KJV Only?

Some time ago I drove by a church where I read on the sign, “KJV Only.”  This of course, caught my attention!  And I wondered, “Why such a bold declaration?”  It dawned on me that only the church crowd would know what this abbreviation meant, much less care.   

In recent years, battle lines have been drawn both for and against he authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1607.  It is STILL the most popular translation of the Bible.  Its eloquence is STILL unmatched and the King's English is STILL intriguing.  But along with its beauty comes weaknesses in its construction.  The English language has evolved dramatically since 1607, so to say that the KJV is the only right translation does not take into account language antiquity issues.

When Queen Elizabeth of England died in 1603, King James VI of Scotland took the throne as King James !.  At that time three popular versions of the Bible existed:  The Geneva Bible, The Great Bible, and The Bishop's Bible.  In January, 1604, the Puritans asked King James I for a new translation.  Work on the new Bible began in 1607 with 47 translators who met twice each day.  The King James writers immediately recognized translation problems.  In the KJV, the italicized words are actually "extra" words inserted to make the meaning clearer.  These words are not actually found in the Hebrew or Greek language. These words were included to make certain passages read more smoothly in English.

Yes, by all means, keep your KJV.  It is a noble work.  However, keep in mind that languages evolve.  In other words, many words take on new definitions, or fade completely into oblivion.  If you wish, compare today's New King James Version with the 1607 KJV.  You will find many differences, mostly because the King's English is obsolete.  People don't "believeth" anymore; they simply "believe!"

Now, as to the KJV being the only acceptable version of the Bible, let me quote Jesus when Peter spoke out of turn on one occasion:  "I have somewhat to say unto thee!"  

God has used righteous scholars down through history to translate the Scriptures.   And each one comes with its inherent strengths and weaknesses.  Why?

1.           Because translators do not draw from the original manuscripts, and

2.           Because anything man touches becomes automatically imperfect!

Please remember, however, today's more notable translations for the most part, are dependable.  Any given translation of the Bible is probably fine to read and/or study, as long as the central components of God's plan of salvation are left intact.  If in doubt about a given translation, ask someone who is schooled in the Word before you buy it.

A wonderful breakthrough in biblical translation came between 1947 and 1956.  Of course, God had His hand in this miracle!  A Bedouin sheepherder threw a rock into a cave and subsequently heard a noise like the breaking of pottery.  He then came upon several old parchments.  

Final discoveries revealed a collection of about 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible in eleven caves in and around the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in the West Bank.  These Dead Sea Scrolls held great religious and historical significance, as they included the oldest known surviving copies of biblical and extra-biblical documents.

From this wonderful finding came many of the translations we enjoy today.  God has preserved His Word!  While we may not have the original manuscripts, these Dead Sea manuscripts generally date between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D.  Contemporary translators of God's Word then, are able to provide works that are indeed closer to the original manuscripts.

Yes, the KJV is wonderful, but to say it's the only translation we should use is built on a faulty premise.   Many good translations line the shelves of Christian bookstores and online book sales.   I personally love and use the New International Version.  Others love the New American Standard.  Some stick with the New King James Version.  And of course, a good number rely on the original KJV.  As previously mentioned, all of them have their strengths and weaknesses, but let me encourage you to be versatile.  "Study to show yourself approved unto God..."  Compare the different translations and enjoy the many insights the Holy Spirit has given Bible scholars.  After all, HE’S THE REAL AUTHOR AND TEACHER!

The Blood of Jesus

I’m so thankful for the blood of Jesus.  We sing with gusto: “It washes white as snow.”  Truly, ours is a “crimson” salvation!

Let me explain this phrase by quoting Matthew 1:18, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about:  His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

Mary had never "known" a man before; she was a virgin in the very technical sense of the word (verse 23).  Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit without the intervention of a human father.  Joseph and Mary did not have sexual intercourse until after Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Now, for a brief biology lesson!  When the male sperm and female ovum (egg) unite in what we refer to as conception, it is the male seed that determines both the sex of the child and the blood type of the fetus.  Therefore, when Mary conceived, it was in fact the very blood of God that began life in Mary's womb, and that later coursed through the veins of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It was blood that was uncontaminated by sin.  The blood of God bypassed the genetic code of Mary and remained untouched by sin.  Jesus was the spotless Lamb of God.  That's why Paul could write in 2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us..."

The blood that Jesus shed for our redemption was the blood of God, precious blood, and atoning blood.  Entire books have been written on this subject.  This doctrine has been challenged, debated and ridiculed by those who try to eliminate our "crimson" salvation, but the Bible makes it clear in so many places that the blood of Jesus was truly an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of mankind.  

 Let's allow Hebrews 9:12-14 to speak for itself:

"He [Jesus] did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place once and for all by His own blood having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who were ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.  How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God."

Only the blood of Jesus--the pure, spotless blood of God qualifies to save us from our sins! Are YOU washed in the blood?

Blindly Follow Leaders?

Psalm 105:15 is quoted in defense of preachers who ask their followers to blindly follow them.  Anyone who asks questions or who disagrees with those in authority, even when their concerns are expressed in love and respect, is branded as being rebellious.  What is this verse REALLY saying?"  

Being a minister and pastor, I too have wondered about this verse.  I think it's time to put it into a proper context, and then to confront any misapplications.  The psalmist writes, "Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm" (NIV).

While I appreciate those around me who pray for, love and support me, I'm always mindful of the fact that I, too, need accountability.  Nobody is right all the time.  Preachers are not infallible; however, the Scriptures require that those who labor in the gospel be treated with respect.

Admittedly, God uses imperfect vessels to deliver His perfect message!  To be sure, the Bible tells us in 1 Timothy 5:17 that "the elders (pastors) who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching."  The writer to the Hebrews tells us to "obey your leaders and submit to their authority.  They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.  Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you" (13:17).

