Author: Matthew Gage

Lifelong resident of Decatur, Texas, where he now pastors Faith Baptist Church. He started BaptistBasics.org in 2007 and has books available on Amazon.com.

The Faith of Bathsheba

Matthew Gage

In the fall of 2024 as I was studying for a class I was teaching, I began a deep dive into the life and legacy of Bathsheba. What I found was a profound picture of redemption that is so the polar opposite of the wily temptress that many have understood her to be. Here are two sermons from my book, Portraits of Faith, that I preached about Bathsheba and how her faith in God was rewarded by a wonderful outpouring of God’s grace. – MBG

Wolfgang Krodel, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

THE FAITH OF BATHSHEBA
PART I

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; – Matthew 1:1-6

Our text is a portion of the genealogy of Christ as recorded by Matthew.  One of the interesting features of this genealogy, especially when compared to the one given in Luke 3, is that it includes four women.  Each of these women has an interesting story to tell. 

First, and I think the most bizarre of any of them, is Tamar.  She had to trick her father-in-law Judah to fulfill the Levirate marriage custom in Genesis 38.

Second is Rahab.  She was the harlot that harbored the Jewish spies in Jericho in Joshua 2 and was spared when that city fell in Joshua 6.

Third is Ruth. She was the Moabite girl that returned home with her mother-in-law Naomi.  We have a whole book in the Bible devoted to her story.

Fourth is Bathsheba. 

Bathsheba’s name is not given here in Matthew’s genealogy, only that she had been the wife of Uriah and had given birth to David’s heir Solomon.  There are theories as to why she is mentioned but not by name.  I think the best one is that it was to not take away from the importance of David.  There are many great men, kings, and princes, in this list, but only David is marked as “the king.”  Another popular theory is that she is not named because of her sin, but she is far from the only sinner in this line.

The story of Bathsheba is a complex one that because of familiarity we often oversimplify.  If I were to ask you what she is famous for, I am certain everyone would say it is because of her affair with David.  It is kind of like how we talk about “Doubting Thomas” because of that one time he refused to believe that Christ had risen.  I am certain Thomas was a great man who did great things for Christ, but sadly all we remember him by is his one lapse of faith.

I want to dig deeper into Bathsheba’s story today.  I think there are some remarkable things about her that are sadly overlooked or forgotten.

But first, let us look at the basic information about who she was.  Her name is Hebrew for “daughter of the oath.”  Her father’s name was Eliam, who, if he is the same Eliam as in II Samuel 23:34, was one of David’s mighty men.  Not only that, but her grandfather, Eliam’s father, was Ahithophel, David’s chief counselor.  I think this relationship explains why Ahithophel sided with Absalom in his rebellion against David.

Bathsheba was married to Uriah the Hittite. He was also one of David’s mighty men, and according to Josephus he is Joab’s armor bearer.  He is a Hittite, which means he was not a Jew by blood but was descended from the people whose empire once covered Asia Minor.  He is certainly a proselyte to the Jewish faith.

I am going to assume you know the infamous story about Bathsheba’s affair with David. He stayed home from the war against the Ammonites and saw her bathing.  He sent for her to come to him, and they committed adultery together.  She found herself expecting David’s child. He failed to cover the sin and ended up murdering Uriah, her husband and his loyal friend and soldier.  David took her as his wife, and it all seemed to have been swept under the rug.  That is, until the day Nathan the prophet walked in and confronted David.  I can imagine the color draining from David’s face when Nathan said, “thou art the man!” 

I want to pause here and address something.  Traditionally, preachers and Bible scholars have focused their attention on David’s sin and repentance.  That is admittedly the primary narrative of Scriptures.  Some go too far in giving David a pass because they claim he was seduced by the wicked seductress Bathsheba.  This is completely wrong and goes against the clear teaching of Scripture.  David himself says in Psalm 51, the great song of repentance and restoration penned after their sin, that he is without excuse:

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:… – Psalm 51:4

More recently. there has been a tendency to make Bathsheba the victim and place all the blame on David.  This is a result of modern feminist movement and especially the “Me Too” movement.  They say David’s position made it impossible for her to refuse his advances. 

But what does the Scripture say in the matter?  According to the Mosaic Law, specifically Deuteronomy 22:22-27, both David and Bathsheba were guilty.  Bathsheba’s guilt is marked because she did not resist or cry out for help.

Both David and Bathsheba were guilty.  Both deserved the death penalty of Leviticus 20:10 for their sins.  That was the law of the land and. more importantly. the law of God.

But I am glad that there is a deeper, more foundational law found throughout Scripture: THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.  I believe David found forgiveness through his faith and repentance.  I also believe, though it may not be as clearly stated, that Bathsheba’s faith made a change in her also as she repented of her sins and trusted in God.

This brings me to my first observation: 

By Her Faith, Bathsheba Received God’s Mercy

Remembering that the narrative focuses on David, I want you to note part of David and Nathan’s conversation.

And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. – II Samuel 12:13

David not only confessed his sin and repented of it, but I also think he was resigned to paying for the consequences of that sin with his own life.  That is why Nathan tells him he will not die, but that his child will.

But what about Bathsheba?  If David was guilty and deserved the death penalty, was she not also guilty?  If he was shown mercy that he did not die, was she not also shown mercy in that she continued to live?  It is obvious that she received the same mercy that David was shown.

Are you glad that God still shows mercy to us today?  You do realize that we are sinners, guilty before God, and thus deserving of an eternity in Hell?  But God shows mercy to those that repent of their sins and turn to Him for forgiveness.  We must cry out like David:

1 Have mercy upon me, O God,
according to thy lovingkindness:
according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions:
and my sin is ever before me.
- Psalm 51:1-3

Have you done that?  Do you have the forgiveness of your sins?  David found it and you can too.  I believe Bathsheba found it, and as we go on, I think that will become clearer.  The mercy and grace that God showed them is still available to us today.  These freely flow to all who come to Him, whether it be to find salvation through the new birth or as His child seeking forgiveness for their shortcoming.  Hallelujah, God is merciful! 

By Her Faith, Bathsheba Grew Beyond Her Shame

People of today have no shame, but that was a big deal in the Bible world.  David and Bathsheba’s sin was a public sin. I think it had been the talk of the palace since it happened.

Can you imagine the looks Bathsheba would get?  Can you hear the whispers as she walked by?  She was married to the king, but I doubt she was treated much like a queen in those early days.

She had that public shame to endure.  She also had her own spiritual burden to bear.  On top of all that, she had the grief of losing her child.

I want you to note this wonderful phrase:

And David comforted Bathsheba his wife,… – II Samuel 12:24

He did not mistreat her, blame her for his sin, or take out his anger on her.  No, he helped her overcome her burdens.

Someone may say, “Well, you don’t know what I did. I cannot get past it.”  Friends, if Bathsheba can get past what she went through, I think God can help you get through your burdens too.  If you are breathing, God can still forgive you and use you. 

There are multitudes of people around us that are convinced that God is finished with them because of their failures.  These need someone to come along and comfort them.  We have a lot of wounded soldiers that need help and encouragement to get back in the fight.  Someone said that the Christian army is the only army in the history of the world that shoots its own wounded.  What a shame that such a statement is proven true over and over again! We need to help the wounded and weary to get back on their feet and back in the fight!

By Her Faith, Bathsheba Received a Fresh Start

In our text in Matthew, Bathsheba is described simply as “her that had been the wife of Uriah”.  That is how we are introduced to her in II Samuel:

Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? – II Samuel 11:3

That is what she is called after her husband is killed:

And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. – II Samuel 11:26

David of course married her in a vain attempt to cover their sin.  But after Nathan confronted David, the holy record says:

And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. – II Samuel 12:15

That child died seven days later.  I think it was sick from birth and did not reach eight days of age when it would have been circumcised and officially given a name.

But I want you to note  how Bathsheba is described next:

And David comforted Bathsheba his wife… – II Samuel 12:24

A change has happened.  She is not called Uriah’s wife, but David’s wife.  She is never identified with Uriah again, except in Matthew’s genealogy.

There ought to be such a change in our lives.  We should not be tied to our past, our sins, and our failures.  A great change happened with Bathsheba’s identity, and I think that was in no small part connected to her faith and repentance.   Has your faith produced such a change in your life?  I once was a wretched sinner before God, but now I am His child and a joint heir with Christ.  Can you claim such a testimony?

By Her Faith, Bathsheba’s Children Were Blessed

…and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him. – II Samuel 12:24

Yes, her son is that Solomon, future king and heir of David.  We know from the genealogies in I Chronicles that she would have three more sons.  Her children are in both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies.

What a change we see!  Her first son died as judgment from God.  Her second son ruled over the golden age of Israel.  How could this be? 

Should not the firstborn son of David rule? That was Amnon, and he disqualified himself by his incestuous lust and was murdered by his half-brother Absalom. 

Should not the most popular son of David rule?  That was Absalom, and he looked the part physically but lacked David’s heart for God.  He died while attempting to seize the throne by his own power and popularity. 

Should not another wife, not marred by scandal, give birth to the next king?  David’s home life was so messy it would be difficult to find such a wife or their offspring. 

Why was Solomon divinely chosen to succeed David as king above all his siblings?  Here is my theory: it is because his parents, David and Bathsheba, had their hearts right when he was born.

How do we know Bathsheba’s heart?  We get a glimpse of it in Proverbs 31.  Most people associate this chapter with Virtuous Woman, but that really does not start until verse 10.  It is easy to skim over the opening verses and miss some important truths.  Let us look at some of them.  First note:

The words of king Lemuel,… – Proverbs 31:1

Let me ask you, who wrote the Book of Proverbs?  The simple answer is that Solomon did.  Some of it we know was compiled into its present form after his death, but essentially the work is his.

So, who is this king Lemuel?  The name means “consecrated to God.”  I believe, like many conservative Bible scholars, that this is a nickname or a pen name for Solomon.

We continue and note:

…the prophecy that his mother taught him. – Proverbs 31:1 

If Lemuel is Solomon, then his mother would be… BATHSHEBA!  So, what we have in verses 2 through 9 are the lessons she gave her son to prepare him to rule.  I can briefly summarize them as be careful with women, do not be fooled by wine, and make sure to be a faithful and fair judge.  These are not just more of Solomon’s proverbs; they are the lessons that his mother Bathsheba faithfully taught the young crown prince from his youth.

