Posts Tagged ‘KJV’
A Study on the Authorized Version (KJV) – Part 1
On Wednesday I began teaching a four-part series at our home church on the King James Bible (KJV). I will share a couple thoughts from each of the four lessons on this blog over the next few weeks as I teach the series. There is a lot of information that has been published both in print as well as on the internet about this subject so I do not wish to write a treatise to exhaust the topic or enter a debate. If you desire more information on the topic of the King James Bible then click here for a good resource.
The Importance of the Bible Issue
When I worked as an engineer I shared an office with a brother in Christ who was in partial retirement. He witnessed to coworkers and business associates, ministered at the county jail as well as a food mission in downtown Dayton, and he was a Gideon concerned with getting the “bible” into the hands of whoever would take it. He was also convinced that the New International Version (NIV) was the right Bible for him.
I know a pastor of a southern Baptist church who is passionate about the gospel and sincerely desires to see God move in his life as well as those he ministers to. He preaches from the English Standard Version. By his conversation and life it appears he loves the Lord more than some folks I know who hold fast to the King James Bible.
Given that there are many people like the two individuals above who love the Lord and desire to serve Him one might ask why is there a controversy over which Bible people read and use? Why is this an important issue?
1. The Bible issue is important because it is important to God.
In Psalm 138:2, David connects worship with the truth of God’s word when he writes, “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” The Lord Jesus Christ also connected worship with truth in John 4:24 and then later defines what truth is by saying, “thy word is truth” in John 17:17. So which version of the Bible is the word of God in truth, and should be the basis for our worship, since there are significant doctrinal differences between the KJV and Bible versions published in the last 120 years?
We also see in Psalm 138:2 God has highly exalted His word. The name of God is “exalted above all blessing and praise” (Neh. 9:5) and yet the second half of verse 2 in Psalm 138 tells us that God magnifies that which He has committed to writing, His word, above His own name. [The Bible uses a capital “W” for the incarnate Word (Lord Jesus Christ) not the spoken or written word of God, as found here with a lowercase "w"]. God Himself is compelled by His nature, that which His very name declares, to fulfill what He has sworn to do – He is obligated to fulfill that which is found written in His word. That is why Peter wrote that the scriptures are “more sure” than God speaking from heaven because verbal statements are not binding, they cannot be proven like written words (see 2 Peter 1:16-21 in the KJV).
The Bible issue isn’t a matter of which version you prefer – it’s a matter of finding which Bible God prefers, or magnifies, and the one He considers to be His pure words that He promised to preserve.
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” – Psalm 12:6,7
2. The Bible issue is important because scripture is a revelation of God.
God reveals Himself in other ways, like nature, but in the scriptures alone God’s revelation of Himself is found unobscured. The Lord Jesus said in John 5:39, “Search the scriptures… they are they which testify of me.” That the Sovereign God of creation has revealed Himself in the Bible is acknowledged by many earnest Christians but the question remains – which Bible? My coworker said the various versions used different words to describe the same truth but I would counter that things different are not the same. For instance, there is a difference between the words “son of the morning” (KJV) and “morning star” or “Day Star” (NIV, NASB, ESV) in Isaiah 14:12. The context of this passage is Satan’s fall from heaven. The KJV rightly describes Lucifer to be the “son of the morning.” The other versions make Jesus Christ, who is called the “morning star” in Revelation 22:16 and “day star” in 2 Peter 1:19, fall from heaven in Isaiah 14.
3. The Bible issue is important because we are to live by every word of God.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Luke 4:4, “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” We are to live by every word of God – not thoughts, not ideas, not concepts – every word. Every single word, tense, and phrase is structured to convey precise meaning. Lawyers draw up contracts with precise words; legislatures draft laws on the same principles; diplomats convey their nation’s positions with concisely worded documents that effectively communicate across language and culture differences. The use of a particular word, which conveys particular nuance of meaning, can speak volumes; therefore words are parsed closely for subtly of meaning. Would God be less precise and less careful with the words of life than man is with legal documents, laws, and treaties?
The New International Version has over 60,000 less words than the King James Bible – that is for every 11 words in the KJV there is one word missing in the NIV. How can a person that reads an NIV live by every word of God when so many of those precious words are missing in that version?
