The Most Repeated Verse in the Bible and It's Significance

            If you were asked to name what might be the most important verse or set of verses in the entire Bible, what would you say? Perhaps you would think of John 3:16 with its short summary statement of the gospel in one verse. The good news of God giving His only beloved Son out of love for the world so that all who believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life. Or, Ephesians 2:8-9 might come to your mind. It provides us with such a clear emphasis of our salvation being of grace alone apart from any works whatsoever. You may go to Romans 3:21-26 which lays out for us how God justifies or declares to be righteous those who have sinned and fallen short of His glory by His grace through their faith in His Son all on account of Jesus serving as a sacrifice for our sin turning away God's wrath. All of these are good and important verses. But if we go by how often a verse or set of verses are repeated in the Bible itself to determine what might be the most important, Exodus 34:6-7 takes the cake.    

            Moses had requested that God would show the man His glory (Exodus 33:18). God graciously agreed to do so by making all of His goodness pass before Moses and to proclaim His holy name to him, though Moses would not be able to see God directly (vv. 19-20). It is this passing by and proclamation to Moses which is recorded for us that turns out to be the most quoted of all of Scripture within Scripture itself. "Then Yahweh [the English translation of "LORD" signifies that it is God's covenant name, Yahweh, which is being referred to] passed by in front of him and called out, 'Yahweh, Yahweh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin; yet He will be no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations" (Exodus 34:6-7). These are powerful two verses not only because they provide us with a helpful summary on Who God is; a fairly comprehensive list of His characteristics or attributes, but also due to the fact that it is God Himself who tells us this. This is God telling us about God. The greatest preacher in existence would have to be God Himself and it is Him who basically gives Moses, and now in turn us, a sermon on who He is here. As C. S. Lewis put it, "Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him." Who better then to tell us about God than God Himself?

            These two verses are repeated in some form or fashion a total of at least 27 times in the Old Testament alone and over 30 when you include the New Testament allusions or references to them. Of course, when God says something one time in His Word, it is of utmost importance because it is God who has said it. If it is said twice, it certainly must be something God wants to emphasize to us and we better be sure to be paying attention to it. But with this being repeated such a number of times, this has to be central to what God wants us to know about Him. It is something that we can't afford to forget or could ever study too much of. More than anything else, we need to know these truths about God. And everything that we can know about God stems or flows from them.

            Now, as to why knowing these characteristics of God laid out in these two verses are so important to us, we just need to look at how the other authors of Scripture, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used them in their writings. One thing we see is that it serves as a great encouragement for us to turn to God in repentance for His forgiveness. In calling the people of his day to a true repentance where they tear their hearts internally and not just outwardly their clothes only to appear to do such, the prophet Joel reminds them that God "is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness, and relenting concerning evil. Who knows whether He will not turn and relent and leave a blessing behind Him?" (Joel 2:13-14). This is exactly what God had told Moses earlier. If we didn't know God to be so gracious, compassionate, patient, and abounding in His loyal love, we would have no hope of Him ever accepting us in turning to Him. How could we be sure that we would ever be accepted by Him in light of our many sins and rebellion? But since such is true of Him as He makes clear to Moses, we have every confidence to run to Him in repentance when we sin and not away from Him, especially in light of all of these characteristics listed being put on display with God sending Christ to die on the cross as our substitute in the place of all of those who trust in Him. With such grace, compassion, patience, and loyal love moving the Lord to go through such great length to forgive us, why should we ever be afraid to approach Him through faith in Jesus in an attitude of repentance? Such characteristics of God are what led the entire city of Nineveh to repent and turn to the Lord, much to Jonah's dismay as He knew God's revealed character to readily receive and forgive those who repent (Jonah 3:9; 4:2). These characteristics of God show us that He is so much more willing to forgive us than we are to repent and seek His forgiveness! The only thing to hold us back from turning to Him to receive the forgiveness He is so quick to give through His Son are ourselves and our sinful pride.

            These attributes or characteristics of God given to Moses also provide us with an encouragement to look to the Lord for help, strength, and rescue. David prays for the Lord to "grant Your strength to Your slave and save the son of Your maidservant" because he knew the Lord to be so "compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth" (Psalm 86:15-16). He would have had no reason to request such if any of that wasn't true about the Lord or if he didn't know it.

