Some Thoughts About the King James Bible

Is the King James Version the only true translation of the Bible which can be trusted? Have all of the modern translations available today intentionally taken words and verses out of God's Word to maliciously change its meaning? Are you not reading God's Word if it is other than a KJV? Can the Bible you have be trusted? Such are questions which often come up in discussions on this Bible translation. But are they really true? 

It is my goal in this post to seek to answer such questions by evaluating the history of the King James Version, the real debate between it and modern translations which leads to the differences of the two, how to understand the supposed "missing verses" in the modern translations, look at a few of the clear additions found in the Greek text the KJV is based on, and what the translators of the KJV themselves thought about their translation and others. You may be surprised at some things you find out in our study of this together. Before we go further, let me state as carefully and clearly as I can that it is not my intention to belittle the King James Version or those who prefer to use it over other translations. Only to address the questions often asked regarding it and the newer translations fairly to help those who struggle with whether or not they can use another translation other than the KJV or if something is wrong for them to do so.

It's History1

Perhaps it would be good to start with the history of the KJV translation. It may surprise you to learn that it was not the first English translation made. Actually, there were over half a dozen ones which predated it. John Wycliffe is credited with producing the first full complete Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate translation in 1382 and 1388. (Whether he did the translation himself is unsure but he at least certainly oversaw and supported it if he didn't.) About 160 years later, William Tyndale translated almost the complete Bible into English from its original Hebrew and Greek so that the common ployboy would be able to understand Scripture better than the corrupt priests of the day. The Mathews Bible, Coverdale Bible, Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, and Geneva Bible were all English translations which followed Tyndale's. Some of them sought to complete Tyndale's edition which he was never able to finish on account of his death. (The Coverdale Bible was made up of what Tyndale had been able to translate from the Hebrew and Greek and Miles Coverdale's own translation of the rest from Latin and Germany Bibles while the Matthew's Bible used some of Tyndale's unpublished work to complete what he had started.) The Church of England at the time sanctioned the Bishop's Bible as the only Bible they could use while the Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible. Since the Puritans viewed the Church of England as being too close to the Roman Catholic practice and appearance, they wanted nothing to do with anything associated with them. That includes the Bishop's Bible which was their official Bible. When King James I came to power in England, he wanted to put an end to the division between the two groups and be rid of the Geneva Bible due to his detesting of the Puritan Bible for its notes claiming that the government did not have authority over the church and that the church had the right to defy tyrant leaders. So, the King convened a conference. The result of which was the commissioning of a committee to begin work on a new English translation modeled after the Bishop's Bible with little altering of it as necessary and consulting the other major English translations of the time, including the Geneva Bible. The translation was complete seven years later and was named in honor of the king. Hence, why it is known as "The King James Bible." It may also be surprising to you that the new translation at first was not well-received. There wasn't a lot of interest in it and quite of bit of criticism of it. In fact, the Pilgrims would not take it with them on their journey to America but chose the Geneva Bible instead. It wasn't until the publishing and importing of the Geneva Bible was banned that the selling of the KJV took off.

The Real Debate

The big debate between the KJV and modern translations really is over two types or families of manuscripts. The word "manuscript" comes from two Latin words meaning "to write by hand" and refers to the handwritten copies we have of the Greek New Testament. While we do not have the original books or letters the apostles and their associates wrote (the autographs we could call them), we have thousands of copies of copies of copies of them. The manuscript used for the King James Version is called "the Textus Receptus," Latin for "received text." This Greek edition was put together by a man named Erasmus in the 1500s using 10-12 Greek manuscripts available to him at the time. However, since then, older manuscripts or copies, dating much closer to the originals, have been found. For instance, in the mid 1800s (300 years after Erasmus compiled his Greek text from the manuscripts he had), a man by the name of Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tishendorf (Talk about a mouthful! It must have been fun for his parents when he got in trouble as a child!), discovered some manuscripts at a monastery which dated back to the fourth century, much closer than the ones Erasmus knew of at his time. (Too much is often made of the fact that von Tishendorf initially discovered a number of leafs of the manuscript in the waste basket ready to be used to be burned in the fire. While it is true that is where he first found them in the monastery, it must also be mentioned that those were just leafs off the end of the manuscripts which were molding. That's the reason they were going to be burned. It wasn't the entire manuscript. Furthermore, the monks there changed their tune about burning them once von Tishendorf realized what they were and warned them not to burn anymore. And when he returned years later to look for more ancient manuscripts and showed a monk there a copy of the Greek translation of the Old Testament he had purchased, the monk went back to his room and brought out a full and intact manuscript containing much of the Greek translation of the Old Testament as well as the complete New Testament carefully wrapped in a red cloth. It wasn’t discarded at all. This should not be a reason to dismiss this find and its accuracy in preserving the text of Scripture.2) (For those who are really interested in this, the manuscript is known as "Codex Sinaiticus" due to the monastery it was found in being located on Mt. Sinai.) Another important earlier manuscript, called "Codex Vaticanus," dating back to the middle of the fourth century, was housed in the Vatican Library in Rome since sometime before 1475 but no one was granted access to it to study it until 1889-90. This was over three hundred years after Erasmus' edition of the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus. There has also been so many papyri of different portions of the New Testament we have found now which date back to within a century or so from the writing of the originals. It is truly amazing that the Lord has, in His providence, had such fragments survive all these years to this day! We now have so much more than the 10-12 Erasmus was able to use in his day. Comparing all of these with each other proves tremendously helpful in discerning what the original would have said.

