Why the Ye’s and Thou’s

Back in Jan-Feb 1992, I reprinted in The Baptist Waymark an article from the Plains Baptist Challenger by Bruce Cummons about the use of thee, thou, ye and you. In it Cummons noted that “One of the most criticized characteristics of the King James translation of the Bible” – the use of old English pronouns thee, thou, thy, and ye – is actually “one of the strongest points of the Authorized Version.”

Whether friend or foe, many do not know what to make of such “thee” and “ye” terminology. Unlike modern English, in the original languages of the Old and New Testaments second-person singular and the second-person plural pronouns* are distinguished. Today we do not distinguish them, so that when we speak or write in singular or plural, we choose the word “you.” 

“Where are you going?” Without context we cannot know whether this question is asked of one or many. However, Cummons notes, “in old English there exists a difference just as there is in Greek and Hebrew. As a result the old English used in the King James Version gives far more precise translation than would modern English. In our King James Bible, thee, thou, thy and thine are always singular. You, ye, and your are always plural.”

He follows this with a helpful rule: “If the second person pronoun starts with a “t” (in the English translation), then it is singular. If it starts with a “y”, it is plural. This information helps us to better interpret God’s Word. The thee’s and the ye’s are used also for accuracy and directness of translation...”

It is further worth noting that the words are used based on whether they are nominative, objective or possessive. For example, “ye” is used when it is the subject of the sentence, and “you” is used when the object. Other examples and a chart: 
“Thou art the man” – “thou” is the subject of the sentence.
“What is that to thee?” – “thee” is the object of a preposition.

Use of pronouns in the KJV
Person		Nom.	Obj.	Poss.
1st	singular	I	Me	My (or mine)
	plural	We	Us	Our (or ours)
2nd	singular	Thou	Thee	Thy (or thine)
	plural	Ye	You	Your (or yours)
3rd	singular	He/She/It	Him/Her/It	His/Hers/Its
	plural	They	Them	Their (or theirs)

[Note: I have heard some claim that one of the differences is between “familiar” as opposed to “formal” – as “tu” and “usted” in Spanish. I have found no basis for this claim and it would certainly obscure one’s understanding when reading the King James Version of the Bible. Because of this familiar versus formal dichotomy, some modern translations keep “thee” and “thou” when addressing God and “you” when addressing human beings. This is not based on the original, and is not a correct translation (and causes confusion). I have also read that by the time of the KJV translation in 1611, these singular forms of “thee” and “thou” had already been replaced in conversation by “you” – meaning the KJV translators chose to be “archaic” in order to preserve the singular or plural of the original languages. I cannot verify that, but do notice that in their “To the Reader” the translators seem to use “thee” as singular and “you” as plural.]

In speaking to God in Psalms 51:17, David uses “thou” – “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Cf. also Psalms 63:1 – “O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;”

*Pronouns are words that stand in place of nouns. The person or persons TO WHOM the speaker is speaking is called second person (singular or plural based on how many).

11 Baptist history blogs

The blogs linked below are written and/or maintained by folks who are interested in Baptist history. In some cases they write about other things as well. If anyone knows of other blogs that are primarily related to Baptist history, let me know and I will link them as well.

The posting of web links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the viewpoints of the posts linked.

A Baptist Perspective
Baptist History and Doctrine
Baptist History and Thought
Christian Thought and Tradition
Historia ecclesiastica
James1948's Blog
Praisegod Barebones
SBC Heritage
Tennessee Baptist Historical Society
Thoughts of a Pastor Historian
Working out Salvation with Fear and Trembling

Quotable quotes

"You can't back up on a freeway." -- James Dobson, referring to the impossibility of going back to "the way things were."

"Some are Microwave Christians - 30 seconds and they’re done." -- unknown

God placed Psalm 35 in His spiritual medicine chest for the times when the enemy seeks to destroy us. -- Kirby Hill (Not an exact quote, but paraphrased from his radio program)

"Begin with the end in mind." -- Stephen R. Covey

"There is a Holy Spirit and I am not him. It is my job to speak truth but not my job to convince others of it." -- Henry Blackaby

"There is only one Hero in the Church, and it is not the preacher." -- Matt Chandler, Josh Patterson, Eric Geiger in Creature of the Word: The Jesus-Centered Church

"Flimsy sermons will create a flimsy flock." -- Matt Chandler, Josh Patterson, Eric Geiger in Creature of the Word: The Jesus-Centered Church

"God doesn't believe in atheists." -- Ray Comfort

A theology of marriage and childbearing

Is there a theology of marriage and childbearing? What do the Scriptures say? Do the Scriptures present marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman in which children are intended and expected? Or do the Scriptures present marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman in which a choice to have or not have children is part of the covenant they make between themselves? Does it matter one way or the other? The following are some Bible verses that relate to the issue.