4. The Bible issue is important because the Bible is to be our final authority.
Peter wrote in the fourth chapter of his first epistle, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” The “oracles of God,” Paul tells us in Romans, are the scriptures. When a Christian speaks, in order to minister to someone, he should speak what the scriptures say about a matter. How is a man to “speak as the oracles of God” when he has over 120 conflicting versions of what the scriptures say?
Modern versions are founded on a naturalistic New Testament textual criticism which ignores or denies the special, providential preservation of the holy scriptures. Hence if you use these modern versions, you never can be sure that you have the true New Testament text. Even worse, you cannot be sure that the original New Testament scriptures were infallibly inspired. For if God has not preserved these scriptures down through the ages by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? How can you be sure that you have the true New Testament text?
Since those that use modern versions do not have a final authority and every word that God wants them to have, their preachers usually provide devotional sermonettes. They reveal the “authority” of their opinion when they say things like, “a better translation would be…”, “it’s unfortunate the King James translates it as…”, “the ‘original’ Greek says…” How can a minister preach with conviction “thus saith the Lord,” when the very ‘bible’ he uses keeps reminding him that he cannot be sure God said it. After all, who really wants a preacher to preach with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mk. 1:22)?
When it becomes apparent to the Christian that his modern ‘bible’ is often the product of opinion, he must naturally conclude that he is entitled to his own opinion. Who says he cannot have “his religion” his way. Should we be surprised then to see such rife disregard for Biblical standards in churches today, i.e. worldly music, social drinking, depraved morals, etc. In the absence of a sure Bible who can insist upon a sure Biblical standard?
Now me, I have the scriptures in English; they are called “the Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues… the Authorized King James Version.” I have the authority of the One who taught “having authority” and who was given His authority by God the Father; He is the “author and finisher of our faith” and He has placed His stamp of authority on the King James Bible in a way that He has not placed it on any other book in history. I have the scriptures, do you? I have what God said as He wanted to say it in English, do you?
5. The Bible issue is important because Satan aims at corrupting the word of God.
Satan is a counterfeiter that desires to be worshipped as god (Lk. 4:6,7). He has his own apostles (2 Cor. 11:13-15), his own prophets (2 Pet. 2:1), his own Messiah (the Antichrist), and his own bride (Rev. 17). It is naive to believe that he would leave the Bible alone. Satan attempted to corrupt the word of God as it was being written. Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 2:17, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God.” His attacks on the word of God did not die out with the apostles.
To counterfeit something means to imitate or copy closely especially with the intent to deceive. Where are Satan’s counterfeit “bibles” to be found? The Bible issue isn’t really about updating the “archaic” language of the KJV. It’s about purity verses corruption of scripture.
Older But Not Better
As the New Testament scriptures were written and received copies were made to be distributed to other believers. The original autographs from the pens of the apostles are no longer in existence but a stream of copies has passed through each generation carrying with them the inspiration of God (see 2 Timothy 3:15,16 in the KJV – the scriptures Paul said Timothy had read “from a child” were copies, not the original autographs from the pens of Moses and David, and those copies Paul considered to have the “breathe of God,” His inspiration, on them). God allowed the original autographs to pass off the scene because their only value was their words, which He preserved through copies.
As early congregations grew in the four distinctly Christian areas of the Roman Empire their copies of scripture (manuscripts) began to reflect the unique style and peculiar readings of their location, this is known as text-type. Just as children bear the genetic and physical characteristics of their parents, so did these manuscripts continue their own distinctive stylistic markings. These difference enable one to categorize specific manuscripts according to their text-type, i.e. Antiochan (Syrian) and Alexandrian (Egyptian). The other two families of manuscripts from Italy and Palestine (Western and Caesarean) are really offshoots of Alexandrian manuscripts.
95% of all existing Greek manuscripts belong to the Antiochan (or Byzantine) family. They were faithfully preserved by the Bible believers of the Byzantine region, which included Antioch, Syria. These manuscripts agree closely with each other and are the basis of what is known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Most of the New Testament was either written or received in this part of the world and the believers took a literal approach to scripture – the Bible means what it says and says what it means and there is no reason to change it. When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 AD Eastern Greek scholars flooded Europe taking along their Greek manuscripts with them. This God honored line of Greek majority manuscripts, along with various early translations from missionary outreach, were used by the King James translators to publish the Authorized Version (KJV) in English in 1611.