Now, I have another question for you:  who is the Virtuous Woman in the rest of the chapter 31?  Is this also Bathsheba’s advice to her son? Could this perhaps be Solomon’s restructuring of his mother’s teaching into a poem?  Could it be that Solomon is looking at his own mother as an example of an ideal woman?  I cannot say for sure, but I am partial to that last idea.  I think there is a very good chance that the Virtuous Woman is Bathsheba.  If they are not the same, it is certain that Bethsheba’s character or teaching influenced Solomon’s vision of the ideal woman.

Closing Remarks

As we close, I want to note how Proverbs 31 closes describing the Virtuous Woman. I see here reflections of Bathsheba that are a challenge for us today.

30  Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain:
but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
31  Give her of the fruit of her hands;
and let her own works praise her in the gates.
– Proverbs 31:30-31

First, note “a woman that feareth the LORD.”  Do you have a proper view of the greatness of God and the smallness of yourself?  Does you life reflect it?

Second, not “she shall be praised.”  Allow God to raise you up and bless you.  He did so with Bathsheba, raising her from being an adulterer to being a queen.  This was certainly God’s hand at work and not her own schemes or machinations

Third, “let her own works praise her in the gates.”  Bathsheba had a testimony and track record.  What is yours like today?  Are you a person of faith?  Most importantly, do you have saving faith?

Unknown 18th-century artist; photographed by Hermetiker, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Faith of Bathsheba
Part II

I was very interested to see the response from the last sermon before I committed to continuing the topic with a second sermon.  I asked at the end of the previous service if anyone had ever heard a positive message about Bathsheba, and only one person raised their hand.  I am not trying to be controversial nor  am I trying to find something new in Scripture.  I have tried to vet all my conclusions through commentaries and authors I trust.  If I have done anything, I hope that I have at least caused some people to think and check things out for themselves.

Most of what I have said and will say is just compiling different facts into one framework.  Kind of like a mosaic, where you take little rocks or tiles and place them together to create a picture.  There is so much to Bathsheba’s story than just her affair with David.  I am afraid our prejudices have kept us from seeing a beautiful story of faith and redemption in the other pieces of her life.

The points we looked at last time I think are foundational for what we will look at today.  In some ways, I think we see the events in the previous sermon as either her salvation or her repentance that brought righteousness into her heart and life.  It could be that she did not have true faith in God until David helped lead her to it.  It could also be, and I think it is the case, that she had faith but fell in sin and had to be brought back through repentance.

Quickly, let us review her life and our observations last week.  Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah, one of David’s mighty men.  He father was Eliam, another of David’s mighty men.  Her grandfather was Ahithophel, David’s chief advisor.  She and David committed adultery together.  Both sinned and both were guilty before God and man.  David tried to cover the sin and ended up murdering Uriah so that he could himself marry Bathsheba.  Their scheme seems to have worked until Nathan the prophet confronted David.  David confessed his sin and repented.  We have evidence of this repentance in Psalm 51 and Psalm 32.  B.H. Carroll said that “if Psalm 51 is the highest expression of penitence, Psalm 32 is the model expression of the joy of forgiveness.”

By her faith, Bathsheba received God’s mercy  We looked at II Samuel 12:24  and how David comforted Bathsheba, convincing her not only of her place being safe with him, but also with God.

By her faith, Bathsheba grew beyond her shame.  She was no longer called the “wife of Uriah”, but now the “wife of David.”

By faith, Bathsheba received a fresh start. “She bare a son” and named him Solomon.  I am convinced that he was marked as David’s successor from birth.

By faith, Bathsheba’s children were blessed.  We saw how in Proverbs 31, that Bathsheba faithfully instructed and trained Solomon.

We saw in these things that through faith Bathsheba repented, overcame her sin, found forgiveness in God, and changed the course of not only her life and but also those of her children.

We will here examine more examples of her faith bearing fruit.  We will pick back up her story after the birth of Solomon:

By Her Faith, She Refused to Carry a Grudge

For this point, I want to examine Bathsheba’s relationship with the prophet Nathan.  Their first interaction that we know of is when he was confronting David and said that Bathsheba’s child would die.

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. – II Samuel 12:13-14

A few days later, Bathsheba’s newborn son was dead.  I do not know about you, but I do not think I would invite someone who told me my first baby would die to the baby shower for my second baby.  I doubt I would want to see someone ever again that had proclaimed such a thing. 

But what do we find about a year or so later?  We see:

24…and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him. 25 And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD. – II Samuel 12:24-25

Here is Nathan again with a message about Bathsheba’s newborn son.  But this message was quite different from the previous.  He blessed this child by giving him the name Jedidiah, meaning “Beloved of Jehovah”.  This is the second interaction between the two, and obviously more positive than the first.

But these are not the only connections between Bathsheba and Nathan.  There is a third interaction almost twenty years later in I Kings 1.  David was sixty-nine years old and in rapidly failing health.  His oldest surviving son, Adonijah, tried to seize the throne by proclaiming himself as David’s successor.  Nathan and Bathsheba had to work together to counter this coup and ensure Solomon inherited the throne as David had planned.

11 Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord knoweth it not? 12 Now therefore come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel, that thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son Solomon. – I Kings 1:11-12

We will come back to that story in just a bit, but for now note that Bathsheba and Nathan see each other as trusted allies.  That is quite a roller coaster ride of a relationship!  Again, I do not think if I had gone through the trauma of losing a child, like Bathsheba did, that I would want anything to do with the man who prophesied of their death.  Yet here they are working and trusting each other in a critical time.

There is one more element to their relationship that I find astounding.  David and Bathsheba would have more children after Solomon.  You find a list of sons  in I Chronicles 3, which you may overlook because Bathsheba’s name is spelled differently in the passage.

And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua [alternate spelling of Bathsheba] the daughter of Ammiel: – I Chronicles 3:5 

Did you catch those names?  Shimea, Shobab, Solomon, and Nathan.  Yes, one of David and Bathsheba’s sons was named after the man who publicly rebuked their sin.  That is not something a human being does in their human reasoning, but rather it is evidence of a Divine change of their character.

Have you ever tried to help someone, perhaps to have a difficult conversation with them that needed to take place, and then have them turn on you?  That is human nature.  Often, we fail to understand that someone can act in love and yet it still hurts.  I think Bathsheba and David both came to understand that Nathan was acting out of love when he confronted them about their sins.  This lesson must have been passed down to Solomon, who wrote:

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. – Proverbs 27:6 

If this were the only evidence I had of Bathsheba’s life after her sin with David, it would be enough to satisfy me that her faith in God had truly made a change in her life.  Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7 that you truly know someone by the fruit they bear.  Do we have such beautiful fruit in our actions as we see here in Bathsheba’s?

By Her Faith, She Fought for What was Right.

As we just observed, there was a succession crisis in the final year of David’s reign.  Adonijah tried to claim the throne, but David had already appointed Solomon as his rightful heir.  The prophet Nathan came to Bathsheba to ask for her aid.

What follows reminds me of the Book of Esther.  In both cases a queen had to approach a king to stop great evil.  In both cases the history of Israel hinged on if the queen’s appeal worked.

Bathsheba went before the bedridden David.  She did not approach him as a wife, but as a humble subject:

15 And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king. 16 And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou? – I Kings 1:15-16

She was not there to force her own will on the king, but to make him acknowledge and enforce his own.  She reminded him of his promise that Solomon would be king.  She informed him of Adonijah’s traitorous actions.  She reminded him that if he did not intercede that both she and Solomon would surely be killed.

Nathan entered to give the same report and Bathsheba exited.  In response to Nathan and Bathsheba’s interventions, David was moved to action:

28 Then king David answered and said, Call me Bathsheba. And she came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king. 29 And the king sware, and said, As the LORD liveth, that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress, 30 Even as I sware unto thee by the LORD God of Israel, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day. 31 Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever. – I Kings 1:28-31

Just in passing, note her response: “Let my lord king David live for ever.”  This is genuine love for her husband and sovereign.  She would rather have David live on than have her son on the throne.  This is further proof to me that she is not being manipulative here.  No, she is standing for what is right.

I am convinced that David, Nathan, and Bathsheba knew that it was God’s will for Solomon to be the heir since his birth or even before.  I am convinced they knew that the great Davidic Covenant of II Samuel 7 would continue through Solomon.  In the moment of crisis, Bathsheba and Nathan stepped in to ensure that right was done.

Is there any greater expression of faith than to take a stand when all seems lost?  Moses proved his faith in God when he was backed up to the Red Sea.  Daniel proved his faith when he was cast in the lion’s den.  What about us?  What are we standing for? What will we lay down our lives for?  I have a short list of things I pray I am strong enough to die for: my faith, my family, my country.  How sad it is to see those who claim to be Christians melt away when adversity comes!

By Her Faith, She was Honored at the End

There is one last story we will look at involving Bathsheba and it is in I Kings 2.  David had died and Solomon reigned alone over Israel.  Adonijah had been forgiven by Solomon for attempting to take the throne before David’s death, but he had not given up on his schemes.

In I Kings 2:13, Adonijah came to Bathsheba with a request to marry David’s wife/caretaker Abishag.  He must have laid some kind of sob story on Bathsheba, who failed to see the machinations behind the request.  This is not the focus of this point, but here I think Bathsheba is being kind to a fault.  If anything, she seems more endearing to me for trusting this man too much.  Bathsheba agreed to relay the request to king Solomon, who of course saw through the ploy and had Adonijah executed along with other conspirators.

What I want us to focus on is the way Solomon honored his mother.  I am going to dissect I Kings 2:19 because there is so much to see in it.

Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her,…

Kings passively accept homage from others, yet here he actively gave honor to his mother.

…and bowed himself unto her,…

He humbled himself and exalted his mother.  The Hebrew word here is shachah which is a root word for worship.

…and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother;…

He honored her with a throne to sit upon

…and she sat on his right hand.

This is the place of honor.  The right hand of the king is the most exalted place he could offer someone.

I think this event set a precedent for honoring the queen mother.  We see this practice alluded to in I Kings 15:13, II Kings 11:1-3, and 24:15.  We should also note here how the name of the mother is highlighted for all the succeeding kings, whereas there is no record in Scripture of the names of either Saul or David’s mothers.  Solomon certainly started a trend!

