The Refining and Polishing of the King James Version

by Glenn Conjurske

From my earliest acquaintance with the modern King James Only doctrines, it was evident to me that these are the doctrines of men who have done very little thinking. This is a system of doctrine which is absolutely untenable----as much at variance with itself as it is with the facts of history.

The doctrine affirms that God has promised (in Scripture) to preserve his word, and that therefore the word of God, preserved in perfection, does exist. This doctrine is applied not only to the original texts in Greek and Hebrew, but also to the English translation. We are told that the perfectly preserved Greek text is the Textus Receptus, and the perfectly preserved English translation is the King James Version. But these assertions immediately raise some serious questions in the minds of all who are accustomed to think. Some of those questions are:

If the supposed promises of God to preserve his word in perfection secure to us a perfect version in English, why did those same promises fail to secure any such perfect version before the year 1611? Those promises were not given by God in 1610, but thousands of years before that----most of them in the Old Testament. How is it that those promises secured nothing of this before 1611? Why, with these same promises in force, was there no perfect English version in John Wycliffe's day----or a hundred years before Wycliffe's day? If for some reason those promises did not apply in the days before 1611, what reason do we have to think that they apply today? If the promises of God did not secure a perfect version in English before 1611, who can say that they do secure a perfect version after 1611? If these promises of God to preserve his word are such that he may fail to keep them for the space of hundreds of years, what possible reason can we have to suppose that he has any obligation to keep them today? For observe, anyone who takes the trouble to think may plainly see that these King James Only doctrines absolutely necessitate the conclusion that for hundreds of years God failed to keep those promises. If the promises of God actually mean what these men contend----if to keep those promises God is obliged to give to us a perfect English version----then those promises must have meant the same thing 600 years ago that they mean now, and God must have had the same obligation to keep his promises then as he has now. Yet none of these men will so much as pretend that there was any perfect English version before the year 1611. Their own system forces them to believe (if they will but think) that for hundreds of years God failed to keep his promises, from the dawn of the existence of the English language, until the year 1611. Those promises which are supposed to mean so much to us, and secure so much for us, meant absolutely nothing for Englishmen 500 years ago, for God was not in the business of keeping those promises then. If the children of God looked to him for bread in the year 1350, he gave them nothing----except the Latin Vulgate, for those who could read it. If they looked to him for bread in the year 1450, he gave them a serpent----an English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate, which the King James Only men are pleased to call “the devil's Bible.” If the children of God looked to him for bread in the year 1550, he gave them a stone----an English Bible which, whatever it may have been, was certainly not the perfect word of God, for it differed in countless places from the version which they hold to be perfect. Thus during century after century, the Lord left these alleged promises of preservation on the shelf, and did not keep them.

But now, we are told, we have a perfect Bible in English, and the proof alleged for this is, God has promised to preserve his word! Since 1611, then, God has been keeping his promises, but he did not trouble himself to keep them before that----for none of these men can affirm that there was a perfect version in English before 1611, without making manifest fools of themselves. If there was a perfect Bible in English before 1611, then the King James Version can only be regarded as a corruption of that Bible, for it differs in hundreds of places from all of its predecessors. There is no doubt that if any man today were to put forth a revision of the King James Bible, reinstating the readings of the early English Bibles, which were displaced in the process of revision, the King James Only men would soon denounce the new version as corrupt----as they denounce every version which any way differs from the King James Version. But more, if any man today were to put forth a new Bible version based upon the same Greek text which William Tyndale used, the King James Only men would be the first and foremost to denounce it as corrupt----and that entirely irrespective of the character of the translation. They would denounce it as corrupt because it was translated from a different Greek text----for it is a plain matter of historical fact that the Greek text of Tyndale's version differs in dozens of places from that of the King James Version. Nor are many of those differences trivial in their nature, but extend to the addition or omission of words, phrases, and whole clauses.

But the men who have flooded the church with this King James Only clamor have been men who have done very little thinking. They sent their doctrines into the world without ever thinking so far as to be aware of the existence of the questions and issues which I have just rehearsed. Others, however, have done some thinking for them, and forced them to face questions like these. But with what result? Alas, they have responded exactly as did the Jehovah's Witnesses, when they found themselves forced to face the absurdities of their system. They have not stepped forward in a manly fashion to acknowledge their errors, but have rather entrenched themselves more deeply in those errors----and added folly to foolishness in order to do so. The men who fathered these doctrines did not trouble themselves about the fact that there was no perfect Bible in English before 1611----obviously never thought of it. Now that the fact has been forced upon their attention, they must endeavor to account for it, but in so doing they have only added to the self-contradictions of their system. From a little sheet called “The Enchiridion” (Feb.-March, 1995), put forth by William W. Van Kleeck of the “Institute for Biblical Textual Studies,” come the following statements:

“God the Father has entered into a covenantal relationship with the Son to preserve His Word. (Isaiah 59:21). The preserved Word of God therefore exists. The inscripturated (written) Word is limited to a finite number of words that can be empirically (actually) compared and rationally understood. The (Holy Spirit filled) believer's role is to identify the existing Word of God and unite it by way of collation with the rest of the canon (books of the Bible). When the covenant keeping believers (not textual critics) have identified all the words that God had prepared to receive the autographa (the original language text) and made them a part of the exemplar (the receiver language) the translation is complete and no further translation is required nor possible. To the degree that the translation in process reflects the autographa it is authoritative[,] but the final edition is not relatively authoritative, it is absolutely authoritative.”

That from the front side of the sheet, and from the back side, “The KJV was refined from 1525 to 1611 and polished until 1769. It is the true Word of God.”

For those who are unfamiliar with the events corresponding to the dates which Mr. Van Kleeck mentions, I pause to inform them that in 1525 (or 1526) William Tyndale published his first New Testament, in 1611 the King James Version was first printed, and in 1769 Benjamin Blayney put forth the revision of the King James Version which is now in common use.

But in these statements Van Kleeck has actually given up----doubtless without thinking far enough to realize it----almost everything distinctive in the King James Only position. He has given up the very foundations of the system, while still, of course, holding that system fast. He grants that a Bible version may be the word of God without being perfect. He grants that the English Bibles which preceded the King James Version were the word of God, only in an unrefined state. He grants that they were the word of God, though they were not “absolutely authoritative.” They were “relatively authoritative”----authoritative, that is, only insofar as they truly represented the originals. This is precisely what the rest of us have held from the beginning----and we have been accused of modernism for it by the King James Only men. And if those who follow Mr. Van Kleeck in this opinion would but think a little, they would be obliged to admit that if one version may be the word of God, though not perfect, so may another. If William Tyndale's New Testament may be the word of God, though less than perfect, and less than absolutely authoritative----if the same may be true of Coverdale's Bible, of the Great Bible, of the Geneva Bible, and of the Bishops' Bible----then the same may be true also of the Latin Vulgate and of the Septuagint, and the same may be true of the King James Version.