1. When we look at the original, we see a lifelong union between one man and one woman with the blessings and responsibilities of bringing forth children. Quote: Gen 2:18,21-24 - And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him...And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (cf. 1:27,28)

2. Fruitfulness is a blessing and a command to Adam and Eve. Quote: Gen 1:27-28 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

3. There is a similar blessing/command motif for Noah and Jacob. Quote: Gen 9:1 - And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Gen 35:11 - And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.

4. God's creative plan is that the woman should bear children. That she would bear them "in sorrow" is a result of the fall. Quote: Gen 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

5. The Lord has power over the womb, both opening and shutting. Quote: Gen 29:31 - And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. I Sam 1:5 - But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.

6. Children (and even grandchildren) are an heritage (inheritance) and a reward from God. Quote: Psalm 127:3-5 - Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Psalm 128:1-3 - Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Prov 17:6 - Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.

7. Paul exhorts younger women to marry and bear children. Quote: I Tim 5:14 - I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

8. Marrying and bearing children seem to be the normal and expected course for the Christian (so much so that Paul assumes the elders will be married with children). Quote: I Tim 5:10 - Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. Titus 2:4,5 - That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. I Tim 3:2-4,12 - A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity...Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

9. There are exceptions to this "normal course". For persons to devote themselves to remain unmarried in order to give themselves over to the Lord's service seems above average, but certainly a good thing and that is acceptable to God. Quote: Matthew 19:12 - For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Compare I Corinthians 7:8, et al.

10. Examples of Jesus' feelings toward children: Quote: Matt 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18:2-6 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 

I would like to keep any discussion impersonal and Scripture-oriented. Regardless of one's personal status in this matter, I hope that we agree that it is Scripture and not our practice that decides the truth. The general tenor of Scripture combined with specific teachings gives strong evidence that children are an intended and expected consequence of marriage. 

Thoughts?

4 categories of qualifications

A bishop's qualifications, stated negatively and positively:

1. As regards his personal status and habits, 1 Timothy 3:2-3.

2. As regards his relationship to his family, 1 Timothy 3:4-5.

3. As regards his relationship to his church, 1 Timothy 3:5-6.

4. As regards his relationship to the world, 1 Timothy 3:7.

Tithing before the law

Tithing1 existed before the Law,2 in the law,3 is mentioned in the New Testament,4 and neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever negate it.

Levirate marriage5 existed before the Law,6 in the law,7 is mentioned in the New Testament,8 and neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever negate it.

Why do preachers and teachers use this argument to support continuation of the tithe, but not for levirate marriage?

[1] Tithing is giving a tenth of one’s increase.

[2] Genesis 14:18-20

[3] Numbers 18:20-24

[4] Matthew 23:23

[5] Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, when the deceased brother has no children.

[6] Genesis 38:1-30

[7] Deuteronomy 25:5-10

[8] Matthew 22:23-33

4 traits of time

The Bible speaks of when time shall be no more. But that "time" is not yet. For now our lives are governed according to time -- hours, days, months, years.

When I received my copy of The English Baptists of the 17th Century in the mail, it was packed in old issues of the Western Recorder, the periodical of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. Naturally, I had to scan to the pages! In it I found what I thought was a productive article by Jeff Iorg on the subject of "time". Four of his main points are:

1. God created time and called it good, Genesis 1:3-5,31.
2. God established the time of your life, Psalm 139:16.
3. God calls us to stewardship of time, Ephesians 5:15-16.
4. God models a pattern of time use for His people, Gen. 2:2, Exod. 20:8-11.

Iorg sums up in closing: "God invented time and called it good. He places us at the right time in history and has appropriate timing for events in our lives. We are responsible to use time wisely, including following God's pattern for work and rest." -- From "Do you have a biblical understanding of time?" by Jeff Iorg in Western Recorder, August 16, 2011, p. 5

Readings on funerals, cremation and burial

Cremation, once a rare exception in this country, is now a popular option. "Should Christians be cremated?" This seems to be a question in the minds of many. Though we cannot answer dogmatically, "No," the imagery of burial is nevertheless a significant and biblical expression of faith that should not be disposed of lightly or for financial reasons alone. The following links add to the Readings on Burial and Cremation that I previously posted. Other links discuss funerals in general, and one even presents a local church's policy guide to conducting funerals.