The thought is that these older manuscripts would be more accurate than the majority of the ones later due to them being "closer to the fire" we could say. The more that a text is copied over time, the greater likelihood of mistakes occurring to it. It's sort of like the telephone game where you stand or sit in a row and whisper a statement in the person's ear next to you who in turn whispers that same statement to the person next to them who then will whisper it to the person beside them all the way down the line to the last one in the row. The longer it goes, the more you can be sure that things are going to get reworded or a word or two changed in the sentence. No matter how careful each of them were in telling it and seeking to get it right. If you asked the fourth or fifth person in the row what was said, it probably would be more accurate than what the last person tells you. (Trust me, I have seen how this goes with a prayer chain where one person calls another with a request and by the time it gets to the end of the chain the wrong person might have been reported to have died or the person who had a torn shoulder has wound up in the hospital in intensive care not doing well at all.) It is these earlier manuscripts which have been compared, combined, and evaluated together to create what is known as "the Critical Text" which serves as the basis of the modern translations rather than the Textus Receptus of the KJV.

Some have tried to dismiss the two major ancient manuscripts I mentioned of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus due to the former being associated with the church father Origen who had some questionable theology and the latter for its connection to the Vatican. However, neither are reasons to discount these manuscripts no more than one should the Textus Receptus for similar reasons. After all, while Erasmus spoke out against some of the wrongful practices and teachings of the Catholic Church of his day, he did not join Luther and the other Reformers in joining the Protestant movement but remained Catholic. I don't think that these are reasons to throw out any of these manuscripts. And the Vatican has housed all kinds of religious texts throughout history that have no Catholic influence on them whatsoever.

What About Those Missing Verses? 

This leads us to the discussion of those verses which are in the King James Bible but appear to be missing in the modern translations. Passages such as Matthew 17:21; Acts 8:36, and 1 John 5:7-8 just to name a few. What accounts for them not being there? Is it a malicious attempt to alter the text of Scripture and remove parts of God's Word? Absolutely not! These newer translations are not intentionally taking or leaving anything out at all. It's just that these verses are not found in the older manuscripts which we now have. It very well could be that a well-meaning scribe wanted to clarify a verse and so they wrote a sentence right above the verse as a note about it. Eventually, as the text got copied by another scribe, it wound up becoming a part of the text itself as a separate verse. The fact that the older copies closer to the original source do not have them leads the translators to believe that they must have been added sometime later throughout the process of copying. In many cases, it appears that a scribe took a phrase mentioned somewhere else in the Bible, perhaps even earlier in the same book he was copying and inserted it to the text. This explains why there are certain phrases not found in a specific verse in the modern translations but are present in them in another place when they occur. The scholars who worked on these newer translations do not view themselves as removing anything from the Bible but rather restoring the text to its original by not including what they perceive to be scribal additions. It is important to realize that the standard in translation should not be the King James Version itself or any other translation for that matter but the Greek text which we have the copies of with the manuscripts. The question is not how do these modern translations compare with the King James but really how best do they reflect what the manuscripts say and indicate the original said. The goal should be discovering and displaying what the original inspired word of God is. Not how close it is to an earlier English translation which didn't have all the manuscript evidence we possess today. In fact, where one of the verses in the KJV is not present in the modern translations, you should notice a note somewhere at the bottom of the page or in the margins acknowledging it and stating that it is not in the oldest and better manuscripts we have found. (In case you have ever wondered what that meant, now you know. You're welcome!) If there were such a conspiracy to get rid of certain passages or teachings in the Bible, you wouldn't think that the new translations would even acknowledge their existence, would you? It would instead be out of sight and out of mind to be forgotten about but this is not the case we see at all. They not only point out the verse or word in question but provide the explanation as to why they chose not to include it in their presentation of the text. This also will explain why the last part of John 8 and the ending of the Gospel of Mark are put in brackets in modern translations. They are indicating that they are unsure if they actually belong in the text since they are not found in those older manuscripts.