But more----yea, much more. Mr. Van Kleeck actually grants that the same is true of the King James Version----at least that it was true of the original King James Version of 1611. He grants that the version has been “polished” since 1611----and the polishing of which he speaks has explicit reference to something so major as the omission of the Apocrypha from later printings. But he is certainly aware that a good deal more “polishing” than that has taken place----with spelling or punctuation changed in every verse, italics added throughout, and many words added, omitted, or changed.

And in granting this much, he has actually entirely given up the King James Only position. These men have told us for years that every jot and tittle of the Bible is preserved pure and perfect and without error, and this doctrine has been unhesitatingly, steadfastly, and belligerently applied to the King James Version of 1611. Now we are told that the 1611 version was not perfect at all, but contained many thousands of jots and tittles, besides whole letters and whole words, which must needs be changed. The version needed to be polished for 158 years, the final result of which is the perfect and completely authoritative word of God. But men who think will naturally ask, if the 1611 version needed such a long course of alteration in order to make it perfect and authoritative, how do we know that the process is finished yet? If the English publishers were free to revise the book as they pleased in 1616, and again in 1629, and again in 1638, if Thomas Paris was free to revise it again in 1762, and if Benjamin Blayney was free to correct it again in 1769, then who is to say that C. H. Spurgeon was not equally free to correct it in 1869, or F. H. A. Scrivener in 1873, or Glenn Conjurske in 1995? For more than twenty years these King James Only men have been condemning as unbelievers and modernists all who dare to correct a single word in the “KJV----1611,” and now they tell us that that process of correction went on for 158 years, from 1611 to 1769 (or 244 years, from 1525 to 1769), and that all of that correcting was the work of God, in order to secure the “final edition,” which is not subject to correction.

Thus does the mistaken zeal of these men vitiate the doctrine of inspiration. For, make no mistake about it, what they are actually claiming for the King James Version is inspiration. They claim that it is the word of God in every jot and tittle, perfect and without error, and this, whatever they may call it, is precisely the doctrine of inspiration. This is precisely what the whole church of God has always claimed for the original texts of Scripture, as they came from the original writers. But anyone who had dared to teach such a process of inspiration, as these men are forced to claim for their inspired English version, would have been disclaimed as a heretic and a modernist. Let any man today claim that the Greek original of the epistles of Paul reached its state of perfection in the same manner that the King James Version is supposed to have done, and he will immediately (and rightly) be denounced as a modernist. Let a man claim that the epistles of Paul were written first by himself, and thus became “the epistles of Paul in process”----were afterwards revised three times by Paul himself

----revised again by Barnabas while Paul lived----revised by Timothy after Paul died----Timothy's revision revised by Barnabas, then again by Apollos, and once more by Barnabas----then Paul's final version revised by the king's scribe, adopting many readings from the last edition of Barnabas----the scribe's version then made the basis for a new edition, thoroughly revised----that edition thoroughly revised again three years later, by a company of exiles----then the last edition of Barnabas thoroughly revised by a company of bishops, and revised again two years later----the same thoroughly revised again after the passing of nearly forty years, this time by a company of scholars appointed by the king, adopting readings from all the previous editions, including one put forth by the heretics----and this latest edition subjected to minor revisions numerous times by various scribes, until at length the whole was revised throughout by a single scholar, and so, after 244 years “in process,” became “the preserved(!!) epistles of Paul, perfect and without error.” The man who made such a claim would be denounced immediately as a heretic or a lunatic, by the very men who make exactly the same claim for the King James Version----for mark, the “process” which I have just described is no imagination, but the actual history of the King James Version.

And who determined that the edition of 1769 is the one which is perfect and authoritative? Ah! Bible believers, no doubt. Spirit filled men, no doubt. The real, final authority, then, does not rest in the King James Version at all----but in themselves. The final authority is not in the Bible, but in the men who give us their ex cathedra pronouncement as to which version and edition is authentic and genuine. Here, then, is but one more way in which this ill-advised and intemperate reaction against an imagined threat of Romanism brings us directly back to the true doctrines of Romanism. The main tenet of this system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation. Surely this is no accident, but the hand of the Lord, to confound ignorance and pride.

But to return, the real authority is now made to rest in certain covenant-keeping believers, who determine which edition is the final one. Doubtless Mr. Van Kleeck must suppose himself to be one of those covenant-keeping believers. No doubt David Otis Fuller's Dean Burgon Society would qualify also, but Dean Burgon himself must be excluded, for he was a textual critic. I suppose I am disqualified as well, for I dabble in textual criticism also. Must we then resign ourselves to the judgement of whoever inscripturated the unspiritual and scarcely English jargon quoted above from “The Enchiridion”? The fact is, we very much doubt that many of Mr. Van Kleeck's fellow King James Only men will endorse this new position. We strongly suspect that a large portion of them will continue to fight for the “KJV----1611,” while they continue, of course, to use the “KJV----1769,” the same as Mr. Van Kleeck does, and the same as they have always done. These men do not much concern themselves about the facts of history, and most of them are doubtless unaware that there is any difference between the “KJV----1611” and the “KJV----1769.”

But how is it that they have settled upon the work of Benjamin Blayney in 1769 as the “final edition,” subject to no further revision? The answer to this question is exceeding simple. They have determined upon this edition because this is the edition which is in everybody's hands. There was obviously no critical inquiry of any sort in back of this dictum----no exercise of any reason or judgement of any kind, but only a fixed determination to pronounce the edition which is in their hands to be perfect and without error. If reason had been consulted----if any “Biblical Textual Studies” had entered into the matter----they must certainly have decided otherwise. For observe, if the work of Benjamin Blayney, which he carried out haphazardly and inconsistently, was so excellent as to exalt his edition to the place of supremacy, how far superior must that edition have been if his excellent design had been carried out with greater care and consistency? But mark, his design has been carried out with care and consistency, and that by a conservative, reverent, able, and very careful and painstaking scholar. His name is F. H. A. Scrivener. His edition was published in 1873, under the title, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, with the Text Revised by a Collation of its Early and Other Principle Editions, The Use of the Italic Type Made Uniform, etc. Now, since one of the major contributions of Benjamin Blayney was to make the italics more uniform than the earlier editions left it, it is without all reason to leave the matter there, when a little more painstaking work (such as Scrivener excelled in) might remove all inconsistencies----and when in fact the work was done a hundred and twenty years ago. But these men are determined only to pronounce the version in their hands to be perfect, regardless of any considerations of truth or fact or reason. If men had been of this same spirit four centuries ago, the King James Version would never have existed. Then the Geneva Bible would have been “the Bible which God uses, and Satan hates” (it was, by the way), and any attempt to revise it would have been belligerently denounced.