Only 5% of all existing Greek manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian family. They not only disagree significantly with the Antiochan manuscripts but also with each other. They form the basis for all Roman Catholic “bibles” as well as the versions translated in the last 120 years, i.e. NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. The scholars in Alexandria took an allegorical approach to scripture – the Bible is subservient to “scholarship” and can be corrected. The theological school in Alexandria, brought into prominence by Origen Adamantius (185-284 AD), elevated Greek philosophy and was influenced by gnosticism.
Gnosticism was a heretical belief system that had begun to develop in the last half of the first century. It attempted to mix previously failed philosophies with the new religion of Christianity. Gnostics believed that all matter was inherently evil; which naturally left them confused how a good God could manifest himself in human flesh. As early Christians began to explore the Gnostic heresy, the clear revelation of Jesus Christ given to them in scripture became so confused that the apostles themselves were forced to address the whole business in writing (see 1 John 2:18,19; 4:1-3 in the KJV). When the apostles died, the Gnostics (along with other heretical factions) began making their most serious moves to destroy the faith by corrupting scripture. Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus denounced the gnostic beliefs of one Marcion the Heretic by writing that Marcion “mutilates the gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing the Maker of this universe is His Father.” It was this perversion of scripture that was continued by Origen in Alexandria as he deliberately changed the word of God to suit his own confused philosophies. Again, these corrupt Greek manuscripts are the basis for the “bibles” translated in the last 120 years, i.e. NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. One can see the gnostic attacks on the deity of Christ in verses such as 1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:6 and even subtly in Matthew 24:36 where the personal possessive “my father” (KJV) is changed to just “the father” (NIV, NASB, ESV) and in Ephesians 3:14 where “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (KJV) is changed to just “the Father” (NIV, NASB, ESV), to name just a few.
In 1481 a very old Greek manuscript (Vaticanus) was discovered lying dormant on a shelf of the Vatican library – before the 19th century no scholar was allowed to study it. In 1844, another Greek manuscript (Sinaiticus) was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Both of these manuscripts are connected to Origen’s corrupt manuscripts. In the late 1880’s the intellectual community of England was startled by the discovery of these two 4th century Greek manuscripts. They received immediate preeminence as a result of their being several hundred years closer to the original autographs than the oldest manuscripts available to the King James translators. Two scholars named Westcott and Hort prepared a Greek text based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which was put into the hands of liberal theologians who made great allusions to it as “the best Greek text” and “the earliest and best manuscripts.” They were anything but “the best.” Dean Burgon noted about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that they were preserved “solely to their ascertained evil character.” They published the Revised Version in 1881 and so began a flood of “bible” versions to the tune of over 120 since 1901.
Although Alexandrian manuscripts are older than Antiochan, they are not better; there are several reasons why extant Alexandrian manuscripts have survived longer than their Antiochan counterparts…
- The Egyptian climate was more conducive to manuscript preservation than the Syrian
- Persecution of Antiochan Christians was more protracted and intense. The pagan Roman emperor Diocletian persecuted the churches in Asia Minor; any manuscripts that were found in churches were publicly burned. The number of manuscript witnesses are weaker prior to the 5th century but once the persecution was lifted the text rebounded dramatically
- Antiochan manuscripts were an early form of paper; these manuscripts were therefore more fragile than the Alexandrian which were written on antelope skin
- The Antiochan manuscripts were used more than Alexandrian – the adage, “Bibles that are falling apart are usually read by people who aren’t” would apply to the Antiochan line.
The “oldest is best” advocates resort to the analogy of a flowing stream, assuming that the closer one gets to the stream’s source, the purer the water must be. This is normally true, no doubt, but what if a sewer pipe empties in to the stream a few yards below the spring? Then the process is reversed – as the water is exposed to the purifying action of the sun and ground, the farther it runs the purer it becomes. That is what happened to the stream of the New Testament transmission. Very near to the source, by 100 AD at least, the pollution started gushing into the pure stream. These corrupt manuscripts culminated in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone. Whereas, with the Antiochan stream of manuscripts, no one has yet to explain how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries, spread out over a wide geographical area, involving a multitude of copyists, who often know nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, achieved the widespread uniformity of the Antioch line of text. The Received Text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text.