It is important to note that out of all of the different variations between the King James with the Textus Receptus and the modern translations with their Critical Text, not one major doctrine or teaching is effected! You read that correctly. Someone reading the NIV, NASB, or ESV will learn of salvation being by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, that Jesus is God, the truth of sin, the necessity of repentance, and the reality of heaven and hell. People can attest to being saved after reading a KJV or any of these modern translations. They are still reading God's Word which God's Spirit uses to save and sanctify His people. (It was a "Good News Bible: The Bible in Today's English Version" that was the first full Bible I received from Weekly Religious Education (WRE) in Elementary School that was instrumental in the start of my journey of faith and understanding the Lord and what He has done for me. I don't believe that I was lacking due to it not being a KJV. The moving to a NASB and now the new LSB came in my maturing in my walk with the Lord and desiring to get much more serious in my study of His Word.)

Sometimes it is claimed that modern translations are intentionally taking out Christ's divinity due to the many places where it only says "Jesus" and not "the Lord Jesus" or "the Lord Jesus Christ" in them. You may have even seen the chart which lists the verses in the NIV that only has the name Jesus and not His fuller title where the KJV does. If it is the case that there is some sort of conspiracy to deny or downplay Christ's divinity in these modern translations, then they really have done a horrible job of it since Christ's divinity is still found throughout these modern translations. While the complete title, "the Lord Jesus Christ," is found 86 times in the KJV, you will read it a total of 64 times in the NASB and 61 in the NIV.3 No one will come away from reading any of those translations and not see that Jesus is divine. In fact, there are some places where these newer translations based on the older manuscripts actually have a clearer statement of Christ's divinity where the King James does not. Take John 1:18 for instance. In the King James it reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." But notice how modern translations indicate explicitly that the Son is God Himself. The ESV, NASB, and LSB all have "God" in place of "Son" while the NIV and CSB say "the one and only Son, who Himself is God." The person reading these newer translations in comparison to the King James actually would have an easier time seeing Jesus' divinity in this verse. Of course, the reason for the difference between them comes down again to the different manuscripts used by the translations. Those ancient manuscripts which have been found have "God" instead of "Son" in the verse. Another example is Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The wording of the King James in both verses make it sound as if Paul and Peter are speaking of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ as two separate objects. However, almost all modern translations make it more clear that they are talking about one object, Jesus, who is both God and Savior. The NASB, NIV, and ESV all word it as, "the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." This case is not due to any differences in the manuscripts used but rather a better understanding of a rule of Greek grammar discovered in the late 1790s, 179 years after the KJV was first published.4 I'm sure if the translators of the King James would have known about this rule when they were undergoing their translation work that they certainly would have rendered the verse to resemble that which we find in just about all of the more modern translations, even the New King James Version. All this should put to rest the argument that these newer translations diminish Christ's divinity in any way. Not only is that not the case but in some places they wind up communicating it even clearer.

As for why the expansion of Jesus' name appears so often in the KJV could be on account of the desire of a copiest to honor and glorify his Lord by writing out the more fuller title when coming across only His name. This has been referred to as being "an expansion of piety."5 I personally find myself wanting to say "the Lord Jesus Christ" when speaking of Jesus in my sermons for much of the same reason. I have become so accustomed to this that sometimes it doesn't feel right if I don't say His name as such. I don't think there is anything sinister in wanting to add to the text in doing so for these scribes but a sincere longing to respect and praise the One whose word it is.