But there is yet more. Suppose it to be the very truth that “The KJV was refined from 1525 to 1611 and polished until 1769,” and that the final result of this process “is the true Word of God.” The fact is, 1769 was too late, and a good deal too late. So was 1611. So was 1525. Remember, the foundation of this system is the supposed promises of God to preserve his word. It was far too late to think of preservation in 1525, or 1611. If these men had done a little less asserting and denouncing, and expended a little of their time and energies in thinking, they must soon have realized that the very meaning of preservation completely overturns their entire system. It destroys it root and branch. If they were to tell us that God had promised to restore the purity of his word in 1611, or 1769, we might at least give them the credit for common sense and consistency, but restoration and preservation are two different things. If God has actually promised to preserve his word in perfect purity, 1611 is much too late to begin keeping that promise. The very meaning of “preservation” necessitates that he should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years. If the New Testament which Tyndale produced in 1525 needed 244 years of refining and polishing ere it could be regarded as “absolutely authoritative,” this operation was not preservation at all, but restoration. In making these affirmations about the refining and polishing of this “translation in process,” Mr. Van Kleeck has in fact totally given up, so far as the English translation is concerned, any possible doctrine of preservation. Not that it much matters, for all of these men have in fact repudiated their own doctrine of preservation from the first day that these King James Only doctrines existed. What they have really been contending for all along is the restoration of the word of God, though they have been so little engaged in thinking as to suppose that they were contending for its preservation. It really makes no difference whether they affirm that the point of perfection was reached in 1611, or 1769. Either position is an admission that the English Bible was not perfect before that date, and therefore not preserved in perfection by God.

But all of this serves to demonstrate the unsoundness of the foundation of the entire King James Only system. These men, if they are honest, must confess that there was no perfect version in English before 1611 (or before 1769). They must therefore confess that the promises of God which form the foundation of their system do not necessarily secure to any people a perfect translation in their language. They must confess therefore that those promises do not mean what they have till now contended that they do mean. And thus their whole system, from the foundation up, falls to the ground.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eternal Sonship of Christ

by Glenn Conjurske

By “the eternal Sonship of Christ” I mean that Christ has been the Son of God from all eternity, that he is the Son of God in his deity, and not merely in his humanity. That this is the truth of God and the doctrine of the Bible, I have no doubt. But there have not been wanting certain prominent evangelicals to deny the doctrine, such as Adam Clarke in history, and John MacArthur today. I intend to make a few remarks on the nature of those denials, and then to present some solid proof (from Scripture, of course) that Christ is indeed the eternal Son of God.

That Christ is the eternal Son of God I regard as a cardinal doctrine of the Bible, but I must affirm two things concerning it.

1.It is not so clearly or indisputably revealed in the Bible as some other cardinal doctrines, and we might therefore the more readily bear with those who fail to perceive it.

2.Though I regard them as mistaken who deny it, I cannot on that account alone regard them as heretical. It is plain enough that the motive behind the denial of Christ's eternal Sonship is not ordinarily to detract from his glory, but rather to uphold it. Sonship, it is supposed, implies a beginning, and further implies some kind of inferiority, and it is therefore in order to exalt Christ to a place of equality with the Father that his eternal Sonship is denied. He is held to be the Son of God only in his humanity, and so subordinate to the Father only in his humanity, while he is every way equal with the Father in his deity.

So Adam Clarke writes on Luke 1:35, “Here I trust I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous; this doctrine I reject for the following reasons:

“1st.I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.

“2dly.If Christ be the Son of God as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal: for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too.----Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

“3dly.If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.

“4thly.Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e.there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.

“5thly.To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is in my opinion absurd; and the phrase eternal Son, is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.”

Thus it appears that the motive behind this denial is generally good. Not that this is sufficient to justify the denial. Uzzah's motive was good in putting forth his hand to steady the ark of God, but his deed was not good. The denials of the eternal Sonship of Christ are of exactly the same character as Uzzah's attempt to steady the ark, but the ark of God was in no need of such a help, and God would not accept it. The denial of Christ's eternal Sonship is of exactly the same character as the denials of the Bible doctrine of the free will of man, with a view to exalting God, or the denials of the Bible doctrine of repentance, for the purpose of exalting the grace of God. This is will worship, and God will not own it.

Uzzah, however, felt a need to steady the ark, and there was a reason for his feeling of that need. The reason consisted of a previous departure from the word of God. If the ark of God had never been put upon a new cart, contrary to the explicit ordinance of Scripture, Uzzah had never felt a need to steady that ark. Now it appears to me that the need which men feel to uphold the person of Christ by denying his eternal Sonship has just such a reason behind it. It is the result of a previous departure from the Scriptures, in embracing a false doctrine of the Trinity. That false doctrine refuses to recognize any order of persons in the Trinity, making God to exist eternally in three persons co-equal in everything. Clarke rightly judges that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ cannot co-exist with such a doctrine of the Trinity.

I cannot here enter into all that is involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, but I do affirm that a false doctrine of it is widely held by evangelicals. This false doctrine is widely manifested in an unscriptural manner of speaking of the persons of the Godhead. We often hear of “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” “God the Father” is altogether proper, and whenever Scripture speaks of God absolutely, the reference is to the Father----a fact, by the way, which these false views of the Trinity move many to deny. But Scripture never speaks of “God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit,” but always of “the Son of God” and “the Spirit of God.” Now the use of unscriptural terminology is never a harmless thing. It is almost always the offspring of false doctrine, or false emphasis, and if not the offspring, it is very likely to become the parent of such. The Scriptural phraseology implies an order in the Godhead, a subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. That subordination belongs to the nature of the Godhead, and is therefore as eternal as God himself. God the Father created the worlds through the Son, for the Father was supreme in the Godhead, and the Son subordinate, before the incarnation. The same is seen in the fact that the Father sends the Son, but is himself never sent. The Father and the Son both send the Spirit, but are never sent by him. Yet according to the views of the Trinity which many hold today, it would be just as congruous and proper for the Son to send the Father, as for the Father to send the Son, since they are co-equal in all things. But it seems to me that the spiritual instincts of the godly keep them from the natural effects of their mistaken doctrine. They all hold to the traditional (and Scriptural) manner of speaking of the Trinity as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” and though they have never given it a moment's thought, they would no doubt instinctively feel that it were improper to reverse or alter the order in which the persons of the Godhead are named. And this instinct is true, for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is the truth of God.

But Clarke's denial is also based in part upon an apparent mistake concerning the nature of sonship. “I and my Father are one,” Jesus said (John 10:30), and therefore the Jews took up stones to stone him. They did not apprehend that in calling God his Father, he was affirming his inferiority, in either time or nature, but just the reverse. “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” All this, “because I said, I am the Son of God” (verse 36). And again, in John 5:18, “therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself”----not inferior to, but----“equal with God.” All of this would seem to make Clarke's fears groundless.