            We would have no hope to persevere in the hard times in life without this revelation from God to Moses concerning Who He is. What got the prophet Jeremiah through the very difficult moment of the destruction of his homeland and the captivity of his people by the Babylonians was that he knew "the lovingkindnesses of Yahweh indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness" (Lamentations 3:22-23). Recognizing that to be true of God helped him hold on to hope of God's continual faithfulness to His people even when current circumstances called such into question. The next time the situation you find yourself in may cause you to doubt God's goodness and faithfulness, be sure to come back to these two verses which tell us what remains true about Him even in the appearance of a frowning providence or His absence.

            These characteristics serve as a warning as well with the talk of His justice and wrath upon the guilty. Tagged on to Moses' reiteration of the second commandment is the reminder of what he had heard from the Lord earlier. The people were not to worship or serve any image they made because "I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments" (Deuteronomy 5:9-10). Nahum opens his short prophecy warning the people of Nineveh of God's coming judgment for their sins by stating, taken right from these two verses in Exodus, "A jealous and avenging God is Yahweh; Yahweh is avenging and wrathful. Yahweh is avenging against His adversaries, and He keeps His anger for His enemies. Yahweh is slow to anger and great in power, and Yahweh will by no means leave the guilty unpunished" (Nahum 1:2-3). Such should certainly move us to run to Christ so we are not found to be guilty by God and suffer His wrath and punishment. To plead for His grace, mercy, patience, and lovingkindness that is so characteristic of Him seen in Christ's death on the cross.  

            Let's be sure that we do not forget such an important truth of Who our Lord is and to praise Him for all these things being true of Him as David does in Psalm 145, allowing it to convince us once again to turn to Him in repentance over our sins, seek His help, strength, and rescue daily, keep going through the difficult moments of our lives, and be sure that we are found to be righteous in His eyes through our faith in Christ alone.

Love in Christ,

Pastor Lee

 

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

The Privilege of Service

            It has been said that in the church today we have 20% of the people doing 80% of the work. And, unfortunately, that all too often appears to prove to be true in most churches. But Biblically, it shouldn't be that way.

            Paul describes the church as being like a body made up of different parts which all contribute to the work of the whole in 1 Corinthians 12. Every member has an important role to play and the body would be hurting if one or two of the members aren't working. No one is insignificant and not necessary. Many of us have experienced a broken bone or some issue with a part of our body that caused it not to work properly. Didn't that effect what you were able to do? Things are much more difficult if you don't have the sense of smell in your nose, you cannot use your right arm, or you have the pain of a broken toe, causing you to limp around. Can't you accomplish more and do things better when all parts of your body are functioning properly? Well, the same is true in the church. The church body is hurting and not as effective in its work if some members choose not to serve as God has designed them to. Don't think that just coming on Sunday and sitting through the service doesn't have any effect on anyone else in the fellowship or on the congregation as a whole. It absolutely does! Just as every member needs the church to help him or her in their growth in Christ, the church needs every member to fulfill the mission Christ has given it. The Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations is far too much for only 20% of the people to do. All hands are needed on deck for its success.

            And how great of an encouragement it is for us to know that each and every one of us have a specific place in the fellowship with a distinct role that God has designed for us to play within it. No one, including you, is part of our family by accident or doesn't belong here. Not only do you belong a part of the family, you have been chosen by God to do something within it! In fact, He has given you a specific gift to enable you to do whatever it is that He wants you to do. To be the foot, the hand, nose, ear, or eye of the body we could say. That's the point of vv. 4-11 of 1 Corinthians 12. There is no reason for us not to be serving in some capacity. (Even those who physically are not able to do as much on account of age or other circumstances still are just as much an important necessary part of the fellowship with a special role to play. In fact, I know that many of our shut-ins who may not be able to serve on any committees or make it out here for anything spend much time on their knees praying for the work of the church. I really can't think of anything greater that they can do than that! That serves as the backbone for all that we do together as a church holding us up. And we certainly need for it to continue.)