Is “Easter” a Mistake?
It was about this time of year that I began teaching an adult Sunday School class at my home church called the Faith Builders. I taught the class for a little over three years before deputation began. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life. My aim in the class was two-fold… that we would become “skilful in the word” and be of “full age” in the faith, capable of exercising in life that which we had learned through studying the scriptures (Hebrews 5:12-14).
The lessons I prepared were birthed from untold hours of study and organization of the material, which we would cover for around six months per subject. I gleaned from many resources as we covered a broad number of topics such as spiritual warfare, dispensations, three-fold nature of man, among others. Since we are still close to Easter I have included below a small portion from the lessons I prepared on the King James Bible.
Critics of the King James Bible claim that “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation of the word “pascha” and should be translated as “Passover” as it appears in all modern translations. As the outline below will show, the King James translators were correct in translating “pascha” as “Easter” as scripture, history, etymology and logic all attest. There are NO errors in the King James Bible. It is the inspired (2 Tim. 3:16), infallible, preserved word of God.
A. The Greek word “pascha” appears 29 times in the New Testament. Only in Acts 12:4 is the word rendered “Easter,” the other 28 times ”pascha” appears the word is rendered “passover” in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Ex. 12:12) thus setting Israel free from 400 years of bondage
B. The key to unlocking the passage is verse 3, “Then were the days of unleavened bread…”; Peter was arrested DURING the “days of unleavened bread”
o AFTER the Passover (Ex. 12:13,14) – which included eating a lamb as well as unleavened bread (Ex. 12:5-8) – seven days were to be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread (Ex. 12:15-18), these are “the days of unleavened bread”
o The dates for the observance were the 14th through the 21st of April (the “first month” in the Jewish calendar) – 8 DAYS total; the first day is the Passover followed by SEVEN “days of unleavened bread” (Ex. 12:18; Lev. 23:5,6)
o The Passover was sacrificed on the first night (Num. 28:16-18)
o Whenever the Passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th, not the entire week
C. Acts 12:3 says that Peter was arrested during the DAYS (plural) of unleavened bread; the Passover had already come and gone
o Luke 22:1 says, “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” – this doesn’t mean the WHOLE feast of unleavened bread was considered the Passover, JUST THE FIRST DAY; remember, unleavened bread was eaten with the Passover meal
o Mark 14:12 says, “And the FIRST day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover…”
o Luke 22:7 says, “Then came THE DAY of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed” – NOTE it is called “the day” (singular) not the “days” (plural), the “DAYS of unleavened bread” followed the DAY of the Passover (see Num. 33:3; Josh. 5:10,11; Ezra 6:19,22)
o Ezekiel 45:21 says, “In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten” – in other words, unleavened bread shall be eaten on THE DAY of the Passover (April 14th) followed by seven days of eating unleavened bread (“the days of unleavened bread”); the phrase in vs. 21b that “unleavened bread shall be eaten” is referring to both the Passover (on the 14th) as well as the feast of seven days (15th-21st)
D. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the DAY of the Passover in his statement in Acts 12:4 as noted in points “B” and “C” above; Peter was arrested during the DAYS (plural) of unleavened bread after the DAY (singular) of the Passover.