Isaiah 9:6 says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.” The child is born. The Son is given. But I observe that this text need not have any such technical meaning, (for such language could be applied to the birth of any son), and I would be the first to object to making such a use of it, if it were not fully borne out by the rest of Scripture. But it is borne out by the rest of Scripture. It was the Son of God who came into the world. He did not merely become the Son by his coming, but was the Son----was with the Father, and came from the Father. The Father sent the Son into the world. He did not become the Son by virtue of his coming into the world. It was the Son which was sent into the world.

But all of this requires some proof. Scripture speaks often of Christ's coming into the world, or being sent into the world, but what is meant by this? Do these expressions refer to his being sent of God as John the Baptist and the apostle Paul were sent, or to his coming to earth from heaven? The latter, without question. First observe that this phraseology is applied to others besides Christ, where it clearly refers to their birth.

John 16:21----“joy that a man is born into the world.”

I Tim. 6:7----“for we brought nothing into the world.”

The same expression is used of Christ numerous times.

John 11:27----“I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”

John 16:28----“I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world.”

John 18:37----“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.”

I Tim. 1:15----“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”

But observe, there is one substantial difference between Christ and all other men. Of us it may be said that we came into the world, and that is all, for we had no previous existence. Of Christ it is often said that he was sent into the world, and (as quoted above) that he “came forth from the Father.” Now observe who it was who was thus sent into the world, and who it was who sent him.

John 3:17----“For God sent not his SON into the world to condemn the world.”

John 10:36----“him whom the FATHER hath sanctified and sent into the world.”

I John 4:9----“God sent his only-begotten SON into the world.”

Observe, then, it was the SON who was SENT. He did not become the son at his arrival, or by virtue of his being sent----as they must believe who apply his Sonship only to his humanity. The SON was SENT. And observe further, it was the FATHER who sent him. He “came forth from the Father.” The Father did not become the Father by virtue of sending Christ into the world. He was the Father, who sent him. And mark well, the coming of Christ was not a mere agreement, between two co-equal persons in a triumvirate. Christ was sent, and sent by the Father, and not merely sent as a man, but sent into the world to become a man. “I came forth from the FATHER, and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world, and go to the FATHER.” (John 16:28). The Father was as much the Father when Christ left heaven to enter the world, as when he left the world to enter heaven.

This is a matter of extreme importance, for I beg leave to point out that all who deny the eternal Sonship of Christ must of necessity equally deny the eternal Fatherhood of the Father. If God had no Son from all eternity, then he was no Father. Those who hold that Christ became the Son of God at his incarnation must equally hold that God the Father became the Father at the incarnation. Prior to that there was neither Father nor Son----neither Father to send the Son into the world, nor Son to be sent.

The truth of the matter is, God is the eternal Father, and Christ the eternal Son. This is borne out by a very precious Old Testament type. Though there are very few types of God the Father in the Scriptures, one there is which is obvious and indisputable----namely, Abraham. Abraham's name was first Abram, and then Abraham, and in these names we see the eternal Fatherhood of God. Abram means “high father,” and Abraham “father of a multitude.” God became the father of a multitude, by virtue of his creation of angels and men, but he always was the high Father, in his own nature and essence. He always was the Father, for he always had a Son.

So John begins in his gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”----and his epistle, “That which was from the beginning, . . . that eternal life which was with the Father.” He was not only with God, but with the Father “from the beginning,” ere he was born of the virgin Mary, and ere the creation of the world. Yet the Father was no Father if he had no Son.

And though I do not much insist upon it, it seems to me that the term “only-begotten,” which is several times applied to Christ, must imply his eternal Sonship----imply, that is, that he is the Son of God in his deity. If this term “only-begotten Son” speaks only of the humanity of Christ, then it seems that “only-begotten” is saying too much. If only his humanity is in view, wherein does he differ from Adam, or from the angels? If it is said he differs from them in that he is God, this immediately becomes an argument that “only-begotten” refers to more than his humanity.

Once more, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” Can this mean only that the Father gave the humanity of Christ----which he had known and cherished for but thirty-three years? I should think that every spiritual mind must recoil from such a thought. Unspiritual intellectuals may embrace such emptiness, and feel no loss----as they may do also when they speak coldly of “the precious blood of Christ” as though it were a mere symbol----but I dare say they have no tears in their eyes, no lump in their throat, and no yearning in their heart, when they speak so. As I sit to pen these words, “God so loved the world that he gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON,” I feel my soul moved to its depths, while the tears flow from my eyes----but I fear the fountain of my tears must dry up if I could not find here the Son of God, who was with the Father before the world was, daily his delight ere man or angel existed. This SON he GAVE.

I am well aware that the terms “Father” and “Son” may be used retroactively. I say, “My father was born in Milwaukee,” and this does not imply that he was my father when he was born. Yet it seems to me that the manner in which this terminology is used in Scripture plainly implies the eternal Sonship of Christ, for it implies the eternal Fatherhood of God. Christ speaks often of “the Father”----not merely of “my Father.” If this Fatherhood was something recently acquired, “the Father” would seem a strange manner in which to speak of it. “The Father” certainly seems to speak of something which he is in his own nature. So also of the many references to “the Son.” “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given to us an understanding, that we might know him that is true.”

(I John 5:20). “Is come”----from heaven, from the Father----for surely to apply this coming to anything subsequent to the incarnation is to empty it. It was the Son of God who came.

Yet again, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person,” etc. (Heb. 1:1-3). There is not the slightest question that all of this refers to the deity of Christ, and yet it is all spoken of him as Son. God made the worlds by his Son. So Proverbs 30:4----“Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son's name?” There can be no retroactive speech here, for this was written long before the incarnation. What can Adam Clarke do with this? Here is his comment on the place: “Some copies of the Septuagint have

: `Or the name of his sons;' meaning, I suppose, the holy angels, called his saints or holy ones, ver. 3.” But we are not concerned what some copies of the Septuagint read here. Clarke himself proceeds to inform us that “the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Vulgate read as the Hebrew”----that is, they have “son” in the singular, not “sons.” Clarke continues, “Many are of the opinion that Agur refers here to the first and second persons of the ever-blessed TRINITY. It may be so; but who would venture to rest the proof of that most glorious doctrine upon such a text, to say nothing to the obscure author? The doctrine is true, sublimely true; but many doctrines have suffered in controversy, by improper texts being urged in their favour.” But what admissions are these! The doctrine----that there is a first and a second person in the Trinity, and that the second person was the Son at the creation of the world----this is sublimely true! Sonship aside, did he not perceive that to admit of a first and a second person in the Trinity is in fact to practically give up his ground? Once admit a first and a second person in the Trinity, and he has little reason left to deny the Sonship of the second person. As for the text, we do not think it obscure at all, and as for the author of it, this was the Holy Ghost. As for Agur, he is not so obscure as the authors of Job or Ruth, of whom we know nothing. We know the name at any rate of Agur.