Ashes to Ashes: Trends in dying
Baptist Funeral Traditions
Conducting Gospel-Centered Funerals
Cremation: Is it a pattern that Christians should follow?
Cremation: What Does God Think?
Harmony Baptist Church Funeral Policy and Guide
Is cremation a valid option for Christians?
To Bury or to Burn? Cremation in Christian Perspective
The Glory of Funerals
What Does The Bible Say About Cremation?

The posting of web links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the viewpoints of the posts linked.

7 things about the first 7 days

The word "day" is used three ways in the Bible -- an entire revolution of the earth (i.e. 24 hours); the period of time between sunrise and sunset (i.e. daylight); or some unspecified period of time (i.e. figurative). This would introduce the possibility that the "days" of creation -- those mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis -- might theoretically be any one of these. Which is it?

7 reasons that the first 7 days are 24-hour days rather than 1000-year days or extended periods of time
1. Though "day" is sometimes used of prolonged periods, in all five of Moses' books (the Pentateuch) when "day" is used with a numerical adjective, its meaning is restricted to a literal 24-hour day. Genesis One is no exception.
2. The specific mention of "evening" and "morning" indicates that the Bible is speaking of 24-hour days. These terms would be meaningless if referring to some unknown period of time. Evening and morning refer to a 24-hour day; Bible days began at sunset rather than at midnight as our days (Cf. Gen. 1:5; Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:32).
3. If the evening were the first half of an extended period of time and the morning the second half, what happened to the plants created on the third day when the evening of the fourth day came? Could they survive 500 years of darkness? The same goes for the animals.
4. Adam was 930 years old when he died (Cf. Gen. 5:5). If Genesis One days were 1000-year periods, Adam would have been over 1000 years old on the second day of his existence, and over 2000 by the time he died -- since he was created on the sixth day. The first seven days were the same kind of days Adam lived all of his life, and by which the days of his life were counted. If each day were a 1000 years, Adam would have been around 334,800,000 years old when he died. 
5. Why would it take God 6000 years to create the world? God didn't need 1000-year days -- it's the theistic evolutionists who need that period of time to explain their views. The Genesis account tells of a God who spoke and things came into existence.
6. None said these days were ages before the scientists said the earth was billions of years old. The motive behind lengthening the first seven days is make the Bible conform to science -- to fit the belief that the earth if billions of years old. Many scientific theories oppose God's Word. No proven scientific fact disagrees with the Bible. Should scientists ever arrive at the truth, they will find Bible-believers are already there!
7. Man's six work days correspond precisely to God's six work days. Man's day of rest corresponds to God's day of rest. Man's seven-day week is the same as God's seven-day week. See Exodus 20:8-11. 

The first seven days are the same kind of days as our 24-hour days -- the first week a week by which all weeks thereafter are patterned. The truth is plain and simple in Genesis, if we have eyes to see and aren't searching for something else.

Words-only hymn screen

This subject contains some humor for me. Not unbridled guffawing hilarity. Just a tinge of it that makes the smile turn up a little more on one side.

What is a "words-only hymn screen"? The "words-only hymn book" is a familiar phrase in my circles. It is a small booklet that contains only words of hymns -- no music, no staffs, no shaped notes, no nothing. Nothing but words, that is. The "words-only hymn screen" is my play on words for the large screen or screens hung in the front of churches on which words of hymns are projected to read and sing.

Some think this is very progressive. One blogger remembers how he once viewed projection screens in a church as sign that they "had departed from dead tradition, monotonous hymns, and a church culture geared for the elderly." Those who use and like the projectors and screens likely view themselves and their churches as contemporary, sophisticated, trendy and on the cutting edge of progress.

Some think this is too progressive. While churches using the screens may view themselves as up-to-date, conservative churches that use hymnals likely view those that use projectors and screens as too progressive -- at the least unnecessary & distracting and at the worst even liberal.

It is, in fact, regressive. Yes, while those who promote and those who protest "PowerPoint worship" think of it as progressive, for better or worse -- it actually is regressive, that is, "returning to a former state." Before our churches used projectors or hymnals with printed music, they used words-only hymn books.* One had to read the hymn and learn the tune orally. The state of progressive Christianity and hi-tech hymnody has returned to a former state. The old is new again (says I, as a smile forms on my lips).

Related readings
Advantages of Hymn Books (Cottrill)
Advantages of Hymn Books (Smith)
Danger Of Overhead Hymns
Hymnals or Screens?
Hymn books v data projectors
Powerpoint worship
Projection Screens in Churches: Musings on the Sign and the Thing Signified
Using Screens in Worship: One church's criteria

* And as a matter of fact, many churches (though a minority) still use words-only hymn books.

