianity that many Bible-believing Christians will not recognize. I do not and cannot trust heretics. (And in this case, the religious heretics is also a liar, as can be seen in his attempts to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race.)
Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two – dying to be with Christ or living to serve for Christ. Literally, there were only two options. He would either live or die. However, in the race for the U. S. Senate in November, there actually are more than two options. In addition to Paxton and Talarico, the following people will apparently be on the ballot for U. S. Senator from Texas, November 3, 2026: Ted Brown (Libertarian), David B. Collins (Green Party), Joshua Cain, Ronald Evans, Camencia Ford, Jade Simmons, and Hans Truelson (Independents).
We have no reason to be in a strait betwixt two. There are choices, surely (possibly? hopefully?) at least one of whom would be more in line with Christian values and principles than immoral Paxton or ungodly Talarico. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather can chose to vote for someone else. Until we grow a backbone, we will never change. I know the tired old line about only voting for either the Democrat or Republican, because one of them is bound to win. I hate the two-party control system, but that latter assessment is probably right. If so, is it not likely a sign that we are under God’s judgment, if he should raise up one of these two sorry rascals to represent us? Then again, regardless, maybe a rascal representing rascals is absolutely appropriate! Will we believe God, humble ourselves, and repent? The admonition to the people of Israel in 2 Chronicles 7:14 was not only to humble themselves, and pray, but also to seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways.
[i] I have documented all the statements by Talarico, in context, and will eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. If you want to see it sooner, let me know.
While, as you know, I am not Southern Baptist, I believe this comment below by Malcolm Yarnell is worthwhile for general instruction for all of us who are Baptists. Many Baptists seem to think they are just evangelicals, but there are reasonable reasons to understand that we actually are not.
“...Southern Baptists must never compromise those beliefs which have made us Baptists: specifically, the drive for a regenerate New Testament church membership, founded upon the biblical and historical doctrine of the divine–human covenant, evidenced at first in the ordinance of believers-only baptism by immersion, continually expressed in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, lovingly maintained by the practice of local church discipline, and fervently expanded by the expository proclamation of the Word of God. Southern Baptists will endeavour to speak these and other non-negotiable truths in love, inviting evangelicals inter alia to join us in becoming consistent with Scripture, not only theologically but ecclesiologically.”“Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals? A Second Decadal Reassessment,” Malcolm Yarnell III, Ecclesiology 2.2 (2005) SAGE Publications, page 212
The song The Royal Invitation (391, The Sacred Harp, 2012 Cooper Edition) was first published in The Sacred Harp in 1907. The tune was written by Daniel James Givens. The author of the words, below, is unknown. Perhaps Givens wrote them, or found them elsewhere and arranged to use with this tune. The text presents what Givens called “The Royal Invitation” for sinners to come to Jesus.
The chorus is sung after each stanza.
If anyone is aware of the author or origin of these words before the 1907 Sacred Harp, please let me know. So far, I have not found them anywhere else. D. J. Givens wrote six songs that are included in The Sacred Harp, and is credited with writing the words to The Crucified Saviour (p. 84). So, perhaps he wrote these words also and the original typesetter simply failed to put his name on the hymn side.
Daniel James “Jim” Givens (November 11, 1879–April 23, 1957) was born in Henry County, Alabama, a son of John Anderson Givens and Minerva A. R. Melvin. He married Lenora S. “Nora” Wiggins (1879–1950), a niece of W. M. Cooper’s stepfather Hopewell Wiggins. They had at least three children: Willie, Jewell, and Mavis. Jim and Nora are buried at the Webb Cemetery in Webb, Houston County, Alabama. His song, The Lamb of Calvary 508, was removed in 1992. Givens was primarily working as a farmer living in Houston County, Alabama.
84 The Crucified Saviour
391 The Royal Invitation
490 Canaan’s Peaceful Shore
491 Closer Walk With God
541 I’m Going Home to Die No More
572 We Will Sing With the Angels There
If you have an Ancestry subscription, are interested in Texas Baptist history, and especially if you are interested in the Anderson Baptist Church (formerly Antioch) of Grimes County, Texas, there are 29 pages of membership records here:
https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/62267/records/3289
There are some records of five other churches that follow alphabetically (some, unfortunately, not that well labeled).