Clear Cases of Scriptural Additions and the End of Revelation

We have talked about the apparent omissions made by the modern translations in comparison to the KJV only to find out that they are because of their absence in the older manuscripts they used in their translation. Now, let's discuss some of the clear additions that are actually found in the Textus Receptus that the KJV is based on. Again, it is not my desire to bash the KJV or dissuade anyone from ever using one. Only to fairly present the facts regarding the translation and evaluate it based on such. When we look at the Greek text Erasmus put together and compare it with other ancient manuscripts we have found, it is clear that he included some additions to the text that more likely were not originally there. Some of which even have an interesting backstory. We will look at just three of them as well as what he did with the end of the book of Revelation.

Let's start with 1 John 5:7 and the three witnesses in heaven which are only found in the KJV and not in any of the modern translations. While this would be a powerful witness to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity laid out in one verse, when compiling what would become known as the Textus Receptus, Erasmus found no Greek manuscript that contained it. The verse was, however, in the Latin translation. Since he didn't see it in any of the Greek copies, he did not include it in the first edition of his Greek text. Among pressure to put it in future editions, Erasmus vowed that if someone could bring him one manuscript which had the verse in it that he would be sure to add it. The story goes that a little bit later a friar came to him with such a copy with the ink still running! It had been prepared just for him on the spot! Reluctantly, but true to his word, Erasmus placed the verse in the next edition of the text, and due to the King James using it as the basis of their translation, it remains there to this day.6 

In John 5:4, we've got the note of the angel who would go down to the pool of Bethesda to stir the water and how anyone who went into the water afterwards would be healed of any sickness they had. This is probably one of those instances where a scribe's note wound up working its way into the text as it was copied. He may have wanted to clarify why people were there waiting for the water to be moved by providing background to the Jewish mindset about it. Basically, it was a study note to help the reader understand what was going on that got mixed into the passage itself. In fact, some manuscripts we have which include this verse have asterisks around the verse to indicate that the scribe who copied it either suspected it to be an additional note not originally a part of the text or that he recognized it not to be in other manuscripts. The verse is not found in the two oldest manuscripts we have of John's Gospel.7

And then there is Acts 8:37 with Philip's instruction to the Ethiopian eunuch to believe in order to be baptized and the eunuch's confession of faith. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the theology of the statement itself as it agrees with everything else the Bible teaches regarding baptism. It always follows faith in Christ. (I am an unapologetic Anabaptist in this matter.) However, the verse is only found in a few later manuscripts and not the earliest ones or the majority of them.8 Erasmus included it from the Latin translation and due to him finding it in the margin of just ONE Greek manuscript.9 It may have originated from a scribe's desire to imply faith needs to be present before one is baptized. 

The end of the Textus Receptus' book of Revelation contains words which are not found in any other Greek manuscript. This is because Erasmus only had one Greek copy of the book of Revelation and it was missing the last leaf of it with the last six verses of the book. So, what does he do? He just translates those verses from the Latin translation into Greek. It didn't come from any Greek text at all!10

The King James Translators on the King James Version

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the whole King James debate is that the translators of the KJV actually today would be on the side of those who advocate for modern translations rather than the ones in the KJV Only camp. This is seen in their own words as articulated in the lengthy preface and word to the reader they wrote for the 1611 edition of the KJV. They actually didn't claim their translation to be perfect or inspired but readily acknowledged that all English translations, even the very weakest or smallest of them, not only contain the Word of God but are the Word of God, even though there are imperfections within the translations themselves. You can read it from them for yourself. (And if you find yourself struggling with some of the old English and specifically some of the words they used, know that is one reason why modern translations are needed today and why even more will be needed down the road in the future as language continues to change and develop.) "Wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest [weakest or smallest] translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant [circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.."11 Only that which has been written by the Apostles could be considered to be perfect or infallible. "For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?"12 And, of course, none of those working on these translations were an apostle in the same sense of those granted the privilege of writing the New Testament Scripture and there is no evidence in the preface that they considered themselves as such. Clearly, this is distinguishing the apostles and their writings from them and their translation of them.

They did not dismiss the translations which had come before them either and did not want them forgotten. "And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance."13 In fact, they saw themselves not to be producing a new translation as much as improving on the English translations which had already been made. As they put it, "Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke."14 They only wanted to make good translations previously made better. Exactly what pretty much every new translation states as its goal today.

They thought those who did previous translations would thank them for their work: "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us."15 I would think that these very ones would thank modern translators who with more manuscripts than they had available at their time, can translate even more accurately than they endeavored to do and to make better the good that they have done. They go on to write that they should not be faulted for any revisions made in their translation. (Remember that it was basically a revision of the Bishop's Bible in comparison with the other English translations of the time.) "For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraide to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sonnes of the Trueth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our owne credit, yea, and upon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance to it."16 With that being the case, how could they object to men later revising their translation work if there were somethings they missed with it?