E. Having established that “pascha” should NOT be translated as Passover in Acts 12:4 it should be noted that the word for Easter is exactly the same as the word for Passover in most languages of the world
o Pascha (Latin), Pâques (French), Pasqua (Italian), Pasen (Dutch) mean BOTH Easter and Passover; only the CONTEXT formulates the difference – PLEASE NOTE that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus occurred three days AFTER the Jewish Passover
o The Oxford English dictionary lists many early English literary sources that employed the word Easter to refer to the Resurrection; the earliest being 890 AD
o With the exception of English and German, all other European languages do not have a separate word for Easter and Passover but simply use a single term derived from Pesach (Hebrew for Passover) – in one way this is an advantage to the foreign believer who immediately associates Jesus Christ as the Passover Lamb
o As we shall see the English rendition of Easter and Passover in the King James Bible is superior and needs to be exalted into its rightful place instead of scorned by the critics – the Holy Spirit inserted a textual indicator that something other than the Jewish Passover was being referred to in the text
F. The etymology of our English word Easter was noted by C.F. Cruse (c. 1850 AD) that, “our word Easter is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate Ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen/auferstehung, that is RESURRECTION”
o The German word Ostern (equivalent of Easter) is related to Ost (meaning east or rising of the sun), and as Cruse noted, comes from the older Teutonic forms of erster (first) and stehen (stand), which then became erstehen (an older form meaning “resurrection”), and which in turn became auferstehen (current form meaning “resurrection”)
o Thus Ester in English, which later morphed into Easter, came from Oster, which later morphed into Ostern in German
o The English word Easter means RESURRECTION – specifically, the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST
G. When Wycliffe provided the first English translation of the Bible from the Latin, he did not provide an English equivalent for pascha; the words he used were pask and paske – still a basic type of Hebrew word pesach and the Greek pascha
o Wycliffe’s translation had the same characteristics as most languages do today concerning the translation of pascha as meaning both Easter and Passover
o When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into account the fact that the SEASON of the Passover was known generally to English people as “Easter”
o Tyndale gave us a greater advantage by using the word Easter in his translation and then also inventing the term Passover; ultimately this gave us two separate words for two distinct occasions
H. Tyndale was responsible for both Easter and Passover to be in the English Bible; in his 1525 New Testament, Tyndale used the English word Easter to translate the Greek word pascha, which was formerly transliterated – this was the first time this Greek word had been translated into an English word in a Bible translation
o Tyndale used this word as a synonym for the word expressing the Passover and also a descriptive word revealing the New Testament fulfillment of the Passover in Christ’s death, burial and RESURRECTION
o Of the 29 times the Greek word pascha occurs in the New Testament, Tyndale has Ester (or Easter) 14 times, Esterlambe 11 times, Esterfest once, and Paschall Lambe three times
o In 1525, Tyndale’s New Testament was printed, five years later in 1530 he printed the Pentateuch (Gen-Deut); when Tyndale was working on the New Testament, the word Ester (Easter) was adequate to translate Pascha, but when he started the Old Testament book of Exodus, in 12:11, he discovered the word Easter, which means resurrection was insufficient
o If he used the English word Easter, which describes Christ resurrection, in the translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Pesach, he would be speaking of an event that had not yet happened
o The Easter lamb or resurrection lamb was a logical translation in a New Testament setting, but seemed rather odd in the Old Testament; so Tyndale with his amazing linguistic ability formed the word Passover, and used it in all 23 places of the Old Testament Pentateuch
o The Hebrew word Pesach was understood by the Israelites at the time to mean skip over or to limp; so Tyndale used two words (“pass” and “over”) meaning to skip over or limp over, which shortly became the one word Passover in the 1530 Pentateuch, but Ester (Easter) remained in Tyndale’s revision of the New Testament in 1534
I. It is likely that Tyndale’s use of Easter in his New Testament is indebted to his knowledge of Luther’s German translation, which uses “Oster” in the same way
o Tyndale with his expertise in the German language knew of the Ester-Oster association; Luther obviously considered Oster as both a synonym for the Jewish Passover and a phrase used for the resurrection of Christ
J. The correct etymology of Easter was recognized by the King James translators who added an important factor to the use of the word Easter – they refined the semantic range of Easter to be translated only ONCE as Easter (Acts 12:4)
o As stated earlier, the Greek word pascha appears 29 times in the New Testament; in 28 of those instances it is referring to the Old Testament Passover; but in Acts 12:4 it is referring to the Christian resurrection celebration and not just the Old Passover
