D.A. Carson and his throw-away line on why we should be glad we don’t have the autographs

After being taught by my dad that the Bible was God’s Word, as he was taught, and indeed, as the Christian tradition believed for centuries, in 1974, after HS graduation I went off to the Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit PA, to begin my preparation for the ministry. In my innocent idealism I actually thought that I was going to be prepared for the pastorate. It didn’t take long for me to realize that was not going to happen, I was confronted for the first time with the notion that the Bible was “riddled with errors.” This meant everything that my dad had taught me and his teachers had taught him about the Bible was wrong, and that what I was learning was going to be the beginning of a new theological foundation. With my fledgling understanding of what I had recently learned I returned home to tell my dad what I had learned. He listened and listened to my “a little information is a dangerous thing” apologetic for the critical text. Having figured that my pathetic argument was sufficient to win the day, my dad said, “Two thing that are different cannot be the same.” That was the entirety of his rebuttal as I sat in our living room stymied about to how to answer. That was almost 50 years ago and today Standardsacredtext continues to respond in the same manner. If God gave inspired words to the original penmen, then there are specific words that are God’s; each of them of infallible, or not capable of error, infinite importance, and because God is the Author, these words are immutable. These words were designed to be translated into other providentially prepared receptor languages. This means for the Scripture, the word cannot be in the text and not in the text, the verse cannot be in the text and not in the text, the pericope cannot be in the text and not in the text and still be called God’s word. Only God can speak for Himself; we can only say about God what God has already said about Himself. Except now, it has become normative in American Christianity to speak for God because the Academy and Church cannot seem to figure out how God can speak for Himself throughout the ages of Church History without loosing his place on the page. Somehow, He can create and sustain the created worlds, sustaining the cosmos, and every everything corporeal and non-corporeal but the providential preservation of Scripture is just too much for God – until the 19th c. when finally, standard rejecting scholars came along side God to give Him a hand. And then, everything was better. But everything was not better, is not better.

So the Academy gaslighted the Church. While watching the news with a building engulfed in flames the reported says the riot was mostly peaceful, the Academy reports to the Church while the Western culture is in serious decline and is morally ablaze, that the Bible is mostly God’s Word, nothing to see here, move along. Those that say this experiment to replace the standard sacred text of the Church has proven itself to be a dismal failure are deemed the extremists. Corrupt information dominance through the publishing companies and Academy have undermined historic Christian orthodoxy, censured opposing views, and say the critical approach is the sole method for determining what is and is not God’s Word. Professors, fearful of professional ostracization and dismissal pusillanimously fall in line with the status quo.

In 1979, D. A. Carson writes the small book, hubristically entitled The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. It’s not all he could say on the subject but if he were to write any more, it would have merely been more of the same. Carson is saying that the pre-critical approach to the Bible version debate was unrealistic, because it was not radically historical, as if the Scriptures were merely historical documents. This is the same, pathetic, unconvincing argument we heard from James White, but you see how comfortable White was regurgitating the same old lines; this apologia has been argued for many years.

In Chapter 1 The Early Circulation of the New Testament, Carson, on page 16 presents a scenario that cannot be answered empirically, that is by modern textual critical methods, and yet he persists in his plea and continues to write for another 118 pages. He writes of copyists, “Without saying anything, he might decide to correct such errors. Unfortunately, because he did not have the autograph at hand by which to correct his own work, he might think he detected an error where there was none! In that case his ‘correction’ was itself an error.” Here Carson has stumbled an insurmountable problem.

First, there may have initially been an error in the exemplar that required correction, making the correction genuine, but how would anyone know not being in possession of the autograph. Carson does not need the autograph to keep writing because the autograph is unimportant. Critics are building the text according to their methodology and that does not include appeal to the autographs, inspiration, or preservation. Second copy errors due to proximity to the autograph could have been accepted as authentic. Textual critically, who could tell which draft represented the Original? Carson writes, “The textual critic sifts this material and tries to establish, wherever there is doubt, what reading reflects the original or is closest to it.” Such misleading drivel populates the paperback books of this genre, and in 1979 this passed for scholarly writing. How does the critic know what is closest when he has no access to the exemplar? This manner of writing has successfully misled the Church for over 40 years. Carson by inference would have the popular reader believe that he can tell by the textual critical method which reading is closest to the original while admitting in the prior paragraph that such could not be known after the first copy. The inference that the method can discover the autograph has been one of the most successful ruses perpetrated on the Church.