            The Bible reading plan that I have been following this year currently has me in Nehemiah (as well as Genesis, Matthew, and Acts) and something I read this time in that book really jumped out at me. In Nehemiah 4:6, where it is reported that half of the wall around the city of Jerusalem had been built by the people, it states, "and the people had a heart to work." This construction occurred in the midst of great discouragement coming from the words of Sanballat and Tobiah who were striving to put an end to the Jews work of restoring the city (vv. 1-3) and is remarkable for how fast they were able to get so much accomplished in a relatively short amount of time. The reason for such came from the willingness of the people to do the work necessary to get the job done. How much more could the church do today if all of its members similarly "had a heart to work?" And why is it that so many don't?

            I think it ultimately comes down to forgetting the privilege it is to serve and the One who, as our Master, served us. When you think about it, God does not need us to do His work. He is more than capable to do it all in His power and strength on His own. But how amazing is it that He chooses to include us in that work all for His glory? That we have the privilege to serve in His church and to be a vessel for Him to work through to contribute to the growth of fellow believers and the addition of the number of the church in our evangelistic outreach. We should not view service in the church as not something we have to do. Rather as something we get to do.

            And we have a Master who Himself modeled such service to us. Who humbled Himself to do the work of the lowest slave in the household and wash His disciple's feet (John 13:5-17). In fact, the very reason He came was not to be served by us but to serve us by laying His life down for our salvation. As He said to His disciples, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). With such great service to us, how can we not be moved to want to serve each other in the church in return? To follow Him in His remarkable service? I have shared with you before this powerful quote from C. T. Studd which conveys how Christ giving His all for us should serve as the motivation for us to give our all in service for Him. In giving up a very successful athletic career and giving away his vast fortune, he said, "If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him." There is nothing greater than spending and being spent in doing gospel work in the life of the church for the One who is worthy of it and gave His very own life for us. To contribute to something of eternal value that will last far more than just the coming generation or so.

            While the 20% doing the 80% of the work in the church may be a reality today, it doesn't have to be. At least if we don't continue to allow it to be so. How are you using the gifts that God has given you in service to His church right now? What are some opportunities in the church available for you to serve at the moment? If you don't know what your spiritual gift or gifts may be, the best thing to do is to take advantage of any of those opportunities and get serving! Since these gifts are designed to build up and benefit the church, you will not discover them outside of service in the church. No evaluation form or book can help with this or direct you. I know of many who have found out the gifts God has graciously given them to enable them to serve where He has designed just by stepping up to serve where there was a need. Unknown to them at the time, it is exactly the place the Lord wanted them and had already equipped them for. They would have never found that out had they sat back just asking the Lord what role He would have them to play in His body and would have continued to miss out on the blessing to be used by Him for His work if they had done so. God will make it clear to you what He has equipped you to do for His people to honor and please Him as you faithful seek to serve in whatever areas are open for such.

            Let's each figure out together what role the Lord would have us to play in His body and get to work at doing such with the help of His Spirit which He has so graciously given! Wouldn't it be great if it could be said about Mt. Joy that we have 80% of the people doing 100% of the work? Or even 100% of the people doing 100% of that work? It's possible if we all faithfully seek to be obedient to the Lord and use His gifts His Spirit has bestowed to us. May the Lord make it so!

Love in Christ serving along with you,

Pastor Lee

Why Our Family Doesn't Do Santa Claus

Let me begin this post by saying that what follows is my wife and I's personal conviction regarding how we handle Santa Claus with our children. We recognize and respect that other believing parents may come out with a different perspective than we do on this matter. Ultimately, each family must act according to their own convictions and not go against such. I find that it is helpful for me to write out my convictions and understanding of Scripture to aid me in better articulating them. I am with Augustine who said, “I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.” If nothing else, it will allow people to better understand why we aren't following the popular route with Santa Claus in our household and to avoid any misunderstandings which may arise.

It is always interesting whenever someone asks our oldest son, John, if he is ready for Santa to come or if he has been good for Santa to bring him something. Usually, the response is a "deer in headlights" look. Not because John doesn't know who Santa Claus is of course. He has seen him in cartoons and movies as well as part of decorations and people dressed up like him at the mall. But we have chosen to present him to our kids as a made-up character like Spider-Man, Bluey, or Mickey Mouse. Not as a real man who actually comes down the chimney every Christmas Eve that will only give gifts to those who have been good enough to deserve it. The reasons for this is because we want to avoid three things with our kids.