To return to Hebrews 1, God has spoken by his Son----revealed himself by his Son, who is the express image of his person. There is no possible reference to anything human here, yet this speaks explicitly of his Sonship.

So again, “No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18).* The Son declared what he knew----of his own eternal dwelling place, in the bosom of the Father. For mark, the Son of God did not gain his fitness to reveal the Father by virtue of union with the eternal Word----as we must suppose if he is the Son only as a man. All his fitness to reveal the Father lay in the fact that he was the Son----the express image of the Father----in the bosom of the Father, and there from all eternity.

Hebrews 7:3 gives very strong testimony to the real nature of the Sonship of Christ. Speaking of Melchisedek as a type of Christ, it says, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the SON OF GOD.” Certainly the very point of all that the Holy Ghost here says of Melchisedek is that he typifies something divine. Every word which he speaks is spoken precisely to exclude everything which belongs by nature to humanity. “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” And it is precisely in these things that he is said to be “made like unto the Son of God.” This is explicit, and it is hardly possible to imagine a stronger testimony than this to the fact that the Sonship of Christ belongs to his deity. It is only as such----only as God, that is----that he is without beginning of days or end of life. And this may suffice to answer Adam Clarke's fears that sonship must imply a beginning. If the word were v , “child,” there might be some ground for those fears, for a v implies a birth, but the word “son,” J v , may imply no more than identity of nature. So the Jews understood it when they accused Christ of making himself equal with God, and so the Lord used it when requiring his own to walk in love, “that ye may be sons, J v, of your Father which is in heaven.” v they were already, children of God by birth, but sonship implies a like nature.

But we must yet reckon with Psalm 2:7, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.” “This day” may present a difficulty, but difficulties are not unusual, even when we hold the very truth. And I find that those who oppose the eternal Sonship of Christ, as Adam Clarke, have difficulties with Psalm 2:7 also, and must wrest it to make it square with their position----and after all their wresting, it will not square yet.

Clarke says, “We have St. Paul's authority for applying to the resurrection of our Lord these words, `Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;'----see Acts xiii.33; see also Heb. v.5;----and the man must indeed be a bold interpreter of the Scriptures who would give a different gloss to that of the apostle. It is well known that the words, `Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,' have been produced by many as a proof of the eternal generation of the Son of God. On the subject itself I have already given my opinion in my note on Luke i.35, from which I recede not one hair's breadth. Still however it is necessary to spend a few moments on the clause before us. The word <wyh, haiyom, TO-DAY, is in no part of the sacred writings used to express eternity, or anything in reference to it; nor can it have any such signification. To-day is an absolute designation of the present, and equally excludes time past and time future; and never can, by any figure or allowable latitude of construction, be applied to express eternity.”

Be it so, and grant also that Psalm 2:7 must therefore refer to the humanity of Christ----or suppose that we do not know what Psalm 2:7 refers to----does any or all of this overturn the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, as established above? Supposing that this text refers to his humanity, we are yet persuaded that other texts ascribe Sonship to his deity.

But Clarke must wrest the text to have it his way, for he will not affirm that such things were spoken to the Son on the day of his conception in the womb, but insists upon the application of the text to his resurrection. Yet on that side, he dare not affirm that Christ became the Son of God at his resurrection----for he is repeatedly called the Son of God before his death. Well, what then? Why, “have begotten” does not mean “have begotten” at all. So Clarke writes further:

“The word ytdly yalidti, `I have begotten,' is here taken in the sense of manifesting, exhibiting, or declaring; and to this sense of it St. Paul (Rom. i.3,4) evidently alludes when speaking of `Jesus Christ, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, J J

J , : and declared (exhibited or determined) to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness.' . . . I need not tell the learned reader that the Hebrew verb dly yalad, to beget, is frequently used in reference to inanimate things, to signify their production, or the exhibition of the things produced.”

But this is all error. In the first place, it is absolutely inadmissible to affirm that the verb signifies production OR exhibition. Let it be one or the other, for the two are not the same thing, and the word does not mean both. The word means to beget or bear children, whether of men or animals. It is used hundreds of times in that sense in the Old Testament----even to hatch eggs, and in the Piel, to act as midwife----but never in the sense of exhibiting the young which are brought forth. As for its numerous applications to inanimate objects, I can find seven of them in the Old Testament, and in every one of them the word means to produce or bring forth, which is its own natural meaning. Never once does it mean to exhibit or manifest. Let the reader judge:

Job 15:35----“They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity.”

Job 38:28,29----“Who hath begotten the drops of dew, . . . and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?”

Psalm 7:14----“He travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.”

Psalm 90:2----“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth.”

Prov. 27:1----“Thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.”

Is. 26:18----“We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind.”

Is. 55:10----“watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud.”

One time, however, the word actually does mean something very near exhibiting. This is in Numbers 1:18, where it is rendered, “they declared their pedigrees after their families.” But here the word is in the Hithpael, or reflexive, in which it has a meaning entirely diverse from the Kal and other modes. This is the only place in the Bible where the Hithpael appears, and so the only place where it is so rendered. Its meaning here, in the Hithpael, has nothing to say to Psalm 2:7.

I hold, then, that in “this day I have begotten thee,” “begotten” must mean begotten. It cannot mean manifested or declared----for it never means that. If the passage applies to the resurrection, as Clarke insists, then it was upon the resurrection day that Christ became the Son of God. This is manifestly false. But it is said that the apostles applied the text to the resurrection. If they did, it is no matter. An application of a text does not necessarily exhaust its meaning----does not necessarily even touch its primary meaning. We cannot confine the meaning of Old Testament passages to the application which the New Testament makes of them, and I hold it to be a false and pernicious principle to insist that we must. By this means much of the Old Testament may be----and is----emptied of its meaning. If the passage applies to the humanity of Christ, it must apply to his incarnation. If so, it affirms that Christ is the Son of God in his humanity----but this says nothing against the fact that he is so also in his deity. If this is established by plain Scripture, we need not answer every objection which can be brought against it. There are many things which we cannot explain. We see in a glass darkly. We cannot understand eternal existence at all, much less eternal self-existence, but once grant that an eternal God exists at all, and it is no more tax upon reason to believe that he has eternally existed as Father, Son, and Spirit, than to believe in any other mode of existence.