On page 17, hyperbole meant to detract from the insurmountable problem of not possessing the autographs, is utilized where Carson writes, “In no instance do we possess the autograph; and I suspect it is as just as well, for undoubtedly we would make an idol out of it.” “In no instance do we possess the autograph” should have been an early give away to the failure of the modern method, and empirically, he is correct. It is impossible for Carson to know if he does or does not have the autograph, but he lumps the reader in with himself. This throw-away line was unnecessary to his argument but solidified his place as a critical scholar and an opponent of the standard sacred text. Here Carson takes a cheap shot at those who hold to a standard sacred text as “Bible worshippers” expressing the danger those who hold to a standard sacred text are to Christianity. Modern textual criticism will protect the Church from idolatry.

How do you think such words written by a scholar were received by the reader. If you were in the critical camp, your new methodology was a means of keeping he Church free from those who would make an idol out of the providentially preserved word. If you held to a standard sacred text, then you realized the Academy was not your friend. Note for all the claims that the KJB guys are bombastic, there is plenty of that criticism to go around. The Academy also had its part in fomenting hard feelings among brothers and churches.

As I wrap this post up, please note that since 1979 virtually nothing has changed in the critical method. Once the Academy did away with a standard sacred text, real substantive change was no longer necessary. Sure there will be continued changes but the damage has been done. The only hope for the Church is a return to a pre-critical understanding of Scripture and return to the historic Scripture of the Church preserved as written documents throughout history, culminating in the TR and for English reading people, the KJB.

Providentia Extraordinaria: Extraordinary Providence

“A further distinction can be made between (1) providentia ordinaria, ordinary or general providence, by means of which God conserves, supports, and governs all things through the instrumentality of secondary causes in accord with the laws of nature; and (2) providentia extraordinaria, extraordinary or special providence, according to which God in his wisdom performs special acts or miracles (miracula, q.v.) that lie beyond the normal possibilities inherent in secondary causality and that can therefore be termed either supra causas, beyond or above causes, or contra causas, against or over against causes.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, providentia.

For the sake of clarity or to add some meat to the your understanding of divine providence consider again the words of Muller above in light of the confessional statement that Scripture is has been kept pure in all ages by God’s “singular care and providence.”

Here of course we take “singular” to apply not only to “care” but also to “providence.” As such we place the providential preservation of the Scriptural text in the category of providentia extraordinaria. Therefore, the preservation of Scripture is supra-causal and even contra-causal.

And why not believe this? Most would willingly admit that we probably don’t have the original words of Socrates but Christians vehemently argue that we do indeed have the original words of the OT and NT and that by the preserving power of the Holy Spirit. We know, insofar as epistemic humility demands, that we have lost some if not all of the original words of many ancient texts. That is the way of the world.

Such a loss of ancient words is the effect of the causal depredations of war, time, and use. In other words, it is the natural thing for an ancient document to lose something of its content or that the transmission stream so corrupted or unrecognizable so we are unable to know for sure what is original and what is not. By God’s ordinary providence books fall out of use, disappear from history, are corrupted, or only fragments remain.

This is not so with the Scriptures. The preservations of the Scriptures breaks the rules so to speak. Not only do we have the words of Scripture, Christians know they have the words of Scripture. No other ancient book can properly lay claim to such potent preservation. And why is this?

It is because God’s providentia extraordinaria works above the normal causal structures of ordinary written verbal preservation [supra-causal]. And not only does it work above those structures but it also works in spite of and contrary to those structures [contra-causal].

The very fact that we have all the original words of God between two covers demonstrates that the Christian Scriptures are a historical artifact that has come to the Church across time and space and in a way contrary to and above the normal cause and effect structures that afflict all the written works of mere men.