o Pascha is translated as Passover in 1 Corinthians 5:7 (“For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”) as it alludes to the Jewish custom of carefully putting away from their houses all leaven upon the approach of the feast of the Passover, thus making Passover more readable than Easter (or Tyndale’s “Easter lamb”) in context
o A paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 5:7 would be “For Christ our ‘fulfillment of the Old Testament Pascha’ is sacrificed for us”
o There is a pre-resurrection pascha, and there is a post-resurrection pascha, the difference is night and day, and it is the very RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ Himself that forces the distinction
o The fact that modern ‘bible scholars’ rigidly insist that pascha must mean Passover regardless of context is iron-clad proof of the deplorable state of learning in our day; their insistence not only demonstrates a severe ignorance of both Greek and English etymology, but even more, a gross and pervasive ignorance of the dynamics of language itself; in short, modern ‘bible scholars’ have become slaves of words, slaves of lexicons, slaves of very language itself
K. The word “Easter” signifies the resurrection of the Lamb of God (see Rev. 5:6,13)
o The word Easter is derived from the word east – the sun rises in the east to bring the light of the new day; Malachi 4:2 testifies of Christ that, “unto you that fear my name shall the SUN of righteousness ARISE with healing in his wings” – a post resurrection event
o The death of Jesus Christ – “Christ our passover” (1 Cor. 5:7) – occurred BEFORE the days of unleavened bread; the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred DURING the days of unleavened bread
o It should be noted that the translators of the King James Bible translated pascha as Passover in all of its other contexts, thus demonstrating that they were fervently aware of the semantic range of this word, unlike our modern critics; they translated the word pascha as Passover in the other contexts because those passages clearly employ the word pascha in a pre-resurrection context
o Due to the unction of the Holy Ghost, the translators of the King James Bible had the grace to perceive the distinction in context in Acts 12:4, and thus realized that this distinction mandated the post-resurrection translation of Easter
o The resurrection is preached consistently throughout the book of Acts; Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:2,33; 17:18,32; 23:6,8; 24:15,21
L. “Easter” was not celebrated at this time so why would Acts 12:4 refer to “pascha” as Easter?
o The Holy Spirit inserted the word Easter in the English to signify the day of the resurrection even though it was not known as “Easter” at the time of Luke’s writing
o There are other examples in the Bible of celebrations being established by God’s people to commemorate a great deliverance or event (see Est. 9:26,27; Jn. 10:22) – it would not be inconsistent for early believers to recognize the day of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
o The early Christians began very soon to commemorate the yearly event later known as Easter; Polycarp (c. 120 AD), who was a disciple of the Apostle John, met with Anicetus to discuss the proper date for this celebration
M. Why would the pagan Herod wait until “after Easter” to bring Peter before the people?
o At the time of the Jewish Passover celebration and the days of unleavened bread, there were multitudes of both Jews and Gentile proselytes present in Jerusalem
o Herod knew if he brought forth Peter to be killed before the assembled masses, they would have to make public the accusations laid against him; Peter might well preach a sermon in his defense (see Paul in Acts 22)
o Peter had already preached sermons with the result that 3,000 were converted at Pentecost and another 5,000 on a later day; thousands more could potentially be converted through the preaching of Peter about Christ and the RESURRECTION especially at the time of EASTER, and Herod might well have a riot on his hands
o Perhaps Herod thought it better to wait till the multitudes had gone home after the days of unleavened bread and then deal with Peter in a quieter fashion
N. The Holy Spirit included the insertion of the words “then were the days of unleavened bread” just before the inclusion of the word Easter to prove that Luke (the author of Acts) was talking about the Christian Pascha (i.e. Easter, the celebration of the resurrection) and NOT the Jewish Pascha (the Passover)
o The days of unleavened bread were AFTER the feast of the Passover and thus the pascha mentioned in Acts 12:4 is definitely NOT the Jewish Passover feast
o The word is the Christian pascha (Easter), the resurrection celebration that occurs THREE DAYS LATER (in the midst of the days of unleavened bread), as Scripture, history, etymology and logic all attest
O. There are those that argue that the word Easter is a reference to the pagan festival celebrating the goddess of fertility and sunrise; this theory is based on phonetics and not on historical verification
o The argument is based on the notion that Easter sounds like the female deity of spring Ishtar (Babylonian) and Eostre (Saxon) and therefore they must be related; the theory goes on to connect Eostre with the Hebrew word Ashtoreth (“the queen of heaven”)
o It seems strange to think that the King James translators (as well as Tyndale, Martin Luther, Coverdale, Matthews, etc.) would insert the name of the pagan god of Spring called Ishtar in place of the word pascha – if it was true that the pagan name was inserted into Acts 12:4, then when Luther and Tyndale named Christ the Easter lamb (in 1 Cor. 5:7) were they calling Christ the ‘fertility goddess’ lamb? Absolutely not