Or for broader searches, see HERE.
As an old dinosaur, perhaps, I am particularly pained and puzzled by the move away from Bibles as books to Bibles on screens, phones, and computers. Now to be clear, I am not against using these resources when they can be a help – but, like Dustin Benge (a younger person and also an educator), overall, I see the switch is a loss rather than a gain.
What we lose when the Bible is only on a screen:
1. You remember where the verse lives on the page and aids memorization.
2. The page shows you much more at once. You see the context, not just a few verses at once.
3. The page keeps your notes. Years from now they will still be there, in your own hand.
4. The page cannot distract you with a notification. It only asks to be read.
5. The page is something your children watch you open and they know it’s the Bible.
The screen gives much. The page gives more.
- Dustin Benge
In total there are three clear statements referencing “household baptism” in the New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33-34; I Corinthians 1:16), as well as two that may be considered implied (Acts 10:47-48; 18:8). Pædobaptists assert that “household baptism” are proof of “infant baptism.”[1] However, the second (infant baptism) does not logically follow the first (household baptism).[2] In addition to the logical fallacy, contextual statements in each biblical case provide evidence against rather than support for infant baptism.
Rather than infant baptism, the Bible teaches believers’ baptism. The command, precept, and example of the New Testament is that belief – faith in the Lord Jesus Christ – must precede baptism (immersion in water).
Below is a chart showing these five biblical “household baptisms.”
Jude 1:19 gives another test case on whether the New King James Bible prefers a Critical or Majority Text reading over the Textus Receptus. First, remember their claim:
“While the New Testament scholars were free to consult any available Greek text, and they did so, each agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener. This text, originally published by Cambridge University Press, reconstructed as closely as possible the Greek text underlying the King James Version.” (“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, p. 1234.)
Does the “they” of Jude 1:19 “separate themselves” or “cause divisions”? Compare the difference in the translations of the King James and New King James.
Now also compare the printed Greek Critical Text, Majority Text, and Textus Receptus. The first two are the same and the Textus Receptus contains a word not found in those two.
Finally, compare these pictures Greek text of the 1598 Theodore Beza, which the King James translators followed (first picture) and the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, which the New King James editors inadvertently suggest they followed.
The first picture is from the 1598 Novum Testamentum by Theodore Beza (p. 520).[i] The yellow highlighting shows the Greek word ἐαυτούς, which is not found in the Critical Text or Majority Text.
The second picture is from The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994, p. 838), edited by Arthur Farstad and others. The red arrow shows the word ἐαυτούς is missing in this text.
Cyrus Brown and his advisers, on the posture of prayer:
THE PRAYER OF CYRUS BROWN
– By Samuel Walter Foss (1858-1911)
“The heart taken” is Hymn 101, Book One in Olney Hymns – on the text [Luke] “Chap. xi. 21, 22.”[i]
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
The hymn emphasizes the depravity of man, with native sin and Satan set up in the human heart. However, praise God, the strong man Satan is routed by the stronger man Jesus Christ, who rescues from sin and darkness, translating the delivered into his kingdom! The hymn ends with the rebel soul now subdued and rejoicing to be all in for Christ.
I have not found this particular hymn used with any tune, though it likely has been. Written in Common Meter, it offers many tune prospects. I suggest the wonderful old hymn tune Mear. One might also consider New Britain, commonly used with Newton’s “Amazing Grace,” or the tune Avon by Hugh Wilson. Hymnary.org suggests the tune Wrexford by A. H. Mann (but I did not notice an example of the two paired together).