As such it is only proper that we argue as the Westminster Divines did; that God’s word has been and is kept pure by the extraordinary care and providence of God. A providence which belongs to no other book in the history of man than to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

The KJV is Too Difficult to Read: A Story

My wife and I homeschool our children and have been doing so for 14 years. From time to time we would join a homeschool co-op to supplement our home education. One year I was asked to co-teach a 9th grade science class.

As usual I would have the textbook and my Bible on the table throughout the time of lecture and discussion. About half way through the semester one of the students noticed that I read from the KJV and reflexively commented, “Oh, the KJV. That Bible is difficult to read.”

With the fraction of a second I had, I wanted to dispel the idea that the KJV was difficult to read while making the whole exchange fun and memorable.

Without breaking eye-contact with the student I reached over to my KJV and put my thumb in a random place among the pages and then opened my Bible to that place. Then, while still maintaining eye-contact with the student, I told the student to tell me when to stop. At which point I began to run my finger down the page until the student said, stop.

I stopped and promptly read the verse out loud to the class and then asked the student if he knew what that verse meant, which of course he did. The whole class erupted in judgmental “oooooo’s”.

The KJV was not too hard to read. So much so that a randomly chosen verse was understood by a 9th grade non-KJV reading student in the 21st century.

Try it sometime. I promise. It’ll be fun.

Scripture and a Robust Christian Worldview

When discussing topics regarding text and translation with those who object to the TR and KJV invariably my interlocutor reminds me that “You can get saved out of other versions” or some variation of this truth. This claim seems to imply that all credible versions [whatever that means] are equal because they each contain the Gospel. Overall this is true, but the bar is set so low. A Gospel tract for example could meet this criteria of, “Does it contain the Gospel?” Does that make a Gospel tract equal to the Scriptural canon?

Then there are those of the opposing persuasion who take this argument a step further and make the claim that no major doctrine is fundamentally changed between any two Greek texts or “reliable” translations. To expand on that, the claim is that none of the ten major doctrines of the Christian faith are adversely affected by a change of a word here or there between Greek manuscripts. These doctrines are: the doctrine of God, doctrine of Christ, doctrine of the Holy Spirit, doctrine of Scripture, doctrine of man, doctrine of sin, doctrine of salvation, doctrine of the Church, doctrine of angels, and the doctrine of last things.

This gets more complicated because it seems that some Christians believe in a God that gave 1 John 5:7 by inspiration and some Christians believe in a God that did not. This is a doctrine of God issue. As a result, some Christians believe 1 John 5:7 is Scripture and some Christians believe 1 John 5:7 is not. This is a doctrine of Scripture issue. It seems then that the claim that no major doctrine is adversely affected given the deliverances of modern textual criticism does not entirely hold water.

That said, the apostle Peter tells us that Scripture contains all things that pertain to life and godliness which extends beyond the confines of the Gospel message proper and a carful articulation of the ten major doctrines of the Christian faith. Scripture is centrally about the Gospel but human life and godliness extend beyond the moment of adoption into the family of God.

So how broad is the category of “life and godliness”? Into how many sectors does Scriptural teaching extend? It seems impossible that a careful and complete list could be constructed. In the West though, some have concluded a provincial list which can be found in the two volume Syntopicon of the Great Books of the Western World. These terms and the ideas they represent lie at the foundation of Western thought and as such at the foundation of all life in the West. The list is as follows:

Angel – Animal – Aristocracy – Art – Astronomy and Cosmology – Beauty – Being – Cause – Chance – Change – Citizen – Constitution – Courage – Custom and Convention – Definition – Democracy – Desire – Dialectic – Duty – Education – Element – Emotion – Eternity – Evolution – Experience – Family – Fate – Form – God – Good and Evil – Government – Habit – Happiness – History – Honor – Hypothesis – Idea – Immortality – Induction – Infinity – Judgment – Justice – Knowledge – Labor – Law – Liberty – Life and Death – Logic – Love – Man – Mathematics – Matter – Mechanics – Medicine – Memory and Imagination – Metaphysics – Mind – Monarchy – Nature – Necessity and Contingency – Oligarchy – One and Many – Opinion – Oppression – Philosophy – Physics – Pleasure and Pain – Poetry – Principle – Progress – Prophecy – Prudence – Punishment – Quality – Quantity – Reasoning – Relation – Religion – Revolution – Rhetoric – Same and Other – Science – Sense – Sign and Symbol – Sin – Slavery – Soul – Space – State – Temperance – Theology – Time – Truth – Tyranny and Despotism – Universal and Particular – Virtue and Vice – War and Peace – Wealth – Will – Wisdom – World