First, we want to avoid lying. We see no way around the fact that to present Santa Claus and all the mythology that goes with it as real when it is not would be in essence a violation of the ninth commandment. Even though it may seem like harmless fun, we recognize that we would still be bearing false witness to our children to speak of Santa as if he is an actual person who does the things the movies and songs says he does when the fact of the matter is that it is not so. Our desire is to be seen as honest and truthful to our kids in everything we say to them. Now, we certainly want to tell our children about the real St. Nicholas the myth or legend has been based on who was a champion of trinitarian orthodoxy. During the debates and church councils over the details of Scripture's teaching on the Trinity, he valiantly stood for the truth of who Jesus is according to His word. A few accounts have that he punched the heretic Arius who denied that Jesus has eternally been God in the face! He didn't "deck the halls" but he very well might have "decked the heretic". (My wife suggests I wait until the boys get older to include that detail.)

We also want to avoid confusion. Santa has a few characteristics which are very similar to Jesus. He is "all-knowing" or "omniscient." ("He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you are awake. He knows if you've been bad or good.") The fact that he can get around the world all in one night indicates that he is close to being omnipresent, "all-present", being everywhere at the same time. And he has been around so long that it makes it seem like he has eternally existed. Actually, many people's view of Jesus resembles Santa Claus more than it does the Jesus described for us in the Bible. They think that He only blesses them or gives them the gift of salvation if they have been nice and not naughty. (Sinclair Ferguson has pointed out that many today actually have a "Santa Christ" they believe in in the place of Jesus Christ.) But the glorious truth of the gospel is that Jesus gives the gift of salvation He has accomplished to those who rightly recognize themselves to be nothing but naughty due to their sinfulness and look to Him for that salvation. Emphasizing Santa giving gifts only to those who deserve it and that our kids must continually work to be good to earn such can easily translate to them thinking that they have to do the same for Jesus which can lead to a mindset of works righteousness. (Which is our natural default setting anyway with "grace" being a foreign concept.) We don't want them to equate Jesus with Santa in this regard in any way.

There is a concern as well with the confusion which could occur with presenting a fictional character such as Santa Claus alongside the factual person of Jesus. Such can blur the lines of the truth if talk of Santa at the North Pole is placed on the same plane as Jesus as a baby in the manger without any distinguishing between the two events. (Gene Autry's "Here Comes Santa Claus" demonstrates this well with the line towards the end of the song that always makes me cringe, "Let's give thanks to the Lord above, 'cause Santa Claus comes tonight.") And once a child learns that Santa isn't real when a number of years he was presented as he was, what makes them think that Jesus should still be seen as real since He was taught to them to be just as real as Santa who wasn't? Perhaps we can be accused of overthinking this, and maybe we are, but it is an important factor we have considered in making our decision not to do "the Santa Claus thing" with our children. And, obviously, this has not been the case for probably most children whose Christian parents presented Santa as real right next to Jesus. But the possibility leads us to pause in doing so.

Finally, we want to avoid distraction as well. An unlikely theologian once sang, "Jesus gets jealous of Santa Claus sometimes this time of year." Ultimately, we want our kids to get more excited about Jesus having come to earth to save sinners than they are about Santa Claus coming to town. It is so easy for Santa Claus with his bag full of temporary presents to overshadow Jesus with the much greater and lasting gift of Himself and the salvation He accomplished for those who believe in Him. For Jesus and His birth with all that entails to be pushed to a sideshow of the season rather than the main event He deserves to be. Regardless of what you do with Santa Claus in your house, be sure that he always takes a backseat to Jesus in your celebrations.

Some may say that it ruins the fun or magic of the holiday for the kids not to imagine Santa with them. However, our response to that is that true joy and something greater than any kind of make believe magic is found in Jesus so that a Christ-centered Christmas without all the fabricated reality of a sleigh and eight tiny reindeer would not be lacking for our kids in any way, shape, or form. Our oldest is still very much excited about the presents he will receive on Christmas morning, even though he knows they will be from us and other members of the family. That doesn't rob him of any of the joy of what he is going to get. And we are working to remind him that all of these lesser gifts serve to remind us of the greatest gift of all he can have with Jesus once he repents and trusts in Him as his Savior and Lord. Instead of seeking to be a "Grinch that steals Christmas," we're just wanting to be a Linus who points to what Christmas is all about and limiting a major distraction from that point in our culture.

