Borrowed Light

John Newton was the Kevin Bacon of 18th century evangelicalism. If you spend any time studying that period, you’ll run across some degree of connection to Newton. One particular relationship I’ve been studying recently is Newton’s connection with a little religious society which met around Yorkshire. The principle connection is with a Miss Medhurst.

What makes this relationship so interesting is that it began when Newton was still attempting to be ordained as a pastor in the Church of England. In reading his letters to Miss Medhurst we are given a picture of a man who recently became awakened to glorious truths of the gospel. His excitement in Jesus is palpable. Though, as is typical of Newton, he laments not having more of Christ we read many statements like this one:

With respect to my own experience, I have little now to add, to what I have formerly offered, at least, little variety; for, in one sense, every new day is filled up with new things: new mercies on the Lord’s part — new ingratitude on mine; instances of the vileness of my nature — and new proofs of the power of sovereign pardoning grace; new hills of difficulty — new valleys of humiliation; and now and then (though alas! very short and seldom), new glimpses of what I will be — like Christ, and where I will be — with Christ.

There are many such paragraphs. I would describe his first few letters to Miss Medhurst (and the little society in Yorkshire) as bubbly. He is lively and bubbling over with Christ. But his letters after 1764 have a different feel. They seem more mature, yes, but they have lost a bit of liveliness. We read things like this:

The Lord is pleased to supply me still in public service, and to continue my acceptance with his people. But with regard to what passes between him and my own soul, there is, for the most part, a very awful distance. I mourn under such a deadness and barrenness in secret duties, as I believe very few, who are in any measure alive, are exercised with. It puts me often to a stand, and affords the enemy a handle to present the most distressing doubts and fears as to my own state. (Newton, Volume VI, 37)

I understand what Newton is saying here. There is a bit of disconnect which often happens with us pastors. I think one is that there is a bit of a hired hand mentality which has plagued vocational ministers for hundreds of years. Something in this robs us of our humanity and cannot but harm our relationship with the Lord. For God only relates to us as we actually are and vocational ministry has a way of confusing our identities. Perhaps this is a bit of what Newton was experiencing. Or maybe it is the result of spending so much time preparing food for others that we can tend to neglect our own diets. I suppose pastors can be a bit like new mothers in this regard.

And Satan certainly uses this as an opportunity to bring a great deal of temptation and discouragement. I’m a bit leery of any pastor who doesn’t feel a bit like a hypocrite. We are always preaching above our heads. And in the darker moments we can be tempted to deep discouragement. When we look at our own struggling prayer life and personal devotion we can really begin to question things. This is why I greatly appreciate Newton’s answer to his malady:

I dare not plead in answer to his suggestions, that I must be right, because the Lord is pleased to assist and own me in the work of the ministry…but though I dare not rest upon this plea, the Lord affords me a better; and has been pleased to give me such a view of the all-sufficient righteousness of Jesus, and the certainty of the promises in Him, that these doubts seldom pierce more than skin-deep, and, at the bottom of my dry, complaining frames, he is pleased to maintain a stable peace. I trust I am safe; but I am sure I am not comfortable. (Newton, Volume VI, 38)

Early on in Newton’s walk with the Lord those doubts pierced more than skin deep. But God established Newton on the solid rock of the finished work of Jesus Christ. It is here that we pastors have hope even in our very real hypocrisy. It is here, in the work of Christ, that we are carried along even as we limp through private duties. The fight to maintain a lively relationship with Jesus is the same for a minister of the gospel as it is for any disciple. It is a fight to see. One would think that we pastors would be in a better position to see Christ clearly, but that’s simply not the case. We have many daily temptations to muddy the gospel and to attach Jesus-sounding things to a blurry mirage.

We must fight to see and rest.

—

Photo source: here

About Those New Translations, Answering KJV-Onlyists

August 17, 2018Mike Leake 1 Comment

I want my first sentence to be an affirmation of those who appreciate the King James Version, but now it will have to be my second sentence. Everything I say from this point on is not meant to dismiss or demean those who prefer the King James Version of the Bible. It is a helpful translation which has served the church well for many years. But I do not believe it is a superior translation. My intention is not to defend that particular statement but instead to address a few of the claims of KJV-Onlyists who believe modern versions have intentionally corrupted the text.

What about that missing verse in Matthew 17:21?