Their goal was to make God's Word accessible to the people in their own speech which they could understand. "Now what can bee more availeable thereto, then to deliever Gods booke unto Gods people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountaine that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jewes, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him.)"

"But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed."17 With such a desire, would they not welcome newer translations with the same goal as their own once language changes and such are necessary in order for the Word to be understood? The translators of the KJV themselves might not have as much of an issue with newer more modern translations than some do today! In fact, it appears from reading their reasons and defense for their own translation that they would welcome such as long as it would correct any mistakes of theirs and make an even better translation following their improvement of went before them.

Conclusion

Now, in light of all this, do I think that you should get rid of your King James Bible if you regularly use such? Not at all. You are free to read and study from that translation should you choose. But I also don't think that it is right to say that someone MUST only read and study the KJV and no other translation. No one should be made to feel guilty with their NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, or LSB or think that they in any way are not reading a translation of God's Word for their benefit. Nor would I want to place a stumbling block on a new believer with them having to figure out a bunch of words that we don't speak anymore or to have them confused since some of the words like "gay" and "terrible" no longer mean the same thing they did in Elizabethan England at the end of the 16th century. Many of the concepts they will encounter will be difficult enough for them as it is. They do not need language itself to be a barrier. I am thankful for the rich heritage of the KJV and how the Lord has used it to convert sinners and conform saints into the image of Christ as well as the modern English translations He has just as much used to do so too. May He continue to do so all for His glory!

1 Summarized from Mark L. Strauss, 40 Questions About Bible Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023) 205-219.

2 Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Second Edition (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1968) 42-44; James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009) 56-57.

3  White, The King James Only Controversy, 76.

4 This rule is known as "The Granville Sharp Rule", named after the man who discovered it in his study of the koine Greek language. The rule states that when there are two nouns that are not proper names describing a person and are connected with the word "and" with the first noun having the article "the" but not the second one, the two nouns must be referring to the same person; White, The King James Only Controversy, 335.

5 White, The King James Only Controversy, 72. 

6 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 101; White, The King James Only Controversy, 100-102.

7 White, The King James Only Controversy, 200 n.11.

8 Strauss, 40 Questions About Bible Translation, 233. 

9 White, The King James Only Controversy, 110.

10 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 99-100; Strauss, 40 Questions About Bible Translation, 233. 

11 "King James Version Original Preface (1611)," Together We Teach. URL: http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/kjvpreface.htm

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17  Ibid.

 

Works Consulted

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book                 House, 1979.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker             Academic, 2001.

_______. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Second                     Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Strauss, Mark L. 40 Questions About Bible Translation. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023. 

White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? Minneapolis,         MN: Bethany House, 2009.

Should A Christian Attend a So-Called Gay or Transgender "Wedding"? A Response to Alistair Begg's Recent Counsel

Popular preacher Alistair Begg of Parkside Church near Cleveland, OH with the radio ministry, "Truth for Life," has caused no wee bit of controversy in the past two weeks with an interview he had done a few months ago for a book he has written on the "Sermon on the Plain" of Luke 6. (Only a "storm in the teacup" according to him.) In that interview, he recounts counsel he had given to a grandmother pertaining to her attending the transgender wedding of her grandson. (It's unclear whether this is a case of the grandson identifying and presenting himself as a girl marrying another guy or marrying a guy identifying as and pretending to be a girl or vice versus. Just that this certainly would not be an ordinary wedding of a man who lives as a man marrying a woman who lives like a woman.) After asking her if the grandson knew where she stood on the issue on account of her faith, he shocks her (as well as many of those listening to the interview) by telling her that she should go and even bring a gift. The thought being that such would catch him off guard and not fuel the perception that Christians are so critical and judgmental. It would be a way to maintain the relationship the grandmother has with the grandson. The purpose in sharing this incident was to demonstrate how we need to find radical ways of loving our enemies as Christ has called us to. (The full interview can be found here with a transcript so that the account at the end can be seen in context.) Following significant push-back, Alistair addressed the issue in a sermon on Sunday evening to his church on Luke 15 with the parable of the prodigal son entitled "Compassion vs. Condemnation." (You can listen, watch, or read the message in its entirety here.) In it, he basically argued that the counsel he gave was in accord with the compassion of Jesus eating with sinners rather than the complaining of the Pharisees who had a problem with that. It is implied that those who are taking issue with it or disagreeing with his counsel fall on the side of the Pharisees with their lack of compassion according to him.