And don't worry. We've already have had to have the conversation with John that it is the responsibility of other people's parents to tell them that Santa isn't real in their own timing. Not his to correct them. It took an argument that he told us broke out with him among some of his friends over the matter for us to realize we needed to do so before he sought to go out and set it straight for others so to speak. (It looks like he is inheriting his dad's "matter of fact" way of presenting things. Watch out world and I'm sorry!)

You may not find yourself in agreement with us and our reasoning here and think us to be strange or crazy. That's okay. I am discovering that there are a lot of things we do that appear weird in the culture we live in. But this is where we come down on the matter as we seek to honor the Lord and exalt Christ at the season of year where we specifically set aside time to focus on His incarnation and birth. As I wrote in the little disclaimer at the top of the post, it is up to every parent to decide what they are going to do with Santa in their home. This is where we come down to it and why. We respect others who take a different approach.  But don't be surprised when our kids may look at you strangely when you start asking them about a fat man in a red suit entering our home on Christmas Eve night with a sack full of goodies to put under the tree or if they are going to put out cookies and milk for him before bed that evening. We hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas celebrating the coming of our Savior and what He has done for all who believe in Him no matter what you may do with Santa who really cannot be avoided completely this time of year.

Mythbusters: Christmas Edition

            There was a show out a number of years ago called "Mythbusters" where they would examine popular sayings and things done in movies to see if they were true or just a myth. Over the years, the story of Christ's birth has become conflated and exaggerated with things twisted and added to it in our songs and popular portrayals. So much so that we can sometimes find it hard to separate the biblical facts from popular fiction. And the last thing we should want is to get an incorrect view in our heads of what took place that first Christmas night. I want to look with you at a number of the most common assumptions which have been made regarding our Savior's arrival in light of what Scripture teaches. If you would like, you could call this, "Mythbusters: Christmas Edition." Let's put some of these elements of the Christmas story to the test of God's Word.

            No Room in the Inn? How many times have you heard about the cold-hearted inn-keeper who could not, or would not, find any room for Jesus? He is pictured at the doorway shaking his head "no" and pointing Mary and Joseph away from there. And the countless sermons which have been preached about how we should not be like Him but instead to make room in our hearts for Jesus? However, the only problem with this is that there probably wasn't an inn-keeper. Because it wasn't an inn they were turned away from. The Greek word used for this place in Luke 2:7 is not the one typically for an inn but a guest room in someone's home. (In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:34 where Jesus speaks of the Samaritan taking the man ambushed and beaten by the robbers to an inn, a different word is used in the Greek. This same word though is found in Luke 22:11 regarding Jesus instructing His disciples to ask for the guest room of the man's house for holding the Passover meal.) It was common during a census in that day where one would have to travel back to their hometown for relatives in the area to host them in their homes. More likely, this was the home of one of Joseph's relatives who unfortunately had all of their guest rooms filled up by others who needed a place to stay while in for the census. The best that they could do was to have them stay in the cave next to the house with all of the animals.

            Here's another myth to bust by the way. The idea that the birth occurred in a stable. It was typical back then for the animals to be housed in a cave next to a person's home. Don't think of Jesus' first earthly accommodations being a nice size modern day barn with a roof and door. Picture a dark, damp, smelly cave instead. Even more of a humble scene of our Lord's entering into this world.

            The Little Lord Jesus No Crying He Makes? We sing every Christmas of Jesus' birth which took place "away in a manger" where there was "no crib for a bed" and about how "the little Lord Jesus no crying He makes." I highly doubt this was the case. Usually, a newborn baby isn't that quiet. You can expect him or her to cry. I remember at first thinking that something must be wrong when our oldest son was born because he didn’t really cry shortly after the birth. However, later on in the day, I started to wonder if something was wrong because he seemed not to ever stop crying! The author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus became like us in every way with the sole exception of not sinning (2:17; 4:15). Jesus wasn't born without crying but without sinning. The Son of God became a teeny tiny baby and grew and developed just like we all have but obediently in every area of His life (Luke 1:80; 2:40). And that growth and development would include crying, especially shortly after birth. Let's be careful not to minimize Jesus' humanity in focusing on His divinity. (There weren't any "radiant beams from His holy face" either. He would have resembled any other baby at the time.)