I am reminded of these verses:

6 For promotion cometh neither from the east,
nor from the west, nor from the south.
7 But God is the judge:
he putteth down one, and setteth up another.
– Psalm 75:6-7

Bathsheba, the unfaithful wife, forgiven by God, transformed by faith, is now the queen mother.  Remarkable, is it not?  This was accomplished not through her own power or strength.  This was not through her plots or schemes.  Friends, there is only one answer for how Bathsheba grows from II Samuel 11 to I Kings 2.  It is the grace of God.

Did she deserve the honor?  By our human opinion she did not.  I believe God honored her faith and her repentance to exalt her, using her to bring Solomon into this world.

The question I would ask is: do we deserve what we have in our lives?  Do we deserve to be children of God?  Do we deserve such a fine church family?  No, God has surely poured out His grace on us!  What He seeks in us is faith:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. – Hebrews 11:6 

I am convinced that it is faith in God that transformed Bathsheba’s life and that still transformed lives today.

Closing Remarks

I am afraid that we have let our prejudices against Bathsheba and her sin with David rob us of a beautiful story of redemption.  She overcame that sin, was greatly used by God as a mother and queen.  She became a vital part of Jewish history.  If God can do that with her, I guarantee you can do great things with you.

God can surely transform the vilest sinner into the holiest saint.  There is a famous story about a lawyer in the Deep South after the Civil War.  He had a promising career ahead of him but fell victim to the temptations of alcohol.  His fine suits were turned to rags.  His eloquence turned to stammering.  But God had other plans.  He grabbed hold of the heart of that drunken lawyer.  He became a preacher and a Methodist circuit rider.  Doors continued to open for him and his audiences grew in size. New and larger auditoriums had to be built to house the throngs that wanted to hear him, including the famous Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, Tennessee.  Who was that drunken lawyer turned preacher?  His name was Sam Jones.  While D.L. Moody shook the northern states for Christ, Sam Jones shook the south.  Thousands upon thousands found Christ through his preaching.                                                                       

Have you found forgiveness and redemption in Christ?  I do not care how great a sinner you claim to be.  No one is beyond God’s grace and forgiveness.  Come back to Him today!  He will not turn you away!  He can still use you for His glory!

The Two Big Questions About The Bible

Matthew Gage

There are two common themes in modern Bible scholarship that both underlie and undermine current trends in Biblical theology. Both are related to simple questions that sharply divide conversations over the past couple of centuries. When dealt with in both theological and philosophical arenas, I would contend the most important to how we approach God and His Word.

Photo by Tanner Mardis on Unsplash

The first question is this:

DO WE TRULY POSSESS THE WORD OF GOD?

The quick response would likely be, “Of course we do! I have a Bible right here in my hand!” On the surface this question seems that simple, but it is far from it as we dissect what it means to have the Word of God. What seems like a clear answer becomes far murkier the more most people discuss this.

The most common logic of today is ambiguous, claiming both that we do and we do not have the Word of God. One common argument made is the Bible was perfect in its original text, but that we have lost this perfect text over centuries of copying the text. The website Got Questions (which I do find to be very helpful in most cases) asks “Is the original Bible still in existence?” and answers: “The answer to this question is both ‘no’ and ‘yes.’ In the strictest sense, no, the original documents that comprise the 66 books of the Bible—sometimes called the ‘autographs’—are not in the possession of any organization.” After a lengthy discussion of how the text came to be and how it was passed down to today, the article concludes:

“In summary, while no one today possesses the original autographs, we do have many extant copies, and the work of biblical historians via the science of textual criticism gives us great confidence that today’s Bible is an accurate reflection of the original writers’ work. As an analogy, if the original and preserved unit of measure known as a ‘yard’ was lost in a fire in its holding place in Washington, D.C., there is little doubt that that measurement could be replaced with full assurance through all the exact copies of it that exist elsewhere. The same is true of God’s Word.“

This line of logic essentially flows like this:

  • God gave His perfect and complete Word to the original authors who faithfully and perfectly recorded the exact words.
  • These original records were copied before they were lost to history.
  • Errors and mistakes were introduced into the text through the process of copying and distribution by fallible humans.
  • Therefore, we do not and cannot possess a perfect and complete record of God’s Word.
  • The solution to this problem is to try to recreate the lost record through textual criticism, thus providing us with our best guess at what the original text contained.

This logic is in substance and application Theseus’s Paradox. It holds that both the original, “lost” text is the Word of God. It also holds that the modern reconstruction of the text is the same Word of God. It also adds an interesting variation in that is ongoing doubt as to what constituted the original form, so every effort to reconstruct the original may actually move it further from the original form.

The origins of this logic did not come from faith, but from applications of a secular science of textual criticism. In the late Middle Ages in Europe, there was a revival of interest in classical works of antiquity. This focused primarily on Greek and Latin texts that were not Christian. This developing science was eventually applied to the Scriptures, which The Encyclopedia Britannica states:

“From about 1350, however, a change in attitude is evident, particularly in the West. What is often called the revival of learning was in reality a practical movement to enlist the heritage of classical antiquity in the service of the new Christian humanism. In order to make them usable (i.e., readable), texts were corrected freely and often arbitrarily by scholars, copyists, and readers (the three categories being in fact hardly distinguishable).“

When dealing with multiple texts that contained different variant readings, certain rules were developed to help guide the critic. These are based on assumptions and continue to guide thought today. Some of these include:

The underlying problem with textual criticism is that it cannot be concluded. It claims to attempt to reconstruct the original text, but it is driven by the whims of scholarship and bias. Even though this practice has been in place for multiple centuries, it is no nearer it goal than when it began.

Two battle primary battle lines have developed. The first is around the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the second around the various critical texts that have been produced. The Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text represent an accepted standard, which the critical texts attempt to create a new standard. The debate around these texts is complex and not nearly as simple as I wish it were, and I am not even touching the debates about translation mechanics here!

But I return to my initial question: CAN WE TRULY POSSESS THE WORD OF GOD? One side (proponents of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text) profess that we can and do. The other side (proponents of textual criticism and critical texts) claim that we cannot. When you reduce the debate to its elementary essence, that is what you are left with.

My belief is that it really comes down to faith. I can build logical arguments for both sides of the debate, but Christianity is built on faith and not logic. Faith is not always logical. Faith is often found in trusting the unknowable.

Do we really believe what the Bible says? Do we believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Do we believe that He created all things? Do we believe He sent His Son to be die for our sins and that He rose again?

If we believe these things, do we also believe that God meant what He said about His Word being preserved for all generations (Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35)? Do we believe that the God who gives us life and holds our salvation in His unfailing grace cannot also preserve His word faithfully through the ages? If God can keep you saved for eternity, can He not also keep His Word pure?

I am alarmed at the number of Christians who attest in faith that God can do anything yet so readily deny that He can preserve His Word. I grow tired of every time someone addresses the reliability of the Scripture that they feel like the must add a proviso that it was only pure in its original manuscripts which we no longer possess.

Friends, we can have a faith that is founded on God’s revelation of truth that His Word may be preserved pure for us today. That is not even a blind faith, as logical arguments can be made to support it. I am convinced that modern Christianity needs a return viewing the Bible as “Thus saith the Lord” and not continually asking “Yea, hath God said?” I am convinced that the confusion brought about by textual criticism in the past two hundred years is a symptom of a grievous error brought about by doubting God. Voices have continuously implicitly or explicitly stated that you cannot have God’s true Word, and now we marvel why so many do not view the Bible as authoritative.

I am going to take this one step further before moving on. I am becoming more and more convinced that this is the underlying debate about using the KJV. There is a direct correlation between trusting the KJV and rejecting the tenets of higher criticism that has developed since 1611. There is also a vast difference in how KJV users typically teach and preach because they present the text as the Word of God without adding qualifying statements undermining its authority.

If we can have truly possess the word of God, there there is one more question to address:

CAN WE TRULY UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD?

Not only does modern Christianity doubt that we have the Word of God, but also that we cannot understand what it says. I am not here talking about the absurd arguments about archaic language of the KJV. I am talking the many new methods of Biblical interpretation that have arisen recently that seem to hold that you cannot really understand the truth of God’s Word.

One common method that does this is labeling portions of Scripture as figurative or allegorical. This is often used to attempt to reconcile the opening chapters of Genesis with modern theories of evolution. They will claim that God did not literally create the world in six days and that Adam and Eve may not have been literally the first humans. A corollary to this that I am seeing more and more often is labeling prophetic books (especially Revelation) as apocalyptic literature.

Something else that is growing in popularity is the idea that we must view the contents of Scripture through the culture and understanding of its original cultural setting. On the surface, I want to agree with this approach but the more I dig into it the less comfortable I become with it. It is intrinsically faulty because it is based on our own assumptions of the mindset and knowledge of people thousands of years before us and thousands of miles away from us. I feel that books like Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes are both helpful and hurtful. This is very tricky ground to traverse and its most logical conclusion almost has to be that we just cannot properly comprehend the Bible because our culture is so vastly different that it was in Bible times. But then again, we may counter that the essence of humanity is largely the same today as it always has been.

Another quite opposite tendency that is common today is the attempt to read modern thought and theory into Scripture. We see this in feminist theology and liberation theology. There are so many other absurd examples of this, including cannabis and UFOs. There are other less extreme examples, such as reading modern Western music theory into the music of the ancient Jews (I am putting together some material on this subject).

What these approaches and others like them do is create a break between modern Christianity and historic, orthodox Christianity. It exhibits chronological snobbery with a profound arrogance that assumes no one better understood the truths of Scripture before modern scholarship. There are so many examples of this, such as the so-called New Perspective on Paul, with more examples produced daily. I wish more people would stop and think that if you find something in the Bible no one else has ever found, then there is probably a good reason no one else has ever seen it!

Another problem I see that stems from this hubris is the assumption that the common person is helpless to understand Scripture on their own. This is one impetus behind the constant revisions and translations of Scripture, to try to keep the Bible “relevant” so that modern readers can comprehend it. It is also seen in the idea that you cannot truly know the Bible until you can read and understand it in the original Greek and Hebrew.