With this being said, I personally find it difficult to receive correction, criticism and/or rebuke from those who do not support my calling and ministry with their prayers, friendship, and respectful attitudes.  It is equally difficult to submit to leaders who seldom come around, or who never invest themselves in my life.  However, these verses need to be put into balance.

I don't believe anyone should be manipulated, maligned, or mistreated in the house of God.  It should be a safe haven.  Pastors should not lord over their people and the "sheep" should honor the position of pastor, each submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord.  The Apostle Peter makes this clear: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who will also share in the glory to be revealed.  Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.  And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away" (1 Peter 5:1-4).  It's both wonderful and sobering to know that true pastors one day are going to receive a crown of glory!

Let's go back to the original question.  I do think that some misguided pastors and church leaders who maintain unreasonable control and who micro-manage their people sometimes quote Psalm 105:15 to support their delinquency.  This is tragic.  Yes, there are "Alexander the coppersmiths" (2 Timothy 4:14) in every church at some point.  I know, because I've pastored some of them!  You may recall that Alexander the coppersmith was the "metalworker [who] did the Apostle Paul much harm."  He was an evil man who followed Paul and continually undermined his ministry.  However, such people are very rare.  Thank God!  Surely you would agree that blatantly evil people should be dealt with decisively and harshly.  Souls are at stake!

I keep diverting...Psalm 105:15 is nestled in a brief account of Israel's wanderings.  God had promised the children of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, the land of Canaan "as the portion they would inherit" (verse 11).  When kings and nations tried to oppress God's people, He intervened.  His people never suffered destruction, even when famine destroyed the land.  God always raised up a leader, a protector, a guardian of His covenant.  In this case, He raised up Joseph (verses 17-19).

The "anointed ones" in verse 15 refer to the people of Israel--God's covenant people.  The "prophets" refer to God's spokesmen who revealed God's Word and ways to each successive generation.  Psalm 105:15 balances God's loving concern for those who lead with those who are led.  By the way, this same passage is found in 1 Chronicles 16:19-22.  In today's economy of grace, we who are indwelled by the Spirit are all "anointed."

As far as I can tell, the psalmist understood the priesthood of all believers--those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit--and reminds them that God is their covenant maker and covenant protector.  None of us--preachers included--should use this verse to justify wrong attitudes and actions in the house of God.  The Christian life is best lived out in mutual love and respect for others.  None of us should try to control, manipulate, judge, or wrongly use our influence, and when challenged use this verse to justify our actions.

You see, we do the Word, God, others and ourselves a gross injustice when we pull Bible verses out of context to support our misguided attitudes.  Pulling rabbits out of a hat may be alright at the circus, but pulling Bible verses out of context can get us into trouble.

Yes, honor the men and women of God who teach and preach.  And pray that they "live a life worthy of the calling [they] have received" (Ephesians 4:1).  Remember, however, that verse 2 balances out the whole thing:  "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love."

The Bible was given not to be used as a club when we need support and justification; rather, it is a double-edged sword that exposes the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12).

Wind-Sucking Preacher

As a hospice chaplain I do a lot of driving.  Down time between visits often allows me to listen to Christian radio.  I’m not a connoisseur of good preaching, but I enjoy a sound biblical message anytime, regardless of the stream from which it is delivered.

However, one day I heard a broadcast that embarrassed me.  The preacher was not only arrogant, but condescending.  I was appalled by both his irritating voice tone and his biblically inaccurate presentation.  The fact that he “sucked wind” when he spoke left me wondering about his claim to be “anointed of the Holy Ghost.”  He evidently equated “loud and intense” with the anointing.  He referred to his hollering and hesitating as “Holy Ghost hiccups.”  How ridiculous!

 

Don’t get me wrong!  I do believe there’s a place for every genre of preaching and a place for different delivery styles, but there’s never room for self-serving and self-righteous preachers, who use their medium to bring disrepute to the Gospel.  I wondered, “Why do Christians support these broadcasts?

I’ve never believed that God places a premium on ignorance.  Such sermon delivery smacks of poor preparation and an overall lack of social grace.  Why would anyone pay to hear such a travesty in the name of Christian communication?  And to whom is such preaching directed?  Certainly not to unbelievers.

I wonder.  Do we forget our target audience?

On this particular occasion, the man’s topic was even more disconcerting.  He preached about the Holy Spirit.  “The Holy Ghost is wonderful,” he said.  “And if you don’t got Him, and if you don’t speak in those tongues of fire, you are not pleasing to the Lord.”  Then, the man spent another five minutes (still with monotone yelling and wind-sucking) blasting churches today that “leave out the precious Holy Ghost.”  He said,  “The Holy Ghost isn’t within ten miles of most churches.”

I wonder.  What makes us think that:

1.   Unbelievers would choose to listen to such ravings?

2.   Effective communication talks down to people?

3.   Such poor command of the English language is acceptable?

4.   J.Q. Public has any idea of what the man is talking about?

5.   Condescending and harsh tones please the Lord?

6.   Such antics deserve sacrificial dollars?

7.   Negative sermon delivery produces positive results?

Again, who is our target audience?

And consider these questions:

1.  Are we trying to impress a select, small group of saints or win those to Christ who are far from God?

2.  Do our communication styles reach unbelievers?

3.  Are we afraid that we’re compromising in the name of relevance?

4.  Do we understand that most people have at least a fair education?

5.  Do we understand that sometimes we make the Gospel appear foolish? 

6.  Do people listen to and approve of such tomfoolery?

I don’t think so!

I appreciate when Gospel teachers/preachers stand prepared before open microphones and use effective communication styles to present earth’s greatest message.  I’d even tolerate a “wind-sucking” preacher who had something legitimate to say!