Repentance: Law or Grace?

by Glenn Conjurske

Paul speaks of some “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (I Tim. 1:7). Alas, today the same must be said of many who think themselves teachers of grace. A host have followed in the wake of Sir Robert Anderson, who says, “Are faith and the Spirit's work enough? or is not repentance no less a necessity, if men are to be saved? I meet this question boldly and at once by denouncing it as based, not so much on ignorance as on deep-seated and systematic error. The repentance which thus obtrudes itself and claims notice in every sermon is not the friend of the gospel, but an enemy.”

I meet this assertion just as boldly, and counter that Sir Robert's position is indeed “deep-seated and systematic error,” and nothing else. But I am not accustomed to deal in assertions, but in arguments, and by the help of God I hope to give the reader a few of them in this article.

Anderson offers a couple of arguments also, but they are weak and insufficient. Says he, “Neither as verb nor noun does it [repentance] occur in the Epistle to the Romans----God's great doctrinal treatise on redemption and righteousness----save in the warnings of the 2nd chapter. And the Gospel of John----pre-eminently the gospel-book of the Bible----will be searched in vain for a single mention of it. The beloved disciple wrote his Gospel, that men might believe and live, and his Epistle followed, to confirm believers in the simplicity and certainty of their faith; but yet, from end to end of them, the word `repent' or `repentance' never once occurs.”

This last is utterly unworthy the name of an argument, for the dullest of minds must be able to perceive that the thing may be present where the word is not. Anderson surely believed in the Trinity, though the word never once occurs in all the Bible. The word “repentance” is not in John, but the doctrine of repentance is there plainly enough, as I have shown elsewhere. And even if the doctrine could not be found in John, it would yet prove nothing, for John's are not the only books in the Bible. This argument from the supposed silence of one portion of Scripture must at best be very precarious. But it is worse than precarious. It is in reality the special pleading of a man determined to maintain his own doctrine in spite of the plain statements of Scripture.

Again, he argues also from the silence of the book of Romans----yet he is compelled to admit that repentance does occur in the book of Romans, albeit only “in the warnings of the 2nd chapter.” But where else would he expect to find it? Paul puts repentance where it belongs, at the beginning of the gospel. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1) consisted of the preaching of repentance by John the Baptist. And against all of his prejudices, Anderson is yet forced to admit that the book of Romans does contain the doctrine of repentance. He must admit that “Romans----God's great doctrinal treatise on redemption and righteousness”----does contain the word “repentance,” though it be only in the second chapter. The absence of the term from the rest of the book is no argument at all, for (not to insist upon the fact that the doctrine of repentance is plainly present in the sixth and eighth chapters) Paul was not obliged to repeat in every chapter what he had so plainly and so strongly insisted upon already. It had been much more to Anderson's purpose to explain why repentance is present in one portion of the book, than to call attention to its absence from the rest of the book. The fact is, we can prove anything if we argue from the silence of certain portions of Scripture, while we ignore the positive statements of other scriptures. But Anderson's arguments do prove one thing: they do prove the real weakness of his cause. They do prove how hard pressed he is for arguments. A man who has good arrows in his quiver does not resort to bad ones.

Anderson grants us also, “Salvation there cannot be without repentance, any more than without faith; but the soundest and fullest gospel-preaching need not include any mention of the word.” We can grant that----that sound gospel preaching need not mention the word “repentance.” But if it does not contain the doctrine of repentance it is certainly not sound----and we hardly suppose it is the word which troubles Anderson and his ilk, but the doctrine. These men have reduced repentance to a non-entity, and therefore it is of course superfluous to mention it. So William Pettingill: “...repentance is a necessary part of saving faith. Strictly speaking, the word repentance means `a change of mind.' . . . Since it is not possible for an unbeliever to become a believer without changing his mind, it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it.”

But certainly Christ and his apostles thought otherwise, for they mentioned it continually. But it is really amazing how the teachers of the modern church labor to rid the gospel of repentance. They have an argument (or an assertion) for every facet of the subject, but put all of those arguments together, and you will find them a mass of contradictions. First, repentance is law, not grace. Then, it is an integral part of saving faith. Next, it is a mere change of mind. Next, it is only for the Jews. Then, we must do it, but need not mention it. Next “repent” is a mere synonym of “believe.” The fact is, there is not a grain of truth in any of these assertions, for they all contradict the plain Scriptures of truth, as much as some of them contradict each other.

Once more Robert Anderson: “Faith and repentance are not successive stages on the road to life; they are not independent guides to direct the pilgrim's path; they are not separate acts to be successively accomplished by the sinner as a condition of his salvation.” The only one of these three assertions which is true is the second, and it is mere rhetoric. But if repentance and faith are not separate and successive acts, why did the Lord preach “repent ye, AND believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15)? Why did the apostle Paul preach “repentance toward God, AND faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21)? We shall of course be told that when Christ preached “repent YE,” he did not mean “ye men,” but “YE JEWS.” But this is mere assertion, and the all-sufficient answer to it is, “He did not”----for one assertion without proof is as good as another. It is plain also that this contention cannot be applied to Paul's preaching, for he preached “both to the Jews, and ALSO to the Greeks, repentance toward God, AND faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” But here we are told that this repentance, which Paul preached, is a mere change of mind. I do not stay to answer this, except to affirm that it is false, for here I endeavor only to prove that, whatever repentance may consist of, it belongs to grace, not law.

For it must be understood that the settled antipathy----the determined opposition----of these men to the Bible doctrine of repentance is built upon its supposed inconsistency with salvation by grace. Wherever they see any conditions of any kind annexed to the grace of God, wherever they see any insistence upon any form of human responsibility, wherever they see anything required of men, they immediately affirm that this is law, not grace. But the only thing which they prove by it is that they understand neither law nor grace, and certainly have no proper understanding of the difference between them. It is not the existence of conditions which distinguishes the law, but the nature of those conditions. The law requires perfection, where grace makes provision for our lack of perfection.

Yet grace has conditions. They must all grant that faith is a condition of salvation, though they often labor to make it appear otherwise. Believing, they say, is nothing which we do, but the gift of God, wrought “in us, not by us.” To this I need only say that if believing is nothing which we do, it is strange enough that God so often requires us to do it. Did he give us the Holy Scriptures on purpose to confuse and mislead us? But again, it is said that believing is not doing anything at all, but is rather ceasing to do anything. But this is mere begging of the question, mere playing with words, mere trifling with holy things, for (even if that were a proper account of faith, which it is not) to cease to do anything is as much an act of the will as to begin it. The plain truth is, faith is a condition of salvation.

Grace has conditions, and one of those conditions is repentance. And the real fact is, repentance must belong to grace, and cannot belong to law. The very nature of law absolutely excludes it. There is no place for repentance under law. The principle of law says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Gal. 3:10). The first moment a man fails to continue in those things, and do them, he is cursed, and no place of repentance is so much as offered him. He may repent from the moment of his fall to the end of eternity, and it will avail him not one whit, if he is under law.