To know these terms and to have some sense of their interconnectedness is the ground and foundation of a truly liberal arts education. As such it is no accident that so many of the words here are found in the Bible, directly addressed by the Bible – the perfect law of liberty. When we begin to ask what the Bible teaches us, we find that it teaches us about the 102 ideas expressed above as well as aggregates of these ideas. Touching the text and translation issue, God’s word teaches us about God’s view of Truth, Sign and Symbol, Language, and Opinion. Thus when you change a Scriptural word here or there or claim that one word is not as important as another you run up against at least five major ideas as presented in Western thought and that’s without referencing Gospel and theological considerations.

So we began with the Gospel, with the one major and central head. We then moved onto the ten major doctrines of the Christian faith and briefly saw that even there the claim that no major doctrine has been adversely affected does not seem to entirely hold water. But when we look into the 100 great ideas of the Western World we find that a robust Christian worldview must be exceedingly broad and interconnected if it is to properly address, at a minimum, the Western mind.

Given the incredible breadth and interconnectedness of these ideas, how much does one of God’s words, an seemingly innocuous word of Scripture matter in the formulation of Christian worldview that addresses these ideas?

In sum, the words of Scripture exist to teach us godliness and all of life and unless any one of us has a perfect grasp on “all of life” perhaps we should refrain from saying that this or that word of Scripture doesn’t affect doctrine. Even if that were true, it seems quite impossible that this or that word of Scripture doesn’t affect some aspect of “all of life.”

The Evangelical Sin of Name-Calling

Grant Castleberry is currently the senior pastor of Capital Community Church in Raleigh, NC and was the executive director for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I’ve shared his tweets here before. Largely because I think they’re great and this one is no different.

But as I read this one there seems to be something missing. His thought is accurate and I think it is true, but something is off.

I recognize that the focus of Standard Sacred Text can render our commentary quite focused at time, though Lord willing we will be broadening our scope in the near future. But doesn’t it seem that the oddity, the misplaced reference is his insistence that the word of God is permanent?

One may be tempted to take Castleberry’s statement in a non-concrete, immaterial, or ideal sort of way but such a route seems impossible seeing that he references the words of Scripture, indeed, the written words of Scripture in space and time. He certainly can’t mean the original language in the Greek. The ECM [representative of the most recent Greek NT conclusions] is currently impermanent as a document and when it is finished some expression of the ECM will replace the current NA28.

Castleberry can’t mean the manuscript tradition because every year we are adding to the number of NT manuscripts while at the same time others are being lost, recollated, or destroyed. Nevermind the deliverances of the CBGM. He can’t mean any of the modern translations seeing that most if not all publishers are unwilling to codify the language of their respective translations. As far as I know Castleberry does not hold to the TR or KJV as his standard sacred text so he is not speaking of permanence in that regard.

Most of Christian academia does not believe the Bible occupies some permanent state. Textual criticism is an ongoing enterprise and presumably will be ongoing until the Lord returns. Most of the Church is not reading the Bible their grandfather read. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the Church is reading from a different Bible than the one they were reading 5 years ago.

No one in broader evangelicalism seems to be claim that all the words their Bible, Greek, English, or otherwise, are the permanent words of God. As such it does not appear that the Church is treating their and their neighbor’s respective Bibles as permanent. So the modern Church does not believe the Bible is permanent because they don’t believe all the words in their Bible are permanent.

But if you agree with Castleberry and claim that all the words in your Bible, say the TR or KJV, are the permanent words of God, then holy napalm of indignation is poured out on you like a great and terrible Day of Evangelical Wrath.

As such, it seems then that the thing we are missing is that we are ready to name the book which contains all the permanent words of God. If you don’t name the book then you are well received. If you do name the book you are the ecclesiastical equivalent of homeless and crazy.