Quoted

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."―B.H. Carroll

"Many denominations have so emphasized the professional side of ministry that they have ordained some people with numerous talents but little or no understanding or sense of call in the Pauline sense of the word. The result is that some flocks get fleeced instead of fed." -- Ben Witherington III

"Natural man approves a religion in which man is doing what he will, while God is trying to do what He can. Spiritual man accepts that God is doing according to His will both in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth." -- R. L. Vaughn

"We need to go back and read the verses that are not underlined or highlighted."  -- unknown

"The Bible is foundational to our faith. But it is more than the written word of God that brings us to that faith. Apart from the Holy Spirit’s witness heard in our spiritual heart, the Bible is just words written about God. By the Holy Spirit speaking to our heart, the words of the Bible become God’s word personally spoken to us. It is one thing to read about God; it is quite another to hear Him spiritually speaking to us. Though the former is factual, the latter is piercing, life-giving and life-changing." -- Ken Hamrick

"If we respond to the 'embarrassing parts' of Scripture by saying, 'That was then, this is now,' we will quickly discover that liberals can play that game more effectively than conservatives." -- Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson

5 Reasons for a Universal Flood

Was the flood of Noah's day universal? Is the Genesis flood account a myth or perhaps an exaggerated story of a local flood? Some scientists deny the possibility of a universal flood. The modernist scoffs at such an idea. The Bible-believing Christian must decide. What does the Bible say? Is there evidence?

Here are five biblical reasons that Noah's flood was universal:
1. God's intent was to destroy the entire human race from off the face of the earth (i.e., except Noah's family). See Genesis 6:12-17. A local flood would not have fulfilled God's purpose of judging the entire population for their sinfulness.
2. If the flood had been only local, the ark would have been unnecessary. God could have simply told Noah to leave the area before the flood and to return when the flood waters had abated.
3. The terminology used throughout the account indicates an event of universal proportions. In Genesis chapters 6-8, "the earth" is used 34 times; "every" 14 times; "everything" 11 times; "all flesh" 8 times; "all" 7 times; "filled" and "whole" twice. An expression such as "under the whole heaven" (Gen. 7:19) cannot be reduced to apply to a local area.
4. To cover the Ararat mountains (Gen. 7:20), whose highest peak is almost 17,000 feet, would require a universal flood. Water seeks its own level. The whole earth would have been covered at least to that depth.
5. God's promise to Noah after the flood -- Genesis 9:11 -- is a promise of universal rather than local application.

The preponderance of biblical evidence favors a universal flood. Will you believe it?

Baptist groups in the British Isles

A few years ago I posted a list of Baptist groups in the British Isles. I am updating it here, mostly with links to the groups' web sites, but also with a listing of regional associations affiliated with the Baptist Union of Great Britain.

Alphabetical listing of Baptists in the British Isles
 I. Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland
II. Baptist Union of Great Britain
         1. Central Baptist Association
         2. East Midland Baptist Association
         3. Eastern Baptist Association
         4. Heart of England Baptist Association
         5. London Baptist Association
         6. North Western Baptist Association
         7. Northern Baptist Association
         8. South Eastern Baptist Association
         9. South West Baptist Association
       10. Southern Counties Baptist Association
       11. South Wales Baptist Association
       12. West of England Baptist Association
       13. Yorkshire Baptist Association
  III. Baptist Union of Scotland
  IV. Baptist Union of Wales (the Baptist Union of Wales is also affiliated with the Baptist Union of Great Britain)  
   V. Grace Baptist Assembly
  VI. Gospel Standard Strict Baptists
 VII. Jesus Fellowship Church
VIII. Old Baptist Union

Note: The Jesus Fellowship Church, aka Jesus' Army, grew out of the Bugbrooke Baptist Church in Northampton after division from the Baptist Union of Great Britain over differences in policy in practice. It is possible that they may no longer consider themselves Baptists. Also, they may not be recognized as Baptists by the other Baptist groups of Great Britain. I do not have enough information to make that determination, so I have continued to include them. There are independent Baptist churches that are unaffiliated and exist apart from any of these groups.

The TV Guide

Shun profane and vain babblings. II Timothy 2:16.

Beware of false prophets. Matthew 7:15.

Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which your are called? James 2:7.

Flee fornication. I Corinthians 6:18.

Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28.

Abstain from all appearance of evil. I Thessalonians 5:22.

Neither yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. Romans 6:13.

Who are we?

Who are we, really? I have reflected on this question from time to time, without answering it.

Let me explain what I mean. Have you ever known someone whose personality changes when getting older and somewhat senile? Let's say a man has been an upstanding family man, and a community & church leader. But in this senility he becomes a "dirty old man". Who is he? Is the real person the person that he was by the exercise of his will? Or is the real person who he became when he could no longer exercise control of his mind?