o This theory based on phonetics is complicated by the fact that Easter was originally pronounced and spelled Ester
o It is unfortunate that some dictionaries and encyclopedias have endorsed this false view of the origin of the word Easter without one shred of evidence
P. It is true that pagan traditions often have become Roman Catholic practice, and many of those traditions are now associated with Easter (eggs, rabbits, etc.) but this does not overthrow the connection of the word Easter with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ
o Various pagan practices did attach themselves to the Easter celebration many centuries later, LONG AFTER the Easter celebration had its beginning
o Easter has ALWAYS been celebrated during the season of the resurrection of Jesus Christ; this is testified to by early church ‘fathers’ such as Polycarp and Irenaeus
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” – Romans 10:17
The Great Communicator
I was eight years old when an assassination attempt was made on President Ronald Reagan. I sent him a card and a bag of jellybeans to wish him a speedy recovery. I still have the thank you card he sent in return. As we toured the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Semi Valley, CA last week I learned that he ate jelly beans to help him break his habit of smoking, I was also reminded why he was the greatest president of my lifetime.
The library is not only a repository of presidential records for Reagan’s administration but also an exhibit featuring a full-sized replica of the Oval Office from his two terms, a one-foot-to-one-inch recreation of the White House, the Air Force One pavilion, a number of his quotes and chronology of his significant achievements in foreign relations as president, a piece of the Berlin Wall, as well as his gravesite.
President Reagan had a contagious optimism that helped restore America’s confidence as a nation. His impressive powers of persuasion convinced a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his economic proposals. His direct and honest approach in dealing with America’s adversaries reestablished our nation as a world power to be reckoned with and led to the collapse of communism. His skill at talking evocatively, using anecdotes that a child could understand, and his gift of wit and warm humor caused others to dub him “The Great Communicator.”
The book Reagan In His Own Hand is a collection of essays Ronald Reagan wrote for radio commentaries he delivered between 1976 and 1980. Reagan covered foreign and defense policy, economic policy, energy, individual liberty, and social issues in the essays. I found one particular entry interesting on Reagan’s thoughts about the Bible…
President Reagan wrote, “What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare’s plays, Charles Dickens novels or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?
Writing in the journal ‘The Alternative’ Richard Hanser author of ‘The Law & The Prophets’ and ‘Jesus: What Manner of Man is This?’ has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the old & new testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing. Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote ‘make the bible more readable & understandable’ unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, ‘For more than 3½ centuries its language and its images have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper.’ He then quotes the irreverent H.L. Mencken who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, ‘probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language.’
They were, of course, speaking of the authorized version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached its peak of richness & beauty.
Now we are to have ‘The Good News Bible’ which will be in, ‘the natural English of everyday adult conversation.’ I’m sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their ‘Good News Bible’ but I can’t help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.
Mr. Hanser has quoted both the St. James version & the ‘Good news Bible’ some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said ‘How forcible are right words!’ The new translators have him saying ‘Honest words are convincing.’ That’s only for openers. There is the passage, ‘For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.’ Is it really an improvement to say instead, ‘The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts.’
In the New Testament – Matthew, we read ‘The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way.’ The Good News version translates that, ‘Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready.’ It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.
The hautingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ but instead of continuing ‘I shall not want’ we are supposed to say ‘I have everything I need.’
The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy’ has become, ‘Don’t be afraid! I am here with good news for you.’
The sponsors of the ‘Good News’ version boast that their bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, ‘at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth’? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly ‘tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue’ as pious drudges try to get it right. ‘It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.’”
I don’t think we will see another president like Ronald Reagan – not only a true conservative that intelligently communicated his position but also a president that had a genuine respect for the word of God.
Reagan is my favorite president of the modern era. Who is yours?
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” – Proverbs 29:2