Friends, you do not need a master’s degree in theology to understand God’s Word. Christ Himself spoke to the common people and Paul wrote to the average Christian. David wrote songs that were sung by congregations of common people. Yes, there are infinite depths to the truth of Scripture, but there essential truths are so simple that a child may follow them.

I am afraid that academia has convinced us that we must be one of them to have true faith and understanding. This is counter to the clear teachings of Scripture, which entrusted much of the propagation of truth to common people (Deuteronomy 6:1-9). They have also convinced us that unless you are of their number or at least have their blessing that you cannot be successful in ministry. They have the same prejudice as the Jewish leaders in Acts 4:13.

Education is important, but it is far from the most important thing a Christians needs. We need faith to believe and trust in God. We need faithfulness to serve God and observe His commands. His truth is sufficient. We can grasp it, absorb it, and practice it. We can be honest in our lack of understanding in difficult areas, but we must be faithful to the truth we know.

The Misguided Virtue of Accessibility

Matthew Gage

One of the complaints that is hurled at the use traditional worship, hymns, and the King James Bible is that they create impenetrable barriers that prevent a person from truly knowing or experiencing God. This mindset takes many forms and has been a driving force in the reshaping of Christianity for at least the past century. This appears to be a peculiarly American innovation, as many other parts of the world seem content with their traditionalism.

Photo by Pete Alexopoulos on Unsplash

There are essentially two philosophical approaches in Christianity for bridging the gap between God and man. Note that I am not saying theological approaches here. From a theological standpoint, man’s depravity cannot be overcome in his own power to bring him into fellowship with God. God had to be the one that reached across the divide through Christ to create a means of reconciliation. Man can now approach God only because Christ’s atonement of his sins. Any other mean would be based on man’s works which can never atone for his sins. This is basic Bible doctrine.

The two approaches I am speaking of are more practical than theological. They are seen in both evangelism and discipleship. Here is an illustration of these two approaches before we discuss them in further detail:

The first attempts to bring God down to man’s level. This is accomplished by simplifying theology and practice or focusing only on what is deemed to be essential to Christianity . Many Evangelicals fall into this group with their willingness to focus solely on the Gospel message by downplaying the importance of doctrines and practices they see as secondary.

This approach is often seen as practical or pragmatic. It is “seeker sensitive” and relies on approach to evangelism that is built on consumerism and marketability.

One of the clearest signs of this approach is the language it uses. It simplifies the Christianity’s vocabulary and terminology for the sake of outsiders being able to understand it.

Other marks of this approach include:

  • Fraternity over fidelity in fellowship
  • Focusing on only Jesus and our relationship with Him while downplaying doctrine
  • Willingness to jettison doctrines and practices that are unpopular or unpalatable to the masses

The second attempts to bring man up to God. This is accomplished by discipleship and spiritual growth through which man increases in his knowledge of and obedience to God. This does not mean that man is made a deity, but that over time they increase in their faith.

This approach takes a long-term view to the Christian life. It recognizes that a child or new convert will not naturally understand every aspect of theology, but that as they grow and mature in their faith their understanding naturally increases. It allows advancement towards the goal lessening the goal.

When this approach is practiced, there is a high view of God and a concerted effort to moved towards His perfect image. Discipleship is practiced on freshly saved and seasoned saints. It does not rely on fads or marketing strategies. It allows the faithful presentation and practice of Biblical truth to shape and mold us.

A survey of Christian history would show that the second approach, moving man toward God, was the norm until the mid-1900’s. The book Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship by Lim Swee Hong and Lester Ruth notes this shift in the 1960’s:

A change in the language by which English-speaking Christians spoke to God in corporate worship was a significant liturgical development in the second half of the twentieth century: The change was foundational: to move from archaic to updated English was considered the essence of making worship contemporary in the 1960s. To lose thee, thou, and thy as the way to talk to God was the first domino to fall on the path to today. To believe that we pray best to God in contemporary language is now a universal presumption of contemporary worship and one of its defining qualities. It is so much assumed and caught on so quickly, in fact, that most people would now point to other qualities like music or technology as the features that make worship contemporary. (p. 90-91)

This shift did not just affect prayer, Bible versions, or liturgy. It reflected a concerted change in approach by its leaders. Lim and Hong hit on this in their other book, A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship: Understanding the Ideas that Reshaped the Protestant Church, as they discuss the musical impact of Ralph Carmichael during that time. Note how the underlying philosophy matches what we saw in the above quote:

When Carmichael spoke of music as a language that needs to be in the “vernacular” of contemporary people, his concern was about the intelligibility of the music to those people. To make this point, he liked to use an analogy comparing the intelligibility of the Bible and the intelligibility of music: both need to be in an actual contemporary vernacular, he argued, so that people can understand them. Just as the church does not make Africans learn Latin to hear the gospel, and just as it does not make American Christians learn Hebrew or Greek to read the Bible in its original languages, and just as we applaud when new versions of the Bible leave behind the archaic expressions of the King James Version, Carmichael reiterated that the church in the same way should put its music into popular forms to use the understandable musical vernacular of people today. In the three minutes or so that it takes to play a song, he argued, the church does not have time to try music education to get a youth to appreciate a nonpopular form of music. What is better, he continued, is to “speak in a musical language” youth can understand. (p. 208-209)

This shift in the approach to Christian practice is indisputable, but its full impact is not often discussed. To many today who have bought into the modern Praise & Worship practices these leaders are heroes. To those like myself that try to hold to the older “traditional” practices there was irreparable harm done to Christianity through these changes. It was not just hymns and “archaic” language that was tossed out, it was the historic approach to Christianity that elevated God and sought to reach man in their sin, see them coming to a saving knowledge of Christ, then grow in their faith through consecration and sanctification. What it was replaced with is the approach that Christianity is a product that must be marketed to the masses and popularized by shedding anything deemed detrimental to its acceptance in popular society. Christianity, therefore, had to be repackaged and presented as “new and improved.” This was not a result of a demand by the public, but by Christian leaders trying to create a demand. In some ways they did, but the new form of Christianity they peddled was as close to classic Christianity as 1980’s New Coke was to Coca-Cola classic. The kept the name and some general themes but the product was radically different.

Today it is seen as a virtue to package or present Christian beliefs as inspired by cultural trends. Many leaders feel they are doing well by gutting divisive doctrines from their teaching. It is uncouth to take strong stands for issues that define denominations. I have even seen churches popping up that advertise themselves as being about “Just Jesus.”

While Christ is the center of the Christian’s love and mind, there is far more to Christianity that rests on Him. Christ Himself said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). Those commandments are doctrine and practice. Every church has them, whether they want to admit it or not. To know Christ is far more than just the red letters in a Bible, it is a full revelation of truth from Creation in Genesis 1 to Eternity Future in Revelation 22. It is the voice of Christ that says, “in the volume of the book it is written of me” in Psalm 40:7 and Hebrews 10:7. To know Christ and to follow Christ must be founded on a knowledge of the mind of Christ that is found in thoroughly studying all the Scriptures. To jettison any aspect of Bible doctrine is to jettison part of what it is to be a Christian. By repackaging or reframing Christianity in effort to make it appealing to men, we have instead redefined what it is to be a Christian and what God expects from us.

The KJV, hymns, and other such elements were discarded by some because they were seen as barriers to knowing Christ. This is frankly absurd. The only barrier to knowing Christ is our prideful, sinful, fallen nature. Once we accept Christ as Savior, everything else is just details. We do not have to be able to understand every word in our Bible (by the way, why is the Bible the only book that must meet this impossible standard?), but we can learn it. We may not understand or appreciate the style of traditional, congregation singing in a church, but we can learn it.

I caution you, brothers and sisters in Christ, to avoid the temptation to of reshaping Christian doctrine and practice for the sake of making it more “accessible” to those outside our faith. We are called to bring men to Christ, not redefine Christ for men. The Great Commission is to present the truth of the Gospel to all the world, not contextualize it. Our goal should be develop a deep, thriving love of Christ and His truth in ourselves and in others around us.

We Need to Write More Books

Matthew Gage1 Comment
Image by Przemysław Trojan from Pixabay

I observed back when I was in Bible college something that startled me. When we were assigned textbooks for the various classes, so many did not fully align with the doctrinal position of the school. Even though the school was staunchly KJV only, many times the textbooks were not. The same can be said for books written by Baptists. This not be surprising if we were talking about a science or math textbook, but many of the Bible and theological courses resorted to using such books. I am not saying that the books did not have value, but that they somewhat undermined the position of the school.

I asked one of my Bible college professors about why people of our stripe did not write books. He replied, “I guess we are too busy soulwinning.” This idea scares me because while we are doing the work now we are not leaving a legacy for those that will follow us. We are already having to train our next generation of leaders with textbooks that do not fully align with who we are. Why are we shocked when these men do not stay Fundamental in their doctrine or practice when we have exposed them to things that run counter to it?

Sometimes Fundamentalism is described as being “all fun and no mental”. There are sadly those that fit that description, but I have also met some Fundamentalists with brilliant Biblical minds. Why aren’t they writing books?

One reason that I mentioned before is that we have not prioritized writing as a ministry. So much of Fundamentalism’s message of the past few decades has been very practical: “Go here, don’t go there. Do this, don’t do that.” We have neglected the theological framework that undergirds our actions. We know what to do, but we often neglect why we do it. This has led to many practical books on soulwinning, prayer, and separation, but it has not lead to deeper works on the theology and philosophy behind those actions.

Another reason is that we have devalued academic writing. This is in large part because we distance ourselves from much of the modern theological writings that are tainted by liberalism and destructive criticism of the Scriptures. This actually goes against the Fundamentalist heritage, which largely began as debates among academia. Many historic Fundamentalists were well-educated and possessed great theological knowledge. The problem they had was not with academia, but with the poisonous doctrines that had infiltrated it. In a tragic overreaction, most of Fundamentalism forsook academic pursuits for more something more practical. Again, the problem is that the practical is based on the theological. You cannot be sound in one without the other.

Another reason I think has to do with the small market size such books would appeal to. The giant publishing houses are not looking to publish anything by a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism itself is so divided that it is difficult to reach the various camps with anything you put together.

A corollary issue to the small market size is the expense of printing. It is difficult for many people to put up the up front cost of printing through traditional avenues. This is because such small batch printing is deemed a “vanity” publication that the publishers do not believe will sale enough for them to make money. So they pass off the cost of printing to the author, who is required to purchase hundreds up copies up front.