Saying that we have all of God’s words in a book and then saying the name of that book will most assuredly incur the wrath of our Christian overlords. Thus is the state of the Christian Church. What a time to be alive.

Class dismissed.

Mark Ward’s “False Friends” Argument is Simply Elitist

For those familiar with Ward’s “False Friends” argument you know that the central feature is that the Church is reading words it does not understand with the secondary addendum that the Church does not know that she does not understand those words. The latter is an addendum because without the central feature the addendum is nonsensical.

If the Church understood all the words she read in the Bible, then she would know the words she is reading in the Bible. Simply put, not understanding the words precipitates not knowing. As such, while Ward likes to emphasis the “not knowing that she doesn’t understand part” his primary contention is that the Church does not know the words of God, particularly in the KJV, and therefore the Church needs to find a new English version of the Bible.

There is another Bible that most of the English-speaking Church does not understand. That Bible is the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. The central feature of Ward’s argument applies here too and so does the claim that the Church needs a new NT every time another edition of the Nestle/Aland. And Ward’s primary contention remains the same, the Church does not know the words of God, particularly in the Greek, and therefore the Church needs to find a new Greek NT whenever the next edition of the Nestle/Aland is printed.

The Church doesn’t understand, but Mark Ward does. He could advocate for the Church’s learning and thereby the understanding of the words in question, but Ward regularly dismisses that out of hand. He could make his book and YouTube channel about teaching God’s people about “False Friends” and thereby solidifying the KJV in the hearts and minds of God’s people. But, no. Instead, he leverages his arguments against the use of the KJV. Why?

Why doesn’t Ward, as the apostle to the KJV crowd, take all of his research and help KJV folks better know and appreciate the KJV and thereby cling to their copy of God’s word even more. Why is it that Ward has chosen to use his mind to cast doubt particularly about the KJV? He could just as easily find words in other versions which God’s people do not know, but he doesn’t. What would possess a man who recognizes that the Church needs to learn about her Bible to use the Church’s ignorance to cast doubt on her Bible?

William Shakespeare, that paragon of False Friends, once wrote, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” I would like to add that some assume they are great simply because they are educated and because what they say accords with the prevailing evangelical academic mind.

Consider this brilliant and humble commentary offered by Ward when comparing the KJV defender and the brilliant prevailing scholarly mind.

Interestingly enough Ward does exactly as I have described in today’s post. He starts with the Church’s ignorance about words in the KJV, transitions to the Church’s overall ignorance of the original languages, and then makes a plea to trust the scholars, a group in which he includes himself on a couple occasions in the video.

Do Pearl’s arguments constitute the most robust defense of the KJV? Probably not, but this lack of showing his belief in the KJV does not make the knowing of his belief in the KJV somehow unreasonable or immoral.

In the end, Ward knows most of the Church does not know Greek and Hebrew. Furthermore, he knows that KJV adherents do not understand certain words in the KJV. Who then is to guide the unlearned? Brilliant scholars and the prevailing evangelical scholarly opinion is that the Church doesn’t have a standard sacred text, it shouldn’t want a standard sacred text, and if it does, it wants something it currently cannot have without being unreasonable or immoral according to scholarly opinion.

It seems then that once you give up that your translation is best chosen by the scholars then it stands to reason that the Greek and Hebrew which underlies that translation is best chosen by the scholar. And if such is the case, then who and based on what authority is the final call about what is or is not God’s word made? It seems to me that the answer is clearly and plainly, the fallible human scholar. Full stop.

N.B. – It is important to note that we have said here over and over that insofar as modern translations reflect the original words of Scripture those words are the very words of God in the substantia doctrinae. That said, our major contention has not been that Multiple Version Onlyists do not have the Bible. Rather our major contention has been that the most able of them, the most educated among them, cannot provide a robust method of knowing they have the inspired infallible Bible apart from standard probability arguments which apply to all books of antiquity.

The State of the Bible Version Issue in 1979 and its Current Irrelevance Drawn from The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism by D.A. Carson.