What about someone who becomes intoxicated on alcohol or drugs? Perhaps she is a mild mannered woman by day, polite and kind to folks. But at night when the alcohol takes over, she becomes abusive and violent. Who is she, really? Is the real person that person she is by day when she is exercising her will? Or is the real person that person she becomes when the inhibitions are removed?

Are we that person we choose to be, or are we that person that comes out when we are controlled by a drug or the enemy of senility? Or are we possibly only who we are at any given moment in time?

We may think of how we Christians are "two people" -- the old man and the new man. I don't discount that. But do not the above situations apply to mankind in general? They are not traits only displayed by Christians, are they, but part of the human condition? I wonder about the answer to these questions, or whether the questions are even valid?

Reading around the web

A few random readings from around the web. The posting of web links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the viewpoints of the posts linked.

Biblical Ethics and Medical Perceptions Pertaining to the Home Birth Practice
Contraceptives and the Constitution
God’s Absolute Sovereignty
Go, Preach The Gospel To Every Creature
Gospel Preaching Commanded
How Much Money Am I Supposed to Give Away?
John Broadus’ Foundation of Theological Study
John Smyth: Not the Founder of Baptists
Landmarkism and Today's SBC Church: a Response
Modest Apparel
The Top 50 Baptist Bloggers

New look

I decided to upgrade from the old blogger template that I've had since I started this web log in 2005. I've changed the arrangement and colors a bit. I have added "Google Translate" at the top of the page, "Subscribe To" at the bottom of the page, and "Follow by E-Mail" on the right sidebar. Do you like the new look? Are there other features you readers would like to see?

Thanks.

Silver alert issued for critical missing person

Willie Hubert Wingfield of Dallas was reported missing on February 1, 2013 around 11:45 p.m. He was in Tyler when he went missing.According to KLTV, "Mr. Wingfield is diabetic and is diagnosed with dementia and may be confused."

The full article, including a picture, is HERE.

"Wife-as-Sister," an Abrahamic problem

Abram/Abraham* lived as a monotheist among polytheists, a worshiper of the one true God in a world of idolaters. In the time of Abraham, nations worshiped many gods. These gods were usually viewed as responsible for particular geographical areas and political borders. Abraham's father and family were idolaters (Cf. Joshua 24:2-3), but Abraham knew one God. As he traveled from Ur of the Chaldees and throughout the land to which this one God called him, he did not change his gods. He did not shift his allegiance as he crossed various geo-political boundaries. Abram worshiped and served Jehovah, a God who knew neither geographical boundaries nor political borders. Abraham’s God was the same whether he was in Ur, Haran, Bethel, Egypt, Gerar or any other place God led him. Through His calling and leading of Abraham, God demonstrated His sovereignty -- His jurisdiction not just over Abraham and his family, but over all of the families of the earth.

Abraham was a man of great faith, but he was also a man of recurring weakness. One of his weaknesses was fear for his life and his safety. This is vigorously demonstrated in two separate "wife-as-sister" scenes in his life. At these times, Abraham represented Sarah as his sister rather than his wife. Sarah was a beautiful woman and they were in a strange land. Abraham feared that a powerful leader might kill him in order to take Sarah as wife. Among some who hold a low view of inspiration, these two incidents are conflated as one. Close examination of Genesis 12 and Genesis 20 indicates that these accounts are distinct events and not a retelling of the same event with more detail or from a different perspective. There are distinctions or differences that are hard to account for if we accept the Bible as inspired and truthful. For example, in Genesis 12:10-20 the participants are named Abram and Sarai. Chronologically this happens before God changed their names. In Genesis 20:1-18 the participants are named Abraham and Sarah. This happens after God changed their names, as recorded in Genesis 17. The geographical locations are different. This first wife-as-sister scene occurred in Egypt with Pharaoh the king. The second occurred in Gerar and with Abimelech the king. Gerar is in the south of Canaan, nowhere near Egypt (Genesis 10:19). The gifting is different. Pharaoh gave Abram gifts before he knew that Sarah was Abram's wife (12:16). Abimelech gave Abraham gifts after he discovered that Sarah was Abraham's wife (20:14-16). The discovery is different. In Egypt Pharaoh discovers that Sarai is Abram's wife when considering the cause of the plagues (20:18). In contrast, God reveals the truth to Abimelech in a dream (20:3). There are differences in the stories to such a degree that it leaves no possibility of these two incidents being the same. Interestingly, the same "wife-as-sister" ruse was perpetrated by Isaac upon a later king of Gerar (Cf. Gen. 26:1-11; the "name" Abimelech is a royal title used for various Philistine kings).