            Hark! the Herald Angels SAY? Another Christmas Carol we love to sing, and my personal favorite I might add, is "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing." This is probably the most theologically deep and accurate older hymn of our Lord's birth. The writer, Charles Wesley, really did his homework! But when you read Luke's Gospel concerning the angels appearing to the shepherds that first Christmas night, you don't find it telling us that this multitude of angels were SINGING "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased" but SAYING it (2:13). While it is certainly a possibility that these angels were indeed singing these words, Luke doesn't explicitly say that. We don't know for sure. Praising and singing do go together but the Bible shows us that there are more ways of praising God than just singing to Him. That is one among a number of them. Of course, "Hark! the herald angels say" doesn't rhyme as well with "glory to the newborn king." (Please know that I am not trying to ruin or pick on any of your favorite Christmas Carols. I only want to be biblical and bust any of the myths which may be communicated in them, passed on down through the generations. Don't worry! I will still join you in singing this one loudly this month.)

            While we're on the angels, isn't it interesting that in just about every Christmas play and pageant, they are portrayed by girls instead of boys? Yet, every angel we ever encounter in the pages of Scripture has male pronouns. And the only ones we have the names of are masculine ones; Gabriel and Michael. Maybe women just appear to be more angelic than men do. (I won't go any further with that!) And don't get me started with the little cute cherubs and their tiny exposed bottoms. I don't have any idea where they came from but I know it wasn't from Scripture!

            The Mysterious Wise Men. Perhaps the group associated with the Christmas story who takes the cake for the most myths developed about them would be the magi or wise men. Much of this is due to the beloved Christmas Carol, "We Three Kings of Orient Are." First off, we are not sure that there were only three of them. There may have been many more. The text of Matthew 2 doesn't specify any specific number. Just that they were magi plural and brought three gifts. It is hard to imagine that just three of them would have caused as much of a stir as described. And I have no clue where the names Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar came from to call them but it's not from Scripture. For that matter, nothing is said about them being kings either. The word "magi" means "great or powerful ones" and often alluded to those with a high status or influence. These ones probably were astrologers who studied the stars and tried to interpret the future by them. That's why they take such a special notice to this unique star that showed up which others may have just passed over in their causally gazing into the night sky. They made it their practice to examine the stars. The group would not have had crowns on their heads but their eyes on the sky. "We unspecified number of astrologers of Orient are" would be quite a mouthful to sing though.

            And when it comes to their arrival, just about every single manger scene gets it wrong. The magi would not have been there at the same time as the shepherds. In fact, they would not have been at the manger at all. Matthew doesn't say that they came to the cave to find the baby or infant but "into the HOUSE" where "they saw the CHILD" (2:11). It probably was a good year or a year and a half before the magi arrived to meet Jesus. We know that it had been close to two years from when they first noticed the star and talked to King Herod about it to when the king realized that they weren't coming back. Hence, why he ordered all the male children two years old and under to be slaughtered (v. 16). So, Jesus would have been one or one and a half at the time of their visit and well out of the manger.

            The Truth of Christmas. We could also talk about how Mary did indeed know her baby boy would save our sons and daughters, that He came to make us new, and that He would ultimately deliver her because the angel told her so and due to her knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures which prophesied such. And that there was no little boy who showed up that night playing "pa rum pum pum-pum" on his drum. But the truth about Christmas is that God the Son entered our world through the birth canal of a virgin, came to earth to save His people from their sins just as He had promised many, many, many years ago. There was light entering into our darkness. There were shepherds hearing the news of the angels and seeing the true Lamb of God born that men may have eternal life through His freely giving of His life as a substitute sacrifice. There was hope for the worst of sinners and such a hope that remains today. And that is what we celebrate not just this month but the whole year through. No myths to bust there!

Love in Christ,

Pastor Lee