This book is written within a radically historic framework while claiming adherence to an orthodox doctrine of Scripture. For 128 pages no reference is made to the role of the Holy Spirit/Covenant keeper/Scripture dynamic (Isa. 59:21, etc.) or to the exegesis of passages historically cited in favor of providential preservation. For the purposes of this post and those that follow the theological schizophrenia that can simultaneously hold to the Scripture as the Word of God while uncertainly and fluidly containing the words of men is not the principal point. Rather, Carson’s argument will be shown to be irrelevant based on developments in the discipline of textual criticism. Since 1979 many textual perspectives have arisen making much of Carson’s argument meaningless.

On page 10 Carson means to present a “popular rebuttal” for those who have been “influenced by the writings of the Trinitarian Bible Society and parallel groups.” His “conservative” credentials is signing on the Articles of Faith of Northwestern Baptist Theological Seminary hopefully helping him not to being “dismissed out of hand as a modernist.” This ploy, is of course, ludicrous. Part of his “bibliology” is the book. All this means is that you can sign the Articles of Faith and still be a modernist/secularist when dealing with Scripture. His self-consciousness of his orthodox standing seems disingenuous and self-serving. In the 1979 who would his contemporary interlocular be? No, Carson is making a case that he hopes would have broad popular influence.  Furthermore, Carson’s reference to the TBS as a disseminator of “misinformation” separated him from the Churchly tradition and secured his place in the Academy as a true critically thinking scholar who would not allow his theological precommitments to cloud his evaluation of the evidence.

Carson limits the pre-critical advocate within a post-critical, historical frame that he undoubtedly felt at ease to answer dealing with manuscript evidence and the literary qualities of the King James Version. Not only was this framing unscholarly, not rebutting the historical/theological defense of a standard sacred text, but by this omission acting as if the manuscript evidence argument is the only argument historically utilized by the theologians of the Church.

In 1979 and since, Carson’s argument has enjoyed information dominance in the Academy which has in turn monolithically impacted the Church for many decades. But because Carson represents a position that bifurcates the Scripture from theological precommitments, Carson can claim to be theologically orthodoxy while treating the Scriptures like a any naturalist would. As if the self-appointed arbitrator of peacemaking Carson’s hubristic plea for realism is really a plea to ignore Leigh, Whitaker, Turretin, and Owen, et al, consider the Scripture a book like any other subject to the ravages of time, and accept a critical system that now accepts the impossibility of discovering the autographs and has settled for the initial text. Carson is not pleading for realism, if he were, he would have said that the notion of discovering the autographs was impossible, that there are huge gaps in manuscript genealogies, that the importance of the Byzantine text type was underestimated, and that the importance of modern textual criticism to the Church has been wildly exaggerated. He would have admitted, even if we discovered the autographs we wouldn’t know we had them.

Furthermore, the antiquated argument presented by Carson, considering the topic was the deficiencies of the standard sacred text of the Church for 500 years, mandates a recognition on Carson’s part and for those who utilized his booklet, that the core of his evidentialist argument was based on faulty data as described in Myths and Mistakes in Textual Criticism edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry. For what was once considered “scholarly” endorsers of Carson’s booklet should now plea for forgiveness for ruined personal relationships, churches that were split, college students that were taught error, and for the overall spiritual decline in the Church due to the misplaced zeal and bad information Carson utilized in his polemic against the King James Version and his notion of transcendentless, historic, realism. Carson and his ilk attacked the princpium cognesendi, causing great personal and ecclesiastical harm and pain, and then trudge forward having no accountability for the relational and ecclesiastical damage done.

This series is not a rejection of the Scripture as a providentially preserved historical document. What we are saying is that Scripture, as the Word of God, is not solely a historical document, and as such, possesses the quality of autopistos or self-authentication, unlike any other solely historic document. (This argument is not being made here. See our blog posts and printed volumes for an expanded explanation.) We are also saying that in a theological or philosophical system when the natural and spiritual are equal parts, in short order the natural will uproot the spiritual leaving only the empirical, and historical.

Election Sermons: The Long History of Politics and Preaching

As some of you may be aware, there is a long history of sermons offered on election day. It seems like it was almost a tradition to preach on the role of government and the responsibility of the Christian citizen to vote in accordance with the dictates of Scripture. There are thousands of such sermons. This website gives you a just a taste. As you will see, some of these sermons date back to the mid-1600’s.