Why is Abraham (and Isaac) passing off his wife as his sister? The reason given in the text on both occasions is fear for his life, or self-preservation. See Gen. 12:11-13 and Gen. 20:11-13. This was Isaac's reasoning also (Cf. Gen. 26:7). Regrettably, in each case these scenes of presumption and deception follow directly after God's appearances and assurances. How weak we are. Praise God, His strength is made perfect in weakness. It was not altogether unreasonable for Abraham to think he could be killed for his wife. Ancient Egyptian texts preserve records of kings who took wives from husbands as they pleased. The beloved king David made Uriah pay for his wife with his life (though through a series of intrigue David did not initially intend). Even today in the United States some cult leaders take their followers' wives and make them their own (though usually without killing the husbands). Know, then, that this was a real fear and not an imagined one. We are not told what was going on in Abraham's mind, beyond fear. Perhaps he thought he could control the situation so that it would not degenerate into adultery and polyandry. The deception portrayed Sarah as an unmarried woman -- one in the absence of her father and in the presence of her brother. Marriage custom would have dictated that the suitor (in these cases, Pharaoh and Abimelech) ask permission from the brother to betroth and marry this unmarried sister. (Cf. Gen. 24:29- 60 for this custom of brotherly involvement among Abraham's people.) Abraham perhaps thought himself positioned perfectly to act as the older brother and deny the suitor. Regardless of what he thought, the plan was flawed. It fell apart. In both cases Sarah came precariously close to marriage. Both cases required their rescue by God.

Why does God record such an uncomplimentary chronicle of Abraham (and Isaac). First, this hints to us that we are reading a divine record rather than a human one. Were I to record the history of my family, I would acknowledge our failures, but certainly would not exhibit them in bold detail for the entire world to gaze upon. Second, though God never emphasizes these flaws in the New Testament, He records them for examples to and warnings for us. He preserves them for our learning and our admonition. So, what should we learn?

God's purpose is sovereign, immutable and inevitable. God chose a man -- Abram. He chose a family and a nation -- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel. God chose them and not others. Therefore, we cannot dismiss the importance of these individuals. But the success God's purpose was not dependent on these individuals. God's purpose depends on God. God fulfilled His covenant promises despite the falls, flaws and failures of the patriarchs. God's blessings were furnished to Abraham despite his mistakes. Gods calls, God blesses, God leads and God sanctifies. In the end Abraham may be well remembered not as a faithless failure but as the faithful father of the promised seed, both physical and spiritual. And through him all the nations of the earth are blessed.

God's dominion is over all of the families of the earth. God chose Abraham and led him to a new country. Abraham was not out of God's jurisdiction when he entered the lands of those who worshiped other gods. Neither were those who worshiped other gods out of God's jurisdiction! Abraham went to Egypt. The Egyptians worshiped a multiplicity of gods. But when the plagues come it is not his own gods with whom Pharaoh must deal -- they are no help -- it is the God of Abraham, the God of heaven and earth Who adds plagues and removes them. Abraham sojourned in Gerar. The Philistines worshiped false gods such as Dagon, Ashtoroth and Beelzebub. But it was not his gods who warned him, not his gods to whom Abraham prayed, and it was not his gods who healed his land. The same may be said of other lands, as God's dominion demonstrably extends over Bethel, Hai, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, Bela (Zoar), Horeb, Salem, Mamre and others. This is a fundamental biblical concept, and necessary to understanding Jehovah’s dealings with mankind.

*For simplicity I have defaulted to the use of "Abraham" and "Sarah," though strictly speaking they should be called "Abram" and "Sarai" in references before God changed their names.

Columbia remembered

Many East Texans remember this morning 10 years ago, when the skies above shook and sounded for no apparent reason. Our windows rattled and our dog ran in circles, not knowing where to hide. Then, as quickly as it came, all was back to silence. It was a Saturday morning and we were headed to Lufkin for some reason I don't remember. Even though we listened to the radio it was quite some time before we learned the source of the explosion -- the Space Shuttle Columbia had crashed. 

On this 10th anniversary we remember this disaster and the seven crew members who died: Rick Husband, William C. McCool, Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon.

Government no authority in religious matters

"For we do freely profess that our lord the king has no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all. For our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he has no authority as a king but in earthly causes. And if the king’s people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king, our lord the king can require no more. For men’s religion to God is between God and themselves. The king shall not answer for it. Neither may the king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure. This is made evident to our lord the king by the scriptures." -- Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity

Plurality of elders, readings

The posting of web links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the viewpoints of the posts linked.