The life of John Newton is perhaps one of the best-known and widely circulated of English hymn writers – due to his dramatic deliverance from slaver to abolitionist, from reprobate to rector (minister). “Hymn of the Day” writes that John Newton’s “theological insights and pastoral care through his words are a dagger to my heart, a balm to my soul, and an encouragement in my race to press onto Christlikeness.” “Amazing Grace,” according to biographer Jonathan Aitken, is “the most sung, most recorded and most loved hymn in the world.” That hymn, titled “Faith’s Review and Expectation,” was prepared by John Newton for a New Year’s sermon on January 1, 1773. Newton was a prolific writer with amazing output –not only many hymns, but also for journals, theology, letters. and sermons.
John Newton was born in London August 4, 1725, the son of shipmaster John Newton. He married Mary Catlett in 1750. Mary died in 1790, and John died 21 December 21, 1807. They were originally buried in the vault beneath the St. Mary Woolnoth Church, where he had served as rector for 28 years. London’s progress could wait for no man, not even the author of the “Christian National Anthem.” Before they built a railway station beneath the church, the remains of John Newton and his wife Mary were removed in January of 1893 to the churchyard of St. Peter and Paul in Olney, where Newton had lived when he published Olney Hymns.
“I have read the Bible and found many errors, all of which were in me.” Greg Mathis
A Little Humor in Baptist History:
...Elder Hastings...had just returned from the ordination of Mr. Whelpley, a baptist minister, in Sandersfield, Mass. This young man was educated at Providence college, as I heard; studied divinity with Dr. Stillman, of Boston, and was quite in clerical fashion. As he had a college education, and was something like the clergy in Connecticut, several of the presbyterian clergy attended. Elder Hastings stated to us that Elder John Leland was appointed to preach the ordination sermon. He said that when the people came together, the meeting-house would not hold them. The people then went to a grove, near the house; erected a stage that the people might hear. Mr. Leland had not spoken long, before it began to rain a little, so that several people went to the meeting-house for a shelter. As they were going, Elder Leland said to old Elder Thomas Morse, “What shall I do, father Morse?” He replied, “Wait a little while; the rain will soon be over, and the people will return.” He sat a while; the cloud passed over, and the people returned. After they were all seated, ready to hear, Mr. Leland rose up, and after looking around, as though surprised, and wishing also to sting the clergy severely on account of their infant sprinkling, he said, “My friends, I am astonished to see baptists afraid of water! But when I come to think, it is sprinkling; and I do not wonder that you flee from it.” This was a severe stroke upon the Connecticut clergy, and very mortifying to Mr. Whelpley. Mr. Leland having said this, proceeded in his sermon as he had proposed before the shower.
From The Life, Conversion, Preaching, Travels, and Sufferings of Elias Smith, pp. 224-225
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Some theologians, feeling the weight of the statement of Jesus to the thief,[i] reorganize the wording as “Verily I say unto thee to day, Thou thou be with me in paradise” (that is, moving the comma after “to day” so to change today to referring to when Jesus made the statement, rather than when the thief would be in paradise). The purpose is to diffuse the strength of Jesus taking the thief with him to paradise on the very day he made the statement. They want to deflect to the idea that Jesus is just saying it today, not that the thief will be in paradise today.
To put the comma after “To day” would be an odd way to speak. When I am telling you something today, I do not have to tell you that I am telling you today. What other day would you be saying it? Translators consistently put the comma before “To day.” Every Bible translation at Bible Gateway that I looked at (even some other than English) has the verse translated in such a way to mean that “to day” refers to when the thief would be in paradise. In some translations, the comma does not come into play due to how the sentences are written. Further, the usage of semeron (σήμερον, today) in Luke demonstrates the same. When there is a quote, semeron (today) goes with the verb in the quote – not with the verb “said” before the quote (in other words, referencing the day on which something significant is happening). See Luke 5:26, 19:5, 19:9 for other examples in Luke. Compare also Mark 14:30, Hebrews 3:7, 3:15, and James 4:13 for other New Testament uses. The word “today” is an adverb that goes with the quote to tell when concerning the statement in the quote. It does not go with “I say” as if telling when “I say” it. The use of “Today I say,....” is not found in the New Testament.