Below I have included one of those sermons. It was preached by William Hubbard and has the following title:

The happiness of a people in the wisdome of their rulers directing and in the obedience of their brethren attending unto what Israel ought to do: recommended in a sermon before the Honourable Governour and Council, and the respected Deputies of Mattachusets colony in New-England.

Preached at Boston, May 3rd, 1676, being the day of election there.

Below I have included an excerpt from this sermons, pages 12-13. The sermon is primarily drawn from 1 Chronicles 12:32,

“And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.”

I chose this section, in keeping with the theme of this blog, for a phrase which appears in the fourth paragraph which I have put in bold and underlined. When you arrive at that section note how Hubbard speaks of the Scriptures. Hubbard maintains that in order for rulers to rightly govern they must govern according to “the received rule of Scripture Language and Phrase.” He speaks of Scripture as the “received rule”, being God’s rule, reed, and standard and from this grounding can call one and all to their civic duty. The language of “received rule” looks a lot like Received Text and Authorized Version doesn’t it? Furthermore, Scripture is not merely a received rule as a whole, but also in its parts. Indeed, it is the received rule of “Scripture Language and Phrase.” Put simply, and not squeezing the passage for more than it can give, Hubbard here regards the whole of Scripture, its parts [i.e., language], and its organization of those parts [i.e., phrases] to be the received rule.

Still, it stands to reason that if God’s rule is in flux [as it is in 21st century America], then so should the rule of men be in flux. Certainly men are apt to fluctuate in their ruling temper and decisions, but if God’s rule is in flux then men ought to follow God’s lead and do the same. So next time you find yourself unsatisfied with the everchanging political winds around you remember that there is no longer a received rule of Scripture Language and Phrase and so there is no longer a received rule of Civic Language and Phrase. In such a religio-political context the Inflation Reduction Act makes perfect sense; does it not?

So in light of the elections this week I offer you this excerpt of William Hubbard’s 1676 election sermon.

______________________

In a curious piece of Architecture, that which first offers it self to the view of the beholder, is the beauty of the structure, the proportion that one piece bears to another, wherein the skill of the Architect most shews it self. But that which is most Admirable in sensitive and rational beings, is that inward principle, seated in some one part, able to guid the whole, and influence all the rest of the parts, with an apt and regular motion, for their mutual good and safety. The wisdome of the Creatour was more seen in the breath of life, breathed into the Nostrils of Adam, whereby he became a living soul, then in the feature and beauty of the goodly frame of his body, formed out of the dust, as the Poet speaks, Os homini sublime dedit— The Architect of that curious piece hath placed the Head in the fore-front, and highest sphear, where are lodged all the senses, as in a Watch-Tower, ready to be improved upon all occasions, for the safety and preservation of the whole. There are placed those that look out at the windows, to foresee evil and danger approaching, accordingly to alarm all the other inferiour powers, to take the signal and stand upon their guard for defence of the whole.

There also is the seat of the Daughters of musick, ready to give audience to all reports and messages that come from abroad: if any thing should occurre or happen nearer home, or further off, imparting either fear or evil, or hope of good; Their work is immediately to dispatch messages through the whole province of nature, to summon all the other Members together, to come in and yield their assistance to prevent the mischief feared, or prepare for the reception of the good promised, or pretended, as the nature of the case may require. Thus are all orders wont to be dispatched and issued from the Cinque ports of the senses in, and about the head, for the benefit and advantage of the whole body. Very fitly therefore in the body politick are the rulers by way of allusion called Heads. And in case of inability to discharge those functions, such societies may not undeservedly be compared to the Palmists Idols, that have eyes but see not, and have ears but hear not.