I have written on this in the past, so I won’t go into much length here. I read somewhere the other day the claim that modern translations have removed Matthew 17:21 because Satan didn’t want God’s people to know how to cast him out. Note the underlying belief here that modern translations are the work of the devil. But I suppose the Prince of Darkness isn’t very thorough in his deletion practices. Ever notice Mark 9:29 in your modern translation? It reads almost identical to the KJV translation of Matthew 17:21. I suppose you could say that these modern versions take out “and fasting”, so if people only pray and don’t fast then the demon won’t come out. But I’d simply point out the footnote and all the other places even in those corrupt modern versions where Jesus speaks of fasting. You’d think the devil would just wipe out all references.

What about “those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” in Romans 8:1?

Some KJV-Onlyist have noted that modern versions take out that sentence in Romans 8:1. One particular person, who must not have been a Baptist, noted that this was taken out of our Bible’s in order to teach people the “once-saved-always-saved” heresy. But somebody must have been sleeping on the job, as the very same phrase appears in Romans 8:4.

The reason your modern versions don’t have that second half of the verse is because of the presence of that phrase in Romans 8:4. There are many early manuscripts in Romans 8:1 which do not have that half the verse. And it’s easier to explain why it would be added than deleted. Again, there is no great conspiracy here. The “questionable” phrase appears in Romans 8:4, if somebody was trying to erase that theology they’d have taken it out of verse 4 as well.

What about taking “the blood” out of Colossians 1:14?

Can you believe that those corrupt new translations have taken “the blood” out of the work of Christ? How more liberal can you get than to diminish the work of Christ and not make mention of His blood? Is there any truth more essential than the blood of the atonement? Yet here the NIV has Colossians 1:14 as reading: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”. Pull out your KJV and you’ll notice that the phrase “through his blood” is missing.

For many, Colossians 1:14 and the omission of “through the blood” is the nail in the coffin for modern translations and it proves an attempt to remove the blood from the gospel. The only problem, again, is that whoever was making these deletions left off a few important places. Look at Ephesians 1:7 in the NIV: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins…” It’s the exact same phrase. And when we consider that the earliest manuscripts do not have “through the blood” in the KJV we come to the conclusion that it was added at some point—likely by a copyist who had Colossians 1:14 memorized. That phrase doesn’t appear in any manuscripts until around 950AD.

So modern versions aren’t taking “redemption through the blood” out of your Bible. It’s right there in Ephesians 1:7, where it belongs.

Why is the most clear Trinitarian passage taken out of your Bible?

This one is a bit more complex than the other three. If you want a bit more technical explanation consider this: The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8. 1 John 5:7 in the King James makes reference to “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost”. Modern translations omit this phrase and 1 John 5:7-8 read thus: “For there are three that testify:theSpirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

Basically, there is absolutely no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript prior to 1500. This was even a debate during the formation of the Textus Receptus (the primary text used to translate the KJV). Erasmus didn’t include it in his translation until the third edition and that only after pressure from the Roman Catholic Church.

But let’s think about this historically. You know where this verse never appears? It never appears in the Greek Fathers who were fighting tooth and nail with the Arians and Sabellians. The Early Church Fathers do use 1 John 5:7 and believe “the three” is a reference to the Trinity, but this KJV translation never appears in their writings. If this was original they would have absolutely loved this passage. Again, there is no plot by modern translators to undermine the Trinity. You can use your modern version and develop a phenomenal case for the Trinity. I’ll agree, it’d be nice to have 1 John 5:7-8, but the evidence just isn’t there that this is original.

Conclusion:

Honestly, my intention here isn’t to argue with entrenched KJV-Onlyists. I’ve found such discussions to be mostly fruitless. (And I’d say they would say something similar in arguing with me). My intention in writing this is for those who sometimes get these questions and it trips them up. In our fear-based, conspiracy-loving, outrage-having culture KJV-Onlyists can put together some pretty decent sounding emotional arguments. Good Christians know that we aren’t supposed to add or take from God’s Word. And they can spin a pretty good tale about this vast conspiracy to do away with the good ol’ ways of Christianity.

But it’s simply not true. Their objections are easily answered. As I noted in the beginning I am fine if you prefer the KJV. I’m not intending to talk you out of the reliability of your Bible. But I’m also working to defend the modern-translation Bible that many good Christians have in their hand. They are good translations. Some are a bit more faithful than others, but any translation will help you understand the gospel and give you enough to follow Christ.

—

Photo source: here