[i] Most often, the objectors are those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul and/or the immediacy of paradise. For example, the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation changes the verse to fit their theology: ‘And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’” Notice, for example, how the incident of the death Stephen fits the theology of Luke 23, with the believer being received by Christ upon death (Acts 7:55-60). Others seem to fear a supposed contradiction between Luke 23:43 and John 20:17, and run from it in this manner (i.e., changing the comma in Luke 23:43).
These two terms above are often used to describe a misconception some people have concerning the creation of The New Testament in the Original Greek compiled by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1881.
Reverse engineered is preferable to back translated for this description. The term “reverse engineered” means or can mean something different than “back translated” – and perhaps is understood differently by some people discussing the subject. However, the average person talking about the King James Bible means basically the same thing when using these terms. People have a misconception of the relationship of the Scrivener TR and the KJV. For that reason, the use of “reverse engineered” is still likely to be misunderstood and confusing. It is somewhat problematic to try to come up with a simple terminology that would acceptably and accurately represent the relationship of the Scrivener Greek New Testament and the King James English translation, since the idea has been corrupted in the minds of many people (sometimes deliberately so, and add to that the acrimony often fueled by such discussions). The title given by Scrivener and/or Cambridge is: “The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version…”
Reverse engineered may in fact be apt and accurate if what the person means by it is apt and accurate. Nevertheless, the number of people who regularly and consistently use “back translated” and “reverse engineered” to mean the same thing makes it problematic. Ultimately, people will often spend more time explaining what they mean by the term than they will spend if they start out with “the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version” and then describe and explain what F. H. A. Scrivener did. (Not that we can solve everyone’s inability or refusal to understand.)
Even someone so reasonable as Dwayne Green puts “back translated” and “reverse engineered” in “almost” the same category in his video “Why Scrivener Reverse Engineered the Textus Receptus.” “So the 1881 text of the Textus Receptus has actually been sort of – I don’t want to say back translated but you could almost say back translated from the King James Version.” (At about 25 seconds into the video). Interestingly, according to the transcript (if accurate) Dwayne actually used “reverse engineered” only once in his lesson, and used “back translated” three times. Back translated is used both in the introduction and the conclusion. (I am not saying that Dwayne did not explain it properly in the video, but am using the video as an example of why I even avoid “reverse engineered.” Even in the end of it he says, “I’d always wondered about what he was doing when he back translated the King James Version into the Textus Receptus…” I would wonder, if he had it to do over again, if Dwayne might approach that differently. The fact that Dwayne made another video clarifying his position strengthens the point I am trying to make.)
To conclude – the popular idea is that F. H. A. Scrivener took the Authorised King James Bible translation in English and translated those words back into Greek. That is a misrepresentation, whether in ignorance or deliberate.
In his “Preface,” F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:
“One of the Rules laid down for the guidance of the Revisers by a Committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury was to the effect ‘that, when the Text adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.’ As it was found that a literal observance of this direction would often crowd and obscure the margin of the Revised Version, the Revisers judged that its purpose might be better carried out in another manner.” (Part of this “another manner,” was to compile and print “the text followed in the Authorized Version.”)
Here are the facts. The translators commissioned by King James created an English translation. They did not create a Greek translation to match their English translation. F. H. A. Scrivener was given the task of compiling a Greek text that would contain the Greek Textus Receptus readings used by the translators. The translators did not use one single Greek edition, but primarily used the 1598 Theodore Beza Greek New Testament. Therefore, Scrivener started with Beza’s 1598 Greek edition as a base text, then carefully identified places where the KJV translators used readings different from Beza’s edition. He searched texts and found these different readings in other editions of Greek New Testaments. In this task, F. H. A. Scrivener did not translate anything. We can say he “reverse engineered,” in that he began with the King James translation and worked backward. Nevertheless, I recommend even avoiding the terminology “reverse engineered” – because many people who hear it hear “back translated” (and their idea is that Scrivener took the KJV and translated the English words into Greek.) Just start with the hard work of explaining what you mean, which will probably be easier and more successful in the long run.