Suppose the hands be never so strong for action, or the feet never so swift for motion, yet if there be not discretion in the head to discerne, or judgement to determine what is meet to be done for the obviating of evil and danger, or procuring of good, it will be impossible to save such a body from ruine and destruction. If the Mast be never so well strengthened, and the Tackline never so well bound together, yet if there wants a skilful Pilot to Steer and Guide, especially in a rough and tempestuous Sea, the lame will soon take the prey, as it hapned a little before this time, in the Reign of Saul, when the Philistines had so often harressed that Country, and placed their Garisons in the very heart of the Land, and not long after, when in the days of Rehoboam, who had shields enough, some of Gold, with other weapons of War, many thousand stalls of Horses, with Horsemen proportionable to manage them, yet for want of wisdome and understanding in the head of that rich and populous Kingdome, how soon is it become a prey to the first assaylant, as afterwards also in the dayes of Joash; when there was but a small company of the Syrians that came against him, a great Host was delivered into their hand, and all through that ill conduct of the Head of that Kingdome.

But by the way, here we are to mark, according to the sence of the words already given; under the wisdome of conduct, or understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, is necessarily comprehended piety before God, as well as prudence amongst men, according to the received rule of Scripture Language and Phrase, where as Divines use to say, verba sensus denotant affectum cordis: therefore understanding to know Israels duty, requires a great deal of divine skill and spiritual wisdome attained by Faith in Gods promises, diligent reading of the precepts of his Law, fervent and frequent prayer for divine assistance, by which means David became wiser then his Teachers, yea, was accounted wise as the Angel of God to discerne good and bad, and to know all things that were in the earth. It was by a special Law required of God that the King in Israel should have a copy of the divine Law, written out (by his own hand, say some of the Rabbines) and kept by him, that he might read therein all the dayes of his life, Deut. 17 19.20. that from thence he might receive direction how to govern his Kingdome, so that according to the excellent patern before us in the Text, it is requisite that the Heads and leaders of Israel, should be versed in Divine, as well as in humane Law.

Therefore we find, that when Solomon, after he was advanced to be the chief Head and Leader of Israel, when he had his Option granted him of God, could not ask any thing so well pleasing to God, and so needful to himself, as wisdome, or an understanding heart to judge the Israel of God, and to discerne between good and bad. As herein had David his Father before him approved himself, as a meet Shepheard over the flock of God, in feeding of them according to the integrity of his heart, and guiding them by the skilfulness of his hands, Psal. 78. ult. That is he guided them by his counsel, and preserved them by his power, in which two branches is contained the sum of a Rulers office. And though in many cases the rule is very plain and easie, and he that runs, as is said, may read what Israel ought to do; yet things may be oft times so circumstanced in Israel, that it is no easie matter to know what Israel ought to do: many times the right way lieth in a very narrow; the Channel may run between two dangerous precipices on either side, so that a man who hath not great understanding, Incidit in syllam volens vitare charybdin. A Ruler may oft times run into one or more evils, and it may be great ones too, that intended only to avoid some lesser one, yea sometimes he that resolves to keep the middle of the Channel, yet for want of insight and experience, not making allowance for emergent cases & difficulties, not easie to be foreseen, may by the setting of the Current be shipwracked on the opposite Shoar.

__________________________

Blessings.

We Shall Need the Lord Jesus…

These are the final words of Which Bible? edited by David Otis Fuller. They are a stirring and potent reminder of our longing and dependence upon the word of our Lord Jesus. I hope they can be a blessing to you as they were to me.

We shall need the Lord Jesus in the hour of death, we shall need Him in the morning of the resurrection. We should recognize our need of Him now. We partake of Him, not through some ceremony, wherein a mysterious life takes hold of us. When we receive by faith the written Word of God, the good pleasure of the Lord is upon us, and we partake of Him. Through this Word we receive the power of God, the same Word by which He upholds all things, by which He swings the mighty worlds and suns through the deeps of the stellar universe. This Word is able to save us and to keep us forever. This Word shall conduct us to our Father’s throne one high. ‘The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.’

The starry firmament on high,
And all the glories of the sky,
Yet shine not to thy praise, O Lord,
So brightly as they written Word.

The hopes that holy Word supplies,
Its truths divine and precepts wise,
In each a heavenly beam I see,
And every beam conducts to Thee.

Almighty Lord, the sun shall fail,
The moon her borrowed glory veil,
And deepest reverence hush on high
The joyful chorus of the sky.

But fixed for everlasting years,
Unmoved amid the wreck of spheres,
Thy Word shall shine in cloudless day,
When heaven and earth have passed away.