I do not want to sound like an alarmist, but no movement can continue that does not develop its own theological writings and train their people using their own materials. We must overcome any aversions to writing as ministry and to the value of academic pursuits. If not, we will continue to bleed out people that are influenced by those who are writing and are writing well. As long as the Fundamental and Independent Baptist movements have been around, it is a shame that we do have a solid core of writings that define and inspire us.

We live in what is called the Information Age. With just a few keystrokes or taps we can find almost anything we want online. Where once broadcasting was out of reach for most people, anyone can now do a podcast. Where once publishing was out or reach for most people, anyone can now have a blog. Social media continues to develop and I do not think we have yet to harness its power for the Gospel.

It is not just the digital world that has been revolutionized, but the physical publishing world too. It is easier today to get a book printed than at any other time in all of history. It is also cheaper today than it has ever been.

I want to close by discussing just one of the multitude of possibilities for publishing good, solid books. Of course, they need to be written first. But once they are it is scarily easy to get them published and available to the entire world.

The one I want to focus on is Kindle Direct Publishing by Amazon. There is ZERO up front cost to create a either a physical book or a Kindle eBook. If you have a word processor, then you can create a book. There is a special application called Kindle Create that is used to format and create the Kindle eBook file. Once your book is created, Amazon will tell you how much each unit costs and they will take that for each unit sold. You choose an option for amount of royalties you will receive set the market price for the book, which must of course must be greater than the production cost. It costs you nothing up front and Amazon only gets paid when a book is purchased. They use a print-on-demand system so there is not an issue of paying for books that do not sale.

With such opportunities, why are we not taking advantage of them? I have been working on converting many of my sermon notes into book format and have a couple of books that I am working on besides those. I know that many pastors already have great material that just needs to be put into book form. Think of it as a ministry and devote some time to it. Even if only a few books are sold you have still made an impact. There are so many needs out there that we can help address.

Someone said that the radio preachers of yesteryear are all but forgotten but the preachers that wrote are still making an impact. In this day and age of podcasting and digital media, I still think the greatest impact we can make is with physical books.

It is time we get busy writing.

LPFM Journey – Part IV

Matthew Gage3 Comments

This is Part III in a series of posts that I will document my church’s journey in starting a LPFM radio station. Read Part I here. Read Part II here. Part III here.

Image by 652234 from Pixabay

Quick Update

I have been purposefully vague regarding details of our radio station application. Part of this is because of the general uncertainty of the application process and part because the information is freely available if you search the FCC website. But we are at the point now that I feel comfortable be a bit more open.

Our LPFM application was filed in the December 2023 filing window. On January 3, 2024, it was “approved for filing”, which meant it survived a cursory examination by the FCC. This also started a 30-day public comment period, during which nothing was filed regarding our application. So, beginning in early February I obsessively checked on the status of our application. Seriously, I checked multiple times a day and I had alerts set up through the Distill Web Monitor if something changed on the application web page. I continually refreshed FCC.today to see if ours appeared. I saw several other applications approved for their Construction Permits, including a few other churches working with the same people we are.

On March 29, 2024, we received an email from the FCC that we needed to file an amended application because the name of the church was not exactly the same as our incorporated name. To be honest, I thought this could have sunk our application because the FCC is very particular about errors. This one must not have been that big of a deal. I saw another church have to do the same thing. By noon the amended application was filed.

I did not expect anything else any time soon. I checked our church email about three o’clock that afternoon and saw an email from the FCC. The subject line read “Attached is a copy of authorization for application file number:XXXXXXXXXX facility ID number:XXXXXX.”, but with the numbers of our application and site ID instead of X’s. The content of the email was just a URL. I wasn’t sure what all that meant so I clicked the link and…

That, my friends, is a Construction Permit. That means WE HAVE A RADIO STATION!!!! Well, it technically means we have 36 months to get a station on the air. This is THE biggest step in the entire process. We can do amendments if we need to change things, for example, like if we decided to put our tower up in a different location. But the Construction Permit means you are able to get a station up and on the air according to the details in the permit.

As obsessively as I have tracked this application, I can’t believe that I missed it and only saw it when we got the email. In fact, I wish I knew that I would get an email! That would have simplified my monitoring immensely.

Next Steps

There are many things you simply cannot do until you have a Construction Permit. Once you have it, you can:

  • Claim an available call sign for your station.
  • Purchase a transmitter (you cannot legally do this without a Construction Permit).
  • Erect a tower and install an antenna.

Before putting up a tower, you will need to make sure you have any necessary permits to do so. Check with your city and county on this. You also need to check with the FAA, especially if you are near an airport.

Looking Ahead

I think I have covered most of the basics regarding what LPFM is and the application process. As we move forward I will continue to update with information I gather or learn along the way.

One of my goals is to compile a list of available radio programs for LPFM stations that are fundamental or conservative in nature. I have started a list of ones I am interested in for our station, but not everyone will want the same “flavor” of programming that I am looking for.

I am also going to start preparing a few different programs. One will be sermons from our church, which I already distribute as a podcast. Two others I am considering are an updated form of my old Baptist History Spotlight podcast and a new “Baptist Basics Broadcast” that will be Bible teaching recorded in a studio setting.

Rethinking the Reformation

Matthew Gage
Photo by Wim van ‘t Einde on Unsplash

I picked up my son from school and he started telling me some of the things they had learned about in his high school history class. He said that they had studied the Reformation that day. I joked and asked him if he wanted me to tell him everything they got wrong. He looked at me strangely so I spouted off a few tidbits that I knew didn’t match the perspective that most history textbooks take. Kind of surprised him I think.

The way many people present the history of the Reformation, its reasons and its impact, is tainted by overly-simplified historical narratives and denominational propaganda. Yes, even a lot of Baptists get much of the Reformation wrong.

What is the Reformation?

The Reformation is a period of great social, political, and religious upheaval that took place around the 1500’s in Europe. It is a period of transition from the Middle Ages into the Modern Age. Its scope is vast and there is no section of European society and culture of the time that is not affected by its influence. The term Reformation does not have a clear technical meaning. It could refer to attempts to reform Christianity and Catholicism or it could refer to the general way Europe was “re-formed” during this time.

The general narrative that is usually told is that Martin Luther disagreed with aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice so he “protested” (that is the root of the word Protestant, those that “protest” aspects of Catholicism). It is often presented that the starting point of the Reformation is Luther’s posting of the Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. Then from Luther’s influence other leaders and groups emerge to challenge the Catholic religion and authority (which was also highly secular during this time).

A general timeline of the history of Christianity is sometimes presented as:

Countering the Narrative

If you spend any time studying history you will realize how vast and practically infinite the influence are that shape our world. As a Christian, I do believe that God’s hand is behind all of this (Daniel 2:21, etc.). Our finite human understanding tries to make sense of what appears to be turbulent chaos by detecting patterns, causes, and effects. We constantly reassess the story of humanity in light of new theories and discoveries. We are bound by our own times, mindsets, theories, cultures, languages, and a host of other factors. As much as we want to say that history is a fixed study, it is not.

I open with the above observation to show that anyone’s opinion on the Reformation must be flawed and differ from the true history. The one thing we have today that others have not had is five centuries of perspective and analysis. I am humbly adding my own to that multitude of opinions.

I have what I describe as a “low view” of the Reformation. While I acknowledge its importance in the development of Western Civilization and applaud some of the its core tenets, I do not see it as one of the greatest events in the history of Christianity. In fact, I think the wrong view of the Reformation greatly damages how that history is viewed.

Let me give you some points to consider to defend my position:

I. Catholicism did not have a monopoly on Christianity.

This is the oversimplified view illustrated in the diagram I presented before. It presents the Roman Catholic church as the only very of Christianity, even if you believe their teachings and practices to be false in the centuries before Luther.

The fact is that Catholicism was only a single branch of the family tree of Christianity. Granted, it became an extremely powerful branch (especially in Western civilization). A more accurate diagram of the history of Christian denominations might look like:

To view the Roman Catholic church as the primary expression of Christianity in history is to (1) have an extremely Eurocentric view of history and (2) buy into the Catholic propaganda that they are the one true church. There are countless other sects that have existed, some so small and so localized to have escaped the notice of historians. So many of these existed long before the true beginning of Roman Catholicism in the fourth century. So many of these were not birthed by opposition to Roman Catholicism. Millions of believers have lived that had no attachment to Roman Catholicism.

II. Protestantism did not discover anything new.

The most basic presentation of Reformation theology is the Five Solas: sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), soli Deo gloria (God’s glory alone). None of these positions were new, though men like Luther may have found them on their own. There is plenty of evidence for this for those who wish to study it out.

III. There were Reformers before the Reformation.

The date of 1517, when Luther presented his Ninety-Five Theses, is commonly given as the beginning of the Reformation. This is completely arbitrary. There were many so-called “proto-Protestant” leaders and movements before this date. Examples include Peter Waldo and the Waldensians, John Wycliffe, and Jan Hus and the Hussites.

IV. The Reformation was largely political.

This in part because the ideas of State and Church were so interwoven. But it cannot be overlooked that impetus behind the establishment of the Protestant Church of England had much to do with the politics of Henry the VIII. It cannot be overlooked that Martin Luther’s work was only successful because of the political backing of men like Frederick III, Elector of Saxony. It cannot be overlooked that John Calvin’s work was largely successful because of political intrigue in Geneva between the Grand Council and the Duke of Savoy.

I am not saying that the Reformation was completely political and ignoring any spiritual victories it gained. What I am saying is that it is not simply a grassroots theological movement that shook the world. Behind many aspects of the Reformation are kings and princes vying for earthly power and dominion. Many of these were simply tired of papal authority over them and seeing Rome drain their wealth and resources.

V. Some Reformers did not reform enough.

While some leaders like Calvin or Zwingli sought to establish a form of Christianity based solely on Scriptures, others kept much of the Catholic traditions and trappings. Lutheranism and Anglicanism are two that kept much of the liturgy and practices of Catholicism. Most of the most famous reformers still tried to keep a union of church and state.

VI. Groups existed that did not participate in reform.

As I mentioned before, the tenets of the Reformation were not new. They had both existed before historically and were actively held and practiced in Europe before, during, and after the Reformation. Often these are mislabeled as “Radical Reformers”, even if they did not directly attempt any reforming of Catholicism.