Building Unity and Friendship Among Elders
Common Myths about Plurality
Elders in Baptist Churches
Elders: Singular or Plural?
Following the pattern
Plurality of Elders
Plurality of Pastors (Two articles in The Pillar)
On Plural-Elder-Led Congregationalism
The New Testament Pattern of Church Government
What we Believe: Pastors-Elders
Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders
Why I Believe in a Plurality of Elders (and what that means)

Selling counterfeits

Some engage in deliberate proliferation of counterfeits. The average Bible teacher is more often only guilty of failing to distinguish between the genuine and the fake. After mining for and finding treasure, it is important that we authenticate that treasure before trying to pawn it to others. Value is in the genuine article. Too often we are so set on finding "something new" that we do not spend the time to authenticate it -- that is, we don't study enough, pray enough, and set it out for inspection by trusted brethren. We just put it on the shelf for all the world to buy. God help us. This is a dangerous game. Teaching is a sacred trust and a formidable responsibility.

Since man by sin has lost his God,
He seeks creation through;
And vainly strives for solid bliss,
In trying something new.

The new possessed like fading flowers,
Soon loses its gay hue:
The bubble now no longer stays,
The soul wants something new.
("Something New" From The Southern Harmony, p. 254)

Anna, a prophetess

Luke 2:36-38 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

5 things about Anna the prophetess:
She was old (84+7+ca.14=ca.105) verse 36.
She was a widow (had been a widow 84 years) verse 37.
She had been faithful in youth ("from her virginity") verse 36.
She had been faithful in marriage. ("lived with an husband") verse 36.
She was faithful in old age ("served God with fastings and prayers")  verse 37.

Panetta's parting shot

On Wednesday outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta fired a parting shot at the United States generally, and its women in particular. He removed a ban on women serving in the front lines of combat. The front lines of combat are not a place for women, job promotions and certainly not for experimenting.

Christians in previous ages and most nations historically have held that combat is a responsibility for its men.* Evangelical historian Harold O. J. Brown wrote, “Within both Judaism and Christianity, indeed almost universally in all human culture, the military profession has been reserved for males.”The very idea of sending sisters, mothers, daughters and granddaughters would have been shameful thought. Not so in enlightened 21st century America.

Being a soldier is not a constitutional right. Questions of physical strength and the thrusting of men & women together in close combat situations are concerns that have been raised, and rightly so. But what about from a biblical standpoint? Is it a violation of scriptural principle for us to send our women into combat, or are we merely succumbing to our emotions and traditions?

Whether or how much Christians should engage in military service is a valid question that deserves serious answers. But I will not deal with that here. For now I wish to engage the coming issue -- American women will be serving on the front lines of the battlefield.

My views arise from within the general context of Christian complementarianism -- the biblical idea that men and women have "different but complementary roles and responsibilities," whether it be in marriage, family or religion.

One biblical case can be shown where an Israelite woman led men into battle, recorded in Judges chapter 4 (It cannot be shown that Deborah physically engaged in the battle.) Nevertheless, this was clearly outside the norm of Jewish life and predicated on men being reluctant to rise to the occasion. Under the law given by God to Moses able men above 20 years of age filled the normal and expected role of soldier (Numbers 1:2-3 ...every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. Cf. verses 20, 22, et al.). Deuteronomy 20:1-9 gives God’s rules for exemptions and exclusions of certain men as well. Certain family considerations had priority over the military (Deut. 24:5), and the fearful were considered incapable of serving. Verses 13-14 of that same chapter indicate that even among enemies, it was the men who were considered combatants. In Joshua 1:14 we read that the men of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were continue with the other tribes over the west side of the Jordan. The army did not include their wives or their little ones. The women and children stayed at home while the men fought. (Cf. also Deut. 3:18-19; Josh. 23:10; 1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Chron. 11:10-47; Neh. 4:13-14.)

The New Testament emphasis is not on a physical seed of Abraham which might at times wage war on its physical enemies. It emphasizes rather a spiritual seed of Abraham in a spiritual battle whose weapons are not carnal, but wielded through the gospel, the word of God and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless principles within its pages would certainly frown on men sacrificing their women on the altar of emotions, experiment and expediency. Rather, the sacrificial love of Christ is our example: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...” (Ephesians 5:25).

As a whole even Christians in the United States seem to have lost the sense that men are to protect and provide for women, and that women own a special place of love and respect as wives and mothers -- a place far from the front lines of combat.

* Some believe no Christians, whether male or female, should engage in combat.