I love and appreciate Alistair Begg and have greatly benefited from his ministry. He is one of my favorite living preachers and I typically listen to two or three of his sermons each week. My congregation certainly knows his name because a quote or illustration from him often will work its way into my sermon. I have been to his Basics pastor's conference at least twice and came close to meeting him three times. (I chickened out going up to him or saying something to him each of those times.) His many years of faithful preaching of the Word is commendable in a time where such is becoming more and more rare. But I cannot agree with the advice he said he had given to this grandmother who had written into his ministry to go ahead and attend her grandson's transgender wedding.

What makes Alistair's advice so problematic is that the very nature of a wedding is that of affirmation and celebration. By attending such, you are giving visible approval and support to the couple and their union. No one is a mere spectator at such an event. Everyone is expected to stand in honor of the bride as she makes her way down the aisle, to smile and cheer when the couple share that special kiss, and to shout and clap when they are announced as Mr. and Mrs. for the very first time. The service really doesn't allow for someone to be a neutral part of it who doesn't join in the celebration it entails. In fact, the traditional words of the service from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer even has the pastor say towards the beginning of it that if there would be any reason someone could give why the two should not be married, they are to speak now or forever hold their peace. Attendees have also been called "celebrants;" those who are there to celebrate the union they are witnessing. How can a Christian attend what clearly goes against God's good design without giving any verbal or public indication that they object to such on the basis of God's Word? Would they not be obligated to speak up in some way to bring God's truth to bear on the situation? Wouldn't sitting there quietly with a gift for the couple on their lap be an implicit way of affirming that which they cannot affirm? A so-called homosexual or gay "wedding" is anything but a wedding as God has defined such. Following His officiating of the very first wedding in the Garden, He stated clearly that it was to be only between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) which Jesus points out that we should understand being a union only separable by the death of one of the two (Matthew 19:4-6). How can we go to something modeled like a wedding which would not be considered one in God's eyes but is actually rebellion to Him? Texas Pastor and blogger Dan Phillips has said it well when he tweeted (or X'ed?), "Given that there is no such thing as a marriage of two men or a marriage of two women- so take that away- then what is this occasion that the grandmother is being asked to go to? It is just a celebration of perversion, and it's just a celebration of two people promising each other that they will never repent of the sin that will send them to hell." That really puts it into perspective!

It is never loving to affirm or go along with sin in any way. And the most loving person to ever walk on this earth, Jesus, never did that. He is the perfect balance of grace and truth (John 1:14). While Jesus did spend time and eat with notorious sinners, He never participated in their sinful practices, condoned their sin, or joined them in something which would be an abomination to God or go against His Word. We can be sure that the discussion He had with them during such was the same message He gave to all. He would have called them to repent rather than being a part of a service seeking to bless that which God cannot bless since it is rebellion to the union He wisely and rightfully designed us to have. In fact, that is exactly what He did when eating with tax collectors and other well-known types of sinners in Levi's house. When the Pharisees complained there of His eating with such sinners, He states, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:29-32). Jesus' compassion is seen in His confronting the rich young ruler's idolatry and calling him to give up his stuff to follow Him (Mark 10:21) and in calling the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). Not in attending something pretending to be a marriage when it really is not or participating in two people pledging to continue in an union God describes as detestable and unnatural.

Attending the so-called gay or transgender wedding ceremony of someone as a way of showing love to them actually will wind up sending mixed signals and create confusion, even if it has been made clear what the person thinks about the wedding due to his or her faith. I can't say that I have issues with the lyrics of Taylor Swift's songs, the way she dresses when she performs, and what she promotes and then show up at every single one of her concerts provided I had the money and time to do so. If I did, you would question just how genuine my issues with her actually are. Or, if I was greatly disturbed over the way a certain restaurant fixed their food and what they put in it, yet I continued to choose to eat there instead of other places, you would have to wonder how disturbed about it I really was. If we proclaim that a homosexual relationship and transgender identity is sinful and then show up at a service celebrating such a union, doesn't it cause some sort of question about our convictions or downplay at least what we have spoken? Rather than being a good witness by going to such a "wedding," we will instead wind up hurting our witness and our conveying of the seriousness of the matter. After all, this is no small thing. Homosexuality is included in the list of the practices which characterize those who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God and will be going to hell unless they are saved and repent (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). It is called an abomination which is one of the strongest words God could use to describe such (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The most loving thing we could do is not show up at the "wedding" but stay away to demonstrate our disapproval on the grounds of Scripture since we view this as something damning for those who practice such.