My contention is that throughout the history of Christendom that small, independent groups existed that help to a simple, orthodox Christianity like the Reformers promoted. These go by many names in history and are often lumped together with other groups the Catholics considered heretical. Yet, if you read carefully between the lines of history, it is clear that there always existed groups that held the Bible as sole authority, taught salvation by grace through faith, rejected infant baptism, and refused to pray to Mary. These groups did nor build grand cathedrals or run nation-states. They existed in the background of society and faced persecution and ridicule.

During the Reformation era, many of these were lumped into the Anabaptist category. That is such a broad term that it includes pacifists like the Amish and the warmongers that led the Münster rebellion. Many of these faced persecution and propaganda from both the Catholics and Reformers.

Misinterpreting the Reformation

I think one of the main reasons that the Reformation is misinterpreted is that of bias. For Americans, we owe a great debt to the spiritual, cultural, and political effects of the Reformation. For Protestants, they want to aggrandize their own history and accomplishments. If you are an Italian Roman Catholic I am sure you have a very different view. The same would go for many others across the globe.

The biggest problem I have with embellishing the Reformation is that it can actually weaken the positions held by Protestants. If you hold that true Christianity is based on Scripture alone, you must logically also hold that the truths of the Reformation preexisted it. You must hold that anyone with a Bible can and will come to the same conclusions about true Christianity. To hold any other position says that either (A) true Christianity was lost for centuries between the first centuries A.D. and the Reformation or (B) that the ideas of the Reformation are only another evolution of Christianity that was bred by discontent with Catholicism. Either of these greatly undermines the defense of Reformation ideas.

A Baptist Position

I am a Baptist. I cannot find from history how the Reformation invented the distinctive Baptist beliefs and therefore do not count myself as a Protestant. While I share many positions with my Reformed brethren, I do not count myself as a product of the Reformation. When I trace the history and heritage of Baptists, it is clear to me that men and women that believed like me existed during and before the Reformation. Whether or not you want to fully embrace Baptist successionism as found in J.M Carroll’s Trail of Blood is beside the point. It is clear from history that the core positions of the Baptists predate the Reformation, just as the Reformation’s own positions do.

While I am thankful for many of the benefits of the Reformation, especially the renewed call of salvation by grace through faith, I cannot ignore that not every aspect of it was positive. The ties of church and state were only strengthened in many areas. Some Reformers became persecutors of those that disagreed with them. Many errors in Catholic theology and practice were not completely eradicated in some denominations.

I would challenge the reader to research the full story of the Reformation. It is not nearly as simple of a story as a revival of true Christianity as many make it to be.

LPFM Journey – Part III

Matthew Gage

This is Part III in a series of posts that I will document my church’s journey in starting a LPFM radio station. Read Part I here. Read Part II here. Read Part IV here.

Image by Hrayr Movsisyan from Pixabay

“Do”s and “Don’t”s of LPFM Broadcasting

Here are some things you must or must not do in regards to broadcasts on LPFM. Much of this is from the FCC’s publication The Public and Broadcasting and a lot of it applies to all broadcasts and not just LPFM:

You CAN NOT broadcast:

  • “Hoaxes”. Think of the legendary War of the Worlds broadcast.
  • Calls to riot or other lawless action.
  • Willful distortion of the news. I can hear the snickering now that most news is distorted anyway. Free Speech rights give a ton of leeway here.
  • Obscene, indecent, or profane programming. Again, Free Speech rights apply but many court cases have given the FCC the power to limit speech that is deemed offensive. It can be somewhat subjective. From the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 p.m. the restrictions are loosened somewhat. Still, some profanity or sexuality explicit material will not be acceptable at any time.
  • Commercials. LPFM is strictly non-profit.

You MUST:

  • Broadcast official station identification at the top of every hour.
  • Disclose rules for any contests or promotions.
  • Have permission to broadcast phone calls.
  • Acknowledge gifts or sponsorship for air time. See payola.
  • Provide equal opportunity and time for candidates running for office.

Other than these general guidelines, the FCC really doesn’t care about what you broadcast. They do not care if you play music or what kind of music it is (as long as you have the proper license!). They do not care if you are right wing or left wing politically. They do care if you are sectarian in you religious positions. That is all considered First Amendment Free Speech rights.

Special Notes for Religious Broadcasters

Much of the information out there on LPFM stations is geared towards “community” stations that extremely eclectic and open to practically everything to be broadcast. I have no problem with those sort of stations, and honestly I think it is very neat concept. But there are a few things I have come across that I think are important for when a church or ministry is the one operating a LPFM station.

First, there is a loophole for equal opportunity employment requirements. From the FCC: “The FCC requires all licensees of radio and TV stations afford equal opportunity in employment. We also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. However, religious stations are permitted to require that some or all of their employees meet a religious qualification.”

Second, you have a little more flexibility with a “call to action” in underwriting when talking about a church or non-profit. While you cannot say “come see Jim at Jim’s Plumbing” you can say “come join us this Sunday at church”. I would still be very careful here. RECnet has a good FAQ on this.

LPFM Journey – Part II

Matthew Gage

This is Part II in a series of posts that I will document my church’s journey in starting a LPFM radio station. Read Part I here. Read Part III here. Read Part IV here.

Image by freestocks-photos from Pixabay

Are you ready for more LPFM talk? Here we go!

Setup Costs

So, how much will it cost to go on the air? Here’s some numbers I compiled from Prometheus Radio and Low Power Fm for Dummies. Please have some patience with my inexperience on a lot of this. I may not get all the numbers and details exactly right, but I do want people to understand the scale of setting up a station. As we go through this process I will update with more accurate information.

Last time, we looked at the application process to have a LPFM station in the U.S. It is highly recommended that you work with professionals for your application. There are aspects that you will need a knowledgeable engineer to put together. There are companies that will handle all of this for a fee. This varies greatly, but I’m seeing $500-$3,000 as good ballpark figures.

You will need a transmitter. Make sure it is FCC Type Certified. I hear some will claim this when they are not, so best to stick with reputable manufacturers. Also know that even if you are an LPFM approved at 100 watts that you will need a transmitter larger than 100 watts. Its technical, but you lose wattage between the transmitter and the antenna. Also consider that for the longevity of your transmitter you do not want to push it at maximum power. Expect $3,000-$6,000.

You will need a broadcast antenna. There are many options out there, and it looks like you can spent $200-$2,000 based on the models I see recommended.

You will need a broadcast tower to put your antenna on. You really need to have this figured out before you get your application in. You can file an amendment to your application if there needs to be any changes.

You can have one installed on your property or perhaps somewhere else that you negotiate a location. I don’t really know how to price this part, but I see used towers starting at around $2,000 and going way up from there. This is another area that you probably want to hire an expert.

Another option if you do not a place to put up your own antenna or perhaps you are located in a poor place to put one, is to rent space on existing towers. You may get lucky and find someone that will work with you because of how little power LPFM stations use. I’m hearing you can expect around $250-$500, but I’m sure there are many factors that can drastically affect those prices.

If you tower is remote or even distant from your broadcast building, you may need to build a shed or shelter for your equipment near the tower. You will also need a rack to mount your equipment. You will likely need some sort of ventilation or even climate control. Electronics produce heat and too much heat is not good for electronics.

If your tower is offsite then you will probably also need equipment to transmit your signal from your studio to your transmitter. This can be done with internet or wireless connections.

You are required to have an Emergency Alert System that will broadcast weather alerts and such. These can cost around $3,000.

All told, you are probably looking at $15,000-$20,000 minimum to get on the air… and we haven’t even got into the studio yet!

Studio Costs

The cost of setting up a broadcast studio can vary greatly. You can get on the air for maybe $2,000 and you can also spend $100,000 easy for top of the line, brand new equipment.

Are you renting a space? That’s an expense.

Have electricity? That’s an expense.

Need internet? That’s an expense.

Furniture? You could use folding chairs and tables or you could hire master craftsmen to custom build everything.

You will need an audio console. This is the backbone of your broadcast as all audio is processed through it. I priced some recommended models at $700 to $3,500, but they keep going way up from there. Most depends on how many inputs you need (fewer = cheaper) and how many “bells and whistles” you want.

You will need microphones. You could spend $10 on one (please don’t) or you can literally spend $1,000’s on one. Two models that are affordable and have a good reputation are the Shure SM57 and SM58. These retail for $99.

If you have mics you need mic stands or booms. You can spend $20 or $400 on these.

You need headphones to wear while on the air. You can get by with $5 ones are you can spend $1,000’s. There are plenty of good options around $100.

You will need playback devices like CD players, cassette decks, and turntables (depending on how old school you want to go).

Think of all the miscellaneous cords and adapters too!

How about a website? Domain and hosting are going to run at least $150 a year.

The good thing for a church LPFM station is that you probably already have space and some equipment (you have a PA system, after all). One thing to consider is the studio space really needs to be dedicated space. You need to be able to protect the equipment and also be able to broadcast without interruptions and unnecessary background noise.

Music Licenses

Are you going to play copyrighted music? Then you need licenses.

To play music on air, you need licenses from:

If you also stream your station online, there are additional licenses from the three entities above. There is also one more that is specific to streaming:

There is also a form with $50 fee that also needs to be submitted to the US Copyright office to use copyrighted recordings online. This is a one-time filing.

But just because you have these licenses does not mean you are free to play whatever whenever. There are some stipulations that come with them. You also need to track the copyrighted music you play online and submit reports.

So, just to be legal you are going to spend at least $1,000 a year for licensing, over $2,000 if you stream online. If you do not take the steps to be legal you can be fined, sued, and lose your license.

Manpower

Most LPFM stations seem to rely on volunteers to keep live programming on the air. For a church, it can be an investment to have staff man the station.

You can automate much of what goes out on the airwaves, so you do not have to have someone 24/7. The problem with this is that it does not create a reason for anyone to listen. Apps like Pandora, Stitcher, or Spotify, can do the same thing… and probably better! Listeners connect to the personalities over the air even more than they do music.

I’d suggest taking a look at other LPFM stations of all types and see how they manage their on air talent. You can likely find a model that works for you.