Understand, now, I speak of the principle of law, and not of the Mosaic system. The Mosaic system is full of grace. Anyone who will not acknowledge this must deny that ever a man was saved from Moses to Christ, for they certainly know that no man can be justified under the law----that every man who is under the law is under the curse. The first half of the text quoted above affirms, “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” That is, as many as operate upon that principle, as many as belong to that sphere. They are all under the curse, for none have continued in all things written in the law to do them, and there is no mercy in the law, no forgiveness for transgressions, no place of repentance, and no hope for those who once fall. This is the principle of law. It demands perfection, and settles for nothing less. The law says, “This do, and thou shalt live,” but it never dreams of “This fail to do, and thou mayest be forgiven.” The moment forgiveness is contemplated, we have left the ground of law entirely, and are standing on the ground of grace. In days when thinking was deeper than it generally is today, and theology sounder, men used to know this, though few enough seem to have an inkling of the matter today. Thus Richard Baxter: “The Law of pure Works, taught not Repentance as a means to pardon, nor required any but despairing Repentance: for it gave no hope of pardon. To preach Repentance therefore as a means to pardon, is not to preach that Law, but the Covenant of Grace, and Christ, that gives Repentance to Israel, and Remission of sin.”

But suppose that I am all in error----suppose that repentance belongs to the law, and not the gospel----and mark what the consequence must be. If repentance is law, not grace, then the plain fact is, the Lord Jesus, among his last words to his apostles, after his resurrection, commissioned them to go into all the world and preach the LAW to every creature. For he enjoined upon them “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47).

Yet observe, there is no possibility that this is law, for the reader will note that repentance is here joined to remission of sins, of which the law knows nothing. There is no forgiveness of sins possible under law. The very foundation principle of law absolutely excludes it. Forgiveness is precisely what the law never can proffer, upon any terms whatsoever, and the fact that the forgiveness of sins is here made consequent upon repentance is the full proof that repentance belongs to grace, not law. And yet with such scriptures as this before their eyes, men will solemnly affirm that repentance is law, not grace. That is indeed a “deep-seated and systematic error,” which can so blind the eyes of good and intelligent men.

But worse than this, if repentance belongs to law, not grace, then Christ not only commissioned his apostles to preach the law to all the world, but he himself was guilty of preaching the most consummate confusion, for he preached, in one breath, “repent ye, AND believe the gospel.” If repentance is of the law, then the message which Christ preached consisted of, “Meet the demands of the law, and believe the gospel.” Let him believe this who can. We shall of course be told that “the gospel” which Christ thus preached is not “the gospel.” It is some other gospel, “the gospel of the kingdom,” or some half-breed, half law, half grace gospel, and not “the gospel of the grace of God.” But this is grasping at straws. In their eagerness to overturn the scriptural doctrine of repentance, these men forget to examine their arguments to see whether they have any semblance of truth about them. The truth is this: nothing which can be called “the gospel” can be anything but grace. I care nothing whether it is “the gospel of the kingdom,” or “the gospel of God,” or “the gospel of the grace of God,”

----whether Paul's gospel, Peter's gospel, the gospel of Christ, or what have you----if it is gospel, it is grace, and therefore not law. When Christ preached “repent ye, and believe the gospel,” he was not preaching the law in the first half of his sentence, and the gospel in the second half. He was preaching grace, pure grace, and only grace. Was the Savior of the world guilty of preaching in the same sentence, in the same breath, both law and grace? Oh, ye poor, blind teachers of “grace,” who are always wiser than the Son of God, always wiser than the apostles of Christ, always wiser than Holy Scripture, can there be any possible excuse for your doctrine?

Would ye could bear with me a little, while I quote a few words from one of the strongest exponents of grace in history. C. H. Mackintosh says, “But let us turn for a moment to Acts. iii. Here the preacher, after charging his hearers with the same awful act of wickedness, enmity, and rebellion against God, even the rejection and murder of His Son, adds these remarkable words, `And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But these things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” The reader will note that here again repentance is made the condition of the forgiveness of sins. That is, it is made the condition of grace. Mackintosh continues: “It is not possible to conceive anything higher or fuller than the grace that shines out here. It is a part of the divine response to the prayer of Christ, `Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' This surely is royal grace. It is victorious grace----grace reigning through righteousness.”

To C.H.M., then, the offer of forgiveness upon the condition of repentance was abounding grace. He saw nothing of law here. One more word from C.H.M., and I have done. “It is vanity and folly, or worse, to talk about its being legal to preach repentance, to say that it tarnishes the lustre of the gospel of the grace of God to call upon men dead in trespasses and sins to repent, and do works meet for repentance. Was Paul legal in his preaching? Did he not preach a clear, full, rich, and divine gospel? Have we got in advance of Paul? Do we preach a clearer gospel than he? How utterly preposterous the notion!”

The plain truth is, repentance belongs to grace, and to the gospel, and those who do not preach repentance, as Christ and his apostles preached it, do not preach the true gospel of the grace of God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walter Hilton? on Worldly and Heavenly Joy

[The following is either by Richard Rolle (died 1349) or one of his followers. It is printed in English Prose Treatises of Richard Rolle de Hampole, edited by George G. Perry; London: Early English Text Society, 1866, 1921, pp. 40-41, and in Richard Rolle of Hampole...and His Followers, edited by C. Horstman, London: vol. I, 1895, pp. 287-289. Horstman says, “In all the prints the treatise is ascribed to W. Hilton, and there can be no doubt as to his authorship. ...many of his works are mixed up with works of R. Rolle, while he himself follows in the track of R. Rolle.” The original is in the left column, with the same in modernized English, line for line, in the right column. A line above m or n in the original is a contraction for a final e. Added words in the translation are in italics. Notes are at the end. ----editor.]

------------------------------------------------------

a That is, captives, but may also mean a wretched or miserable person.

b Speared, archaic, meaning shut up or confined.

c That is, mightily kindles desire for love of the joys of heaven.

d = spiritual.

e = surpassing, superior.

f That is, worship, which is constantly used in old writers for honor. So always in what follows.

g Win usually = gain in old writers.

h = men covetous of worldly things.

i = men covetous of heavenly things.

j That is abides, meaning awaits.

Ï Stray Notes on the English Bible Ï
by the Editor

Cannot Away With

“Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn assembly.” So we read in Isaiah 1:13 in the common English Bible. But what is meant by “cannot away with”? This is one of the very few expressions in the King James Version which is so archaic that, in itself, it is likely to mean little to modern readers. Yet the context seems to require the meaning “I cannot endure,” or “cannot stomach,” though this seems to be the virtual opposite of what we would expect “away with” to mean. Yet such is its actual meaning----though how “I cannot away with” came to mean “I cannot endure” is beyond my ken. Suffice it to say that the expression was once a common English idiom. A few examples of its use follow:

Job 6:7, Coverdale Bible, 1535----“The thinges that sometyme I might not awaye withall, are now my meat for very sorow.” “Sometyme” means “once,” or “formerly”----“the things that once I could not endure.” King James Version: “the things that my soul refused to touch.”