I understand that Alistair is concerned about what the grandson will think of the grandmother and what not attending the wedding may mean for their relationship moving forward but shouldn't the greatest concern be about honoring God? Sometimes our obedience to Christ will wind up causing division even within our families. Jesus Himself alluded to this when He said that "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daugther-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household" (Matthew 10:34-36). While we certainly should not go out of our way to damage such relationships, we cannot compromise for the sake of avoiding the difficulty we know will ensue on account of being faithful to our Lord.

And there really is no easy way to convey our love to someone identifying as LGBTQ. They have accepted the lie that their sexuality is the grounds of who they are so that to refuse the preferred sexuality or gender of their choice is to refuse them as a person. This is unfortunate since we are so much more than our sexuality and it is limiting to make that comprise our identity. And it is possible to love someone yet not affirm and support certain choices and decisions they make. Our love for someone will lead us to do so if those choices and decisions are damaging to them and continues them on a path away from the Lord and under His judgment. Rather than compromise our convictions shaped by God's Word and convey something different than we are seeking to say to our LGBTQ loved one by going to a celebration of their union, we need to continually reiterate our love for them and how nothing will change that. And it is on account of our love that we cannot support or affirm them in their sin. It will take patience and much prayer to work to convince them of this. I remember a couple I talked with a number of years ago who shared in tears their struggles with conveying their love for their lesbian daughter. They were clear where they stood on her relationship and had ground rules for her and her girlfriend whenever they came to visit in their home. But they were equally clear in affirming their love for her regardless. They told me that it took time but she did come to eventually understand that they very much did love her and that their refusal to affirm her relationship wasn't due to them not loving her.

Despite being the careful exegete he is, and he is one I often look to to see how he handled a certain verse or passage of Scripture in my own study, Alistair seems to miss the point of the parable of the prodigal he used to justify his counsel. The issue with the Pharisees wasn't that they refused to celebrate Jesus spending time with sinners but that it was a refusal to celebrate the repentance of lost sinners who had now been found. Those who once were spiritually dead but have been given new life in Jesus. After all, the one common thread of the three parts of the parable (notice Luke refers to all three as being a parable singular rather than parables plural) is the rejoicing over the finding of something that had been lost. First, it was a lost sheep, then a lost coin, and finally the climax being the lost boy. And the older brother in the story not joining in the party for the returned prodigal who clearly represents the grumbling, murmuring Pharisees is not chastised by the father for refusing to celebrate the younger son in his sinfulness but in his repentance. It is not being Pharisaical for a Christian to refuse to go to a wedding celebration which is an acknowledgment and celebration of a sinful union God has never sanctioned. It would be though to refuse to go to a baptism of someone who once was LGBTQ in their lostness but by grace are no more as they have been found by Jesus and given new life in Him evidenced by their repentance of that sin as well as others which once characterized them. I believe Alistair uncharacteristically completely missed the mark on this and pray that he rethinks both the counsel he has given and the justification he has made for it.

Overall, what Alistair has said is shocking to me as it appears to go against everything he has taught on the subjects of sexuality and marriage the past 40 years. He has been crystal clear that both homosexuality and transgenderism are sins that one must repent of and how there is no salvation for those who identify as and practice such outside of Jesus Christ just as there is no salvation for any other sinner. Also, he has emphasized the sanctity and uniqueness of the marriage ceremony, not even allowing those whose marriages he officiates to write their own vows. His reasoning being that it loses the powerful act of unconditional commitment devoid of any feelings or emotions communicated in the traditional vows established by the Book of Common Prayer. I fear that this is a case where he himself has left his "grandfatherly" emotions take precedent over the truth of Scripture. (At the end of Sunday evening's sermon, he did concede that "if I was misguided in any way, it was I allowed my grandfatherly hat to take over.") Again, something uncommon for him. As Alistair himself likes to say, "The best of men are men at best" and this recent kerfuffle he has caused with this unwise counsel has proved that. I still very much love and appreciate Alistair and his ministry but am certainly disappointed with this counsel which was unwise at best or misguided. Praying for Alistair!

Lee Smith