Born again from above

John 3:1-12 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Jesus's words to John -- "born again" -- have been the fodder for many a theological discussion. One of the discussions is whether "again" (Gk. anôthen) means "again/a second time" or "from above" (some translations use "anew"). I have always thought it meant "again/a second time". According to Strong's Concordance anothen is translated "above" 5 times, "again" twice, and a couple of other ways. The person speaking to Jesus face to face -- who spoke the language in which they were conversing -- understood the word to mean "a second time". Jesus did not correct the "numeric succession". In verse 4 it is recorded that Nicodemus asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" The puzzled question of Nicodemus shows that he thought Jesus meant "again" (Cf. deuteron, verse 4). Nicodemus did not understand the spiritual concept, but why imply he did not understand the meaning of the word itself? Jesus responds "numerically" in His explanation -- there are two births, "That which is (1) born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is (2) born of the Spirit is spirit. That does not contradict the fact that the birth was also "anew" and "from above".

It is quite common today to teach that anothen means and should be translated "from above".* I was intrigued by a new angle I read brought into this discussion recently -- that the "again" reading is problematic for those who oppose abortion. Assuming the salvation of infants, if the births were to be numbered sequentially, babies aborted from their mothers' wombs are never born "again" (i.e., spiritually being the second time). So, it is said, their spiritual birth must be a birth "from above" and cannot be a second (numerically sequential) birth. The "second birth" (so to speak) of aborted babies would be when the body is expelled from the mother's womb.

Do you believe life begins at conception? If so, do you think the "again/second time" understanding of John 3:3-7 creates any difficulty in reconciling Jesus's words with a pro-life position? Perhaps this is more about using the pro-life position to discredit the "again" wording?

* Nevertheless the Greek is evidently sufficiently ambiguous that many standard translations (older and newer than the KJV) use or keep the "again" reading -- English Standard Version, Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, New American Standard, New International Version, Phillips, Wycliffe. The Greek alone, without context, is insufficient to determine the definition.

Anniversary of death

On Friday December 14, 2012, a shocked and saddened America watched as media continuously reported on the cold-blooded murder of 20 children in Newtown,  Connecticut. A nation mourned together and President Barack Obama stated in a Sunday prayer vigil, "This is our first task, caring for our children. It's our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how, as a society, we will be judged...Can we honestly say that we are doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm...Can we say that we are truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance that they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?"

Flash forward to January 22, 2013. A nation united on the horror of the murder of 20 small school children is a nation divided on the murder of millions of children in the womb. Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of two landmark and highly flawed decisions of the Supreme Court. The decisions issued in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton effectively meant that the unborn in the United States are not protected from death by an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2008 (and estimates thereafter), that judicial travesty has resulted in nearly 56 million abortions by its fortieth anniversary. 56 million!! Oh, that our President, our Congress, our judges, our people would rise up with resolve to give all the children of this country the chance that they deserve to live.

Readings related to abortion, Roe v. Wade, etc.
“3801 Lancaster”: Don’t turn away from this horror
9 Things You Should Know About Roe v. Wade
A mother’s instinct collapses under the culture of death
Crushed with regret after an abortion
Feminist says baby is “a life worth sacrificing”
Fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Forty Years after Roe, Human Dignity Hangs in the Balance
Is feminism more important than the deaths of 55 million children?
NBC reports Roe v. Wade decision (January 22, 1973)
Pew Research Center survey report on Roe v. Wade
President Obama’s Pro-life Message
Religious Groups' Official Positions on Abortion
The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law

Job, the ideal realist

A realist is someone who views things as they really are. An idealist is someone who views things as they should be. A few weeks ago I heard someone say that we need more realists and fewer idealists. This may or may not be true, but it nevertheless made me think. 

Job might be the ideal realist. He blessed God for all that was taken away. (Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.) He also took a broken piece of pottery and scraped his flesh because of the pain of the sores from head to toe. (Satan...smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes. Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.) The glory of God and the pain he felt were both very real to him.

A. J. Kirkland used to advise that we have to deal with things as they are, not with how we want them to be. Great advice, as long as we don't forsake pursuing going from the way things are to how they ought to be. And as long as we remember that both how they are and how they ought to be and how they will be are worked together by God for the good of those He loves.

Readings for MLK Day

The posting of web links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the viewpoints of the posts linked.

Bible References in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” Speech
Falwell and King: Domesticating and Sanitizing, Grace and Truth, with Condolences
How Martin Luther King Jr. Overcame “Christian” White Supremacy
King Records Research Online
Martin Luther King Jr.’s mixed legacy
Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Biographical Sketch
Martin Luther King Jr.: The Inconvenient Hero
Southern Baptists and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Forgotten Part of MLK’s Dream
The Theses of Martin Luther King, Jr.