Job 33:20, Coverdale Bible, 1535----“he laieth sore punyshment vpon his bones, so that his life may awaye with no bred & his soule abhorreth to eate eny meate.” King James Version: “his life abhorreth bread.”

Matthew 19:10-11, Tyndale, 1534----“Then sayde his disciples to hym: yf the mater be so betwene man and wyfe/ then is it not good to mary. He sayde vnto them: all men can not awaye with that saying save they to whom it is geven.” The meaning is, “All men cannot endure that saying.”

Luke 5:39, Tyndale, 1534----“Also/ no man yt drinketh olde wine strayght waye can awaye with newe/ for he sayeth ye olde is plesaunter.”

The Oxford English Dictionary cites an instance of the usage of the expression as late as 1869, and it may perhaps be found yet among those who breathe the air of the King James Bible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Whitefield on Study----The dependence upon CHRIST'S immediate teachings, without making use of books and proper means of instruction, you may assure yourself is a terrible temptation. It is the very quintessence of enthusiasm [fanaticism, that is], and will lay you open to a thousand delusions. `Give thyself to reading,' says Paul to Timothy. If thou cannot think of being a Latin, strive to be an English scholar.----The Works of George Whitefield, London: vol. II, 1771, pg. 189.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. C. Ryle on Bible Study----It is neglect of the Bible which makes so many a prey to the first false teacher whom they hear. They would have us believe that `they are not learned, and do not pretend to have decided opinions.' The plain truth is that they are lazy and idle about reading the Bible, and do not like the trouble of thinking for themselves. Nothing supplies false prophets with followers so much as spiritual sloth under a cloak of humility.----Expository Thoughts, on Matthew 7:12-20.

Chats from my Library
By Glenn Conjurske

Rescue Mission Books

At the head of the list of books on rescue mission work must stand the Water Street Mission books----the life of Jerry McAuley, and Sam Hadley's matchless Down in Water Street. Of those I have spoken elsewhere, and will not repeat here what I have said there. There are a number of other books on rescue missions, however, which are worthy of mention.

First in time is The Old Brewery, and the New Mission House at The Five Points, by Ladies of the Mission. This is a book of 304 pages, published in 1854. “The Five Points” was a district of the most wretched squalor in the city of New York, inhabited by the lowest sort of people. The Ladies' Home Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church secured an old brewery in this district, and erected on its site a large mission house, containing school rooms, apartments, and of course an auditorium for meetings. This book recounts the work after only four years of operations. The beginning of the book, describing the Five Points, the erection of the mission house, etc., is a little dull, but the larger portion of it is taken up with detailed accounts of individual redemption, and some of these are moving and edifying. Though the book avows that the purpose of the mission is spiritual, some of these accounts seem to present a mere cleaning up of the old man, without conversion. The mission at the Five Points was no doubt one of the first rescue missions in the country, if not the very first, preceding Jerry McAuley's mission by more than twenty years. It differed from most later rescue missions in the fact that much of its work was done with children.

In point of merit, the Mel Trotter Mission in Grand Rapids must be placed high on the list. Its story is told in These Forty Years, by Melvin E. Trotter. Portions of this are written in slang, which to my mind is a detraction, but the book is edifying. Another by Trotter is Jimmie Moore of Bucktown----slang throughout, but very well written, and one of the most moving and precious accounts of the grace of God which I have ever read. It is better than any fiction, and true. There is a small biography of Trotter, by Fred C. Zarfas, published in 1950, and entitled Mel Trotter. I have also a precious pamphlet of sixteen large pages, with many photographs, entitled Silver Anniversary of the City Rescue Mission, Grand Rapids, Michigan. The City Rescue Mission (as it was called at the beginning) was then a great power for God, with meetings nightly, attended by thousands, with hundreds of the most degraded of characters converted. The mission still exists, but is scarcely a shadow of what it was. I spoke there a few years ago, to a handful of gospel-hardened men, who attended the meeting because it was required of them in order to get a bed for the night. The man in charge at the mission instructed us not to say “Amen” if we prayed at the beginning of the meeting, for the men would all bolt for the door when they heard the word “Amen”----and so they did.

The Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago was also justly famed, but I have seen no good book on it. A book there is, however, entitled The Pacific Garden Mission, by Carl F. H. Henry, published in 1952. This book is worldly and unspiritual in tone, as we might expect from one of the fathers of Neo-evangelicalism----and five years after he published his baneful Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. But in those days Fundamentalism and Neo-evangelicalism were all one movement, and Harry Ironside wrote the introduction to this book.

Another of the better of rescue mission books is Dave Ranney, or Thirty Years on the Bowery, which is the author's autobiography, published in 1910 by the American Tract Society.

The Dragon and the Lamb, by Leon Tucker, briefly recounts the conversion of a burlesque theater into the City Rescue Mission in Buffalo, New York. The books contains accounts of a few of the converts.

There are a number of rescue mission books of a rather mediocre sort, mostly of fairly recent date, and reflecting the general spiritual and intellectual weakness of the modern church. They may be worth something, however, especially to those who cannot find the better works, and I therefore list a few of them.

The Street of Forgotten Men, by John Vande Water, without date----a strange book, most of its case histories being of those who heard the gospel and were not converted.

Skid Row Stopgap, by Mel Larson, 1950.

Soup, Soap, and Salvation, Compiled by Pat B. Withrow, 1952. The author's life story has also been published, as A Miracle of Grace, 1947.

Skid Row Life Line, by Arnold J. Vander Meulen, 1956.

Though the need which called rescue missions into existence is as great as ever, the rescue missions are largely a thing of the past. Some of them still exist, but alas, they too truly reflect the declining spiritual state of the modern church, and are scarcely a shadow of what they once were. Yet every large city in America is full of dens of iniquity, and the streets and hovels of every such city are teeming with the wrecks and derelicts of humanity, male and female, with none to save them. Oh, for laborers! This is no easy work----probably not half so easy as most of the foreign mission work which is carried on by the church today. It requires men who know the true gospel of God, which saves men from their sins----for the gospel which is usually preached at missions today only hardens men in their sins. But more, this work requires men (and women) who are filled from head to foot with the love of God, who have a burden and a vision and a purpose and a passion to heal the broken-hearted and set at liberty the captives. The reading of these books may contribute something to the making of such laborers.

Editorial Policies

OP&AL is a testimony, not a forum. Old articles are printed without alteration (except for correction of misprints) unless stated otherwise, and are inserted if the editor judges them profitable for instruction or historical information, without endorsing everything in them. The editor's own views are to be taken from his own writings.