Funding a LPFM Station

LPFM stations must be owned by non-profit organizations. They are not commercial stations and there are strict rules to prevent them from becoming those. There are some interesting restrictions and requirements that you need to be aware of. Here’s the first one:

You cannot have advertising on an LPFM station. Period. You cannot sell or run ads. Since this is the primary source of income for commercial stations, you can already tell that funding a LPFM station is going to be difficult. Of course when you factor in the limited range they have there may not be many advertisers interested.

What you can do is receive contributions and and acknowledge them on air, a process called underwriting. This gets very technical. You can acknowledge that a business supports your station, but you cannot promote their business with a call to action (“…go visit them at….”) or promote their sales (“…everything is half off today…”). Confusing? Yes, yes it is. The FCC provides some guidelines but it can be pretty tricky.

Of course you can always just accept donations because you are a non-profit. Or if you are a church you can just fund it as a ministry. Or sell t-shirts and “merch”. Or you can get creative (but stay legal!).

LPFM Journey – Part I

Matthew Gage

This is Part I in a series of posts that I will document my church’s journey in starting a LPFM radio station. Read Part II here. Read Part III here. Read Part IV here.

Image by Benjamin Hartwich from Pixabay

On a Wednesday in October, 2023, I got a phone call from an old friend (at this point in time I am going to keep some details vague) that runs a Gospel radio station in another state. He was calling preachers and pastors to let them know about an upcoming window of opportunity to start local radio stations for their churches. He gave me the contact information of a group that was looking to help start Christian radio stations in rural areas. That night, I talked to our church about the opportunity and our leadership team decided to explore it.

That’s how the journey began. Here we are two months later stepping out into the unknown. If you will indulge my geekness, I think Tolkien’s Bilbo Baggins summed up where we are at very nicely: “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to.”

One of my passions is sharing information that I put together, especially when I find an area or topic that I cannot find good information on. That is the impetus behind this website. I want to do the same with what I am learning in our LPFM journey.

LPFM Radio

Lower Power FM (LPFM) is a form of low power broadcasting that is in use across the world. Different countries have different rules and regulations governing it.

In the U.S., the FCC governs LPFM stations and the major restrictions on it are:

Because of the technical restrictions, LPFM stations have a very limited broadcast range. The FCC estimates the approximate service range to be about a 3.5 mile radius. Many factors like terrain and interference from other stations can affect this. A station in a rural community with lots of flat farmland will have a much better coverage area than one in the middle of a metropolitan area. The term I often see associated with LPFM is “hyper-local”.

Much of the history of LPFM radio in the U.S. stems from pirate radio stations and free speech activists. Commercial broadcasters have mostly sought to control the airwaves through influencing Congress and the FCC. Since 2000, a series of legislative acts has carved out and created space for LPFM stations.

LPFM Licensing in the U.S.

The FCC only accepts applications for LPFM stations during rare windows. The most recent was from December 6-13, 2023. This is only the third window to open. The previous were in 2000-2001 and in 2013. If the timing remains consistent, there may not be another chance to apply until the 2030’s.

There are a LOT of very important details and requirements to an application. As a newcomer to radio, I do not see how anyone can do this without outside help (legal, engineering, etc.). There are numerous organizations and companies that can assist or manage the process.

The initial application is a Construction Permit. You provide information on your organization and the proposed transmitter location and specifications. Some notes on applications and requirements:

  • You need to be incorporated as a non-profit.
  • Outside of rare situations, you are only allowed ONE application per filing window.
  • 75% of your board of directors must live near your station location (either 10 or 20 miles, depending on if you are in top-50 Nielsen radio market)
  • 80% of your board of directors must be U.S. citizens.
  • Board members cannot have ownership interest in other broadcast licenses.
  • Board members cannot have been or be engaged in pirate radio broadcasts.

In your application you specify which frequency you are applying for. Just because there seems to be an open spot on your radio dial without a station does not mean it is available. There is a great emphasis on preventing interference between stations, the larger commercial stations have the priority. There are some search tools to help identify potential frequencies, including the FCC’s Low Power FM (LPFM) Channel Finder.

One fun aspect of applying is that you do not know who else is applying. It is actually recommended that you keep your application quiet until after the window closes so someone else doesn’t file a competing application. After the filing window closes all the application information is made available to the public. If more than one application is put in for the same frequency within the same broadcast range then a couple of things can happen. First, applications can compete head-to-head with a point system with one coming out as the victor. Second, a time share agreement can be reached where two entities share access to the frequency.

Next Steps After FCC Application

Wait.

Wait some more.

It evidently can take months or years to get your application approved by the FCC if things do not go smoothly.

Here is my best understanding of the step of the process from submitting your initial application to being granted your Broadcast Station License

  • The first action the FCC will take is to move your application status from “Pending” to “Accepted For Filing”.
  • Posting required public notices of your application (this is rarely mentioned) online and in the newspaper.
  • A 30-day window begins where people can file a Petition to Deny (PTD). Properly formatted and submitted PTDs will be evaluated by the FCC.
  • If all goes well, you are approved for you Construction Permit. This can take months to happen, but when you get it you have three years to get your station on air.
  • Choosing a call sign. You can search for available ones on the FCC site.
  • Construct your broadcast tower. You can also lease space on existing towers, but whatever you do cannot deviate from your Construction Permit.
  • Install your transmitter and antenna.
  • Install your Emergency Alert System.
  • Test your broadcast.
  • Start broadcasting.
  • File Form 319 to receive your Broadcast Station License.

LPFM Stations by the Numbers

Here’s some numbers I am compiling from LPFMDatabase.com and RECNet.com to give an idea of the scope of LPFM radio in the U.S.:

  • LPFM licenses granted in the 2000-2001 window – 1319
  • LPFM licenses granted in the 2013 window – 1978
  • LPFM stations currently licensed (1-2-24) – 1956
  • LPFM stations currently on the air (1-2-24) – 1928
  • LPFM applications from the 2023 window (not all will be granted, of course) – 1,366

There are around 970 LPFM stations (at least in 2022) operating that are owned by faith-based organizations. So just less than half of existing stations are faith-based. There are 441 applicants in the 2023 window that are faith-based, making them 1/3 of the applications filed.

I want to do some research into these religious LPFM stations. Hopefully I’ll be able to share some information on that in the future.

LPFM and the Gospel

While LPFM radio was nowhere on my radar a few months ago, the more I look into it the more I am convinced there a wonderful opportunities for the work of the Gospel. Some thoughts I have had:

  • You can have a local, 24/7 Gospel witness in your community.
  • You basically have a 24/7 billboard being broadcast for your church or organization.
  • Many opportunities are available for community involvement.
  • In many parts of the nation, you have the opportunity to be THE local radio station.

Depending on the situation, you may not even have to do much broadcasting live. There are are networks that you can rebroadcast, such as VCY and Christian Family Radio.

I’ll share some more of the vision and ideas that I am crafting in the future.

Helpful Links

Want to know more? Here are a few good places to start.

Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 When He Became King?

Matthew Gage

“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.” – II Kings 8:26

“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.” – II Chronicles 22:2

Source Link

First, it must be stated that this is not a KJV issue, it is a Hebrew text issue.  The Hebrew Masoretic text in II Kings 8:26 says twenty-two years and in II Chronicles 22:2 says forty-two years. To deny the forty-two years in I Chronicles is to deny the text and imagine a mistake was made.

There are other ancient translations that appear to have “corrected” the 42 to 22, including the Septuagint.  I do not think this is evidence for an error, but rather that many before were like the critics of today and sought to “correct” perceived errors. 

Second, it is frankly improbable that this is a copyist’s mistake.  Below is an illustration of the mistake that is imagined having been made by a uncareful scribe. [1]  The top word is “twenty” and the bottom is “forty”.  This would not have been a simple mistake, like making an “O” a “Q”.

Third, there are many misrepresentations of the facts by those who claim there is a copyist mistake here.  For instance, it is often stated that these numbers are reckoned using numerical letter values.  Thus כ (kaf ­= 20) and  מ (mem = 40) are mistaken for each other.  But the text is not using this system and instead spells out the words as seen above.

Another instance is an insistence that Ahaziah’s father Jehoram died at the age of 40, those making it impossible for Ahaziah to ascend the throne at age 42.  However, the text never explicitly states how old Jehoram was when he died.  It states that Jehoram was 32 when began to reign and reigned for 8 years “in Jerusalem” (II Kings 8:17, II Chronicles 21:5&20).  It is therefore assumed that those 8 years begin when he is 32, but that does not have to be the case if there was a coregency between Jehoram and Jehoshaphat before an 8-year solo rule.

Fourth, while I cannot find one conclusive solution to this conundrum, there are multiple theories that are quite plausible.

Matthew Poole notes two possible solutions based on the idiomatic language found in II Chronicles 22:2, these being either the 42 years as the age of Ahaziah’s mother Athaliah or the age of Omri’s dynasty:

“In the Hebrew it is, a son of forty-two years, &c., which is an ambiguous phrase; and though it doth for the most part, yet it doth not always, signify the age of the person, as is manifest from 1 Samuel 13:1, See Poole ‘1 Samuel 13:1’. And therefore it is not necessary that this should note his age (as it is generally presumed to do, and that is the only ground of the difficulty); but it may note either,
“1. The age of his mother Athaliah; who being so great, and infamous, and mischievous a person to the kingdom and royal family of Judah, it is not strange if her age be here described, especially seeing she herself did for a season sway this sceptre. Or rather,
“2. Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri, who reigned six years, 1 Kings 16:23; Ahab his son reigned twenty-two years, 1 Kings 16:29; Ahaziah his son two years, 1 Kings 22:51; Joram his son twelve years, 2 Kings 3:1; all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram’s twelfth year, 2 Kings 8:25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king’s person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, 2 Chronicles 16:1, See Poole ‘2 Chronicles 16:1’. And so we have an account of the person’s age in 2 Kings 8:26, and here of the kingdom to which he belonged.”[2]

The Trinitarian Bible Society has published a solution involving coregencies:

“Again, a number of scholars attribute the apparent discrepancy to a copyist’s error. We are unwilling to do this, particularly as this discrepancy can be reconciled. The Hebrew Masoretic Text has ‘forty-two’ in 2 Chronicles 22.2; and while only the original manuscript was ‘inspired’, God has, in His special providence, preserved the Holy Scriptures so that we do now possess faithful and authoritative copies.
“We must admit, of course, that there is a problem in reconciling these two Scriptures. In 2 Kings 8.17, we are told that Jehoram (Ahaziah’s father) was thirty-two when he became king, and that he died eight years later, apparently at the age of forty. Now if Jehoram was eighteen years old when he became a father, this would mean that Ahaziah would have been twenty-two years old when he succeeded his father on the throne of Judah. And that is what the inspired historian says in 2 Kings 8.26. But 2 Chronicles 22.2 states that Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king. If Jehoram died at forty and Ahaziah became king at forty-two, then Ahaziah appears to have been two years older than his father!
“There have been various explanations, but we will confine ourselves to just one of these. According to 2 Kings 8.17, Jehoram (the father) was thirty-two when he began to reign. This appears to have been as co-regent with Jehoshaphat, for note the wording of 8.16, ‘Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign’. If Jehoram, at thirty-two, was co-regent with Jehoshaphat for twenty years, and then sole monarch for another eight years – and Scripture says that ‘he reigned eight years in Jerusalem’ (8.17) – this would mean that he died at the age of sixty (and not forty).
“Now this brings us to Ahaziah. Let us suppose that he was admitted to co-regency when he was twenty-two years old (as in 2 Kings 8.26) and that he continued in his office as co-regent for twenty years, he would then have begun to reign alone in his father’s sixtieth year, when he himself was forty-two years old – exactly as we have it stated in 2 Chronicles 22.2.
“Co-regency was a common practice in Israel ever since the time of David, who used it to ensure the succession of Solomon (1 Kings 1.29ff). If we take it into account here, we are able satisfactorily to harmonize 2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2.
“The explanation given above upholds the Masoretic Text and is perfectly reasonable. The believer in verbal inspiration always takes the position of faith: that is, he always tries to find an answer to a problem posed by the text of Holy Scripture. The believer does not immediately – or indeed after study – jump to the conclusion that there is an error in the text. Instead, he believes there is an answer to all these problems, even if he does not know the answer at that particular time. ‘The scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10.35).”[3]

There is another, to me, less plausible theory that Ahaziah was not the actual son of Jehoram, but his stepson.  This theory involves Athaliah being the daughter of Omri and not Ahab, and that Ahaziah was born to another husband before her marriage to Jehoram.  This would account for the idea that he is older than his father, if Jehoram did indeed die at 40 and Ahaziah became king at 42.  I do not think this is the best interpretation of all the Scriptural evidence.

Fifth, there are deep and convoluted ties between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms at this time that may not be possible to completely unravel.  Evidence for this includes:

  • In II Chronicles 18:1, it is noted that Jehoshaphat (Judah) enters an “affinity” with Ahab (Israel).  This involves a marriage between Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram and Ahab’s daughter Athaliah.  This does not unite the kingdoms, but it does intertwine the ruling houses.
  • In II Chronicles 20:35, Jehoshaphat is said to “join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel” (Ahab’s son).  The nature of this arrangement is not clear except for a trading venture at Ezeiongeber.
  • In II Chronicles 21:2, Jehoshaphat is said to be “king of Israel”.  This is often taken as another “copyist’s error” but could use Israel generically for the Jewish people[4] or could be used literally of the Northern Kingdom. That latter option could reflect the alliance between the kingdoms.
  • In II Kings 8:27, Ahaziah is said to be the “the son in law of the house of Ahab”.  Poole comments: “He was the proper son of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and the grandson-in-law of Ahab, because his father was Ahab’s son-in-law”.[5]  Most do not believe that he married someone of Ahab’s house, but that his relation was the son of his son-in-law.  The one wife we are aware of is Zibiah (II Chronicles 24:1) but it is possible there could be more, perhaps even a daughter of Ahab.
  • In I Kings 22:6, a “king’s son” named Joash is mentioned that some a few[6] is the same as Joash, king of Judah.  The chronology does not seem to support this and most commentators state this is a different Joash.[7]  This is a possible link, but I very doubtful.

These deep ties could make chronology difficult if, for instance, a prince was raised over a different kingdom for a time until they became king of another kingdom.

MY THEORY

I believe that both of Ahaziah’s ages are correct but refer to different occasions of becoming a prince or king.  He became a prince or co-ruler at 22 and then sole king at 42.

This theory depends on coregencies going back to at least into the reigns of Asa or Jehoshaphat.  Let us look at the evidence from the reigns of the kings of Judah dating back to Rehoboam.  Note the ages of when the heirs became king and lengths of their reigns.

  • Rehoboam was 41 years old when he became king and reigned 17 years (I Kings 14:21, II Chronicles 12:13).
  • Abijah/Abijam was 34 years old[8] when he became king and reigned 3 years (I Kings 15:1-2, II Chronicles 13:1-2).
  • Asa was 18 years old[9] when he became king and reigned 41 years (I Kings 15:9-11, II Chronicles 16:13-14)
  • Jehoshaphat was 35 years old[10] when he became king and reigned 25 years (I Kings 22:41-42, II Chronicles 20:21)
  • Jehoram was 32 years old[11] when he became king and reigned eight years (I Kings 22:17,20; II Chronicles 21:5).
    • There is definitely a coregency between Jehoshaphat and Jehoram (II Kings 8:16).  Reese says this is for 5 years on top of the 8 years, making 13 years total.

The coregency of Jehoram is key.  It is unclear if the 8-year reign includes the coregency or not.  This falls into the vagaries of chronological studies.  I have found differing opinions on the matter. My theory is that it does not and those 8 years are the length of his reign as king.

So, is there a gap between Jehoram becoming coregent with his father and his solo reign of eight years?  I believe there is.  Gill quotes Lightfoot saying that there are possibly three ways to calculate the beginning of his reign:

“…according to Dr. Lightfoot, there were three beginnings of his reign; ‘first’, when his father went with Ahab to Ramothgilead, when he was left viceroy, and afterwards his father reassumed the kingdom; the ‘second’ time was, when Jehoshaphat went with the kings of Israel and Edom against Moab; and this is the time here respected, which was in the fifth of Joram king of Israel; and the ‘third’ time was, at the death of his father; but knew his father was living.”[12]

Interestingly, according to Reese’s chronology, this is roughly the same time (~898 B.C.) the Ahab entering a coregency with his son Ahaziah.[13]  This all seems to involve the combined campaign of Jehoshaphat and Ahab against Syria.  There is a likelihood that these coregencies were safeguards in case the coming military campaign went bad.

The ages of Jehoshphat and Jehoram at the beginnings of their reigns suggest that that their presumptive heirs were born around the time of their ascensions. Then when the heirs were of a respectable age, they were given some authority, perhaps as a secondary ruler or even coruler.  Such a thing is not unknown in history.  Diocletian would do something similar with the Roman Empire with the establishment of the Tetrarchy in the late third century.

If these assumptions are true, then it is likely that Jehoram is older than Reese’s calculations.  He would have been born when Jehoshaphat was perhaps 18-20 years old.  He would have been given some authority or title (up to coregency) when he was also around 18-20 years old.  This shows he could very well have been elevated to a prince or coregent for most around 20 years of Jehoshaphat’s reign before being the primary ruler for eight years.  This scenario allows Jehoram to have a son very early in his father’s reign.  This son, Ahaziah, would then follow a similar track, being elevated in his late teens (or perhaps even as an infant or child) to be a prince or coregent.  This could feasibly even date back into his grandfather’s reign.

So, it is both possible that Ahaziah became a ruler (prince/coregent) at the age of 22 but the primary ruler (king) at 42.  He had twenty years of ruling experience of some lesser type before his ascension to the throne.

Why then does II Chronicles, written after the Babylonian Captivity, give a different age?  There are numerous examples where Chronicles has a different approach to numbers than Samuel/Kings.  It is commonly theorized that Chronicles was written with access to different sources of information than Samuel/Kings, perhaps even different official records.  I think there is also a perspective shift on how some things were calculated that comes from Babylonian and Persian influences.  In many cases, I believe the changes where Chronicles varies information in Samuel/Kings are to clarify something that now was confusing with this perspective shift in place.

The answer to why the writer of Chronicles chose to record the age differently is because of the Ahaziah’s ties to the Northern Kingdom and the house of Omri and Ahab.  Chronicles focuses on the Southern Kingdom, not the Northern.  Ahaziah is technically a prince of both Kingdoms. Note his genealogy:

Therefore, in Ahaziah we find an opportunity for the Kingdoms to be united again.  The problem with this would be that idolatrous influence of the counterfeit religion of Jeroboam and the corrupted religion of Jezebel that seems to have had a great influence on Ahaziah.  It is noted that Ahaziah “walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.” (II Chronicles 22:3).  God intervenes and ends these evil influences with Jehu’s rise in the Northern Kingdom, followed by the execution of Athaliah and the ascension of Joash in the Southern Kingdom.  It likely speaks to the wickedness of Ahaziah that he is cut down by Jehu in his purge of Ahab’s house.

On this it is worth noting how Matthew’s genealogy of Christ handles this series of kings: “And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias [a.k.a., Uzziah or Azariah];” (Matthew 1:8).  Matthew skips Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.  Gill comments: “either because of the curse denounced on Ahab’s family, into which Joram married, whose idolatry was punished to the third or fourth generation; or because these were princes of no good character; or because their names were not in the Jewish registers.”[14]  It is plausible to assume that the writer of Chronicles and Matthew have a similar approach to approaching the influence of Ahab, that is, ignoring it.

To summarize my theory:  Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became a prince/coregent, possibly with connections to the Northern Kingdom.  Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king of Judah.  The writer of II Kings chose to include the time as prince/coregent, and the writer of II Chronicles did not.

In my opinion, the burden of proof should lie on those that claim there is an error in the text.  They can prove others believed there was an error and that attempts were made to correct this perceived error, but not that there is an actual error.  It is merely theorized that there is an error in the text to account for something that does not seem to make sense.  The danger here is that because something does not make sense to someone, it is assumed that it is because there is an error.  This makes man the final arbiter between what is God-breathed Scripture and what is not.  To casually dismiss something as an error when there are multiple plausible scenarios for it to be correct is careless as best.

[1] Made with screenshots from E-sword module “Hebrew Old Testament (Tanach) w/ Strong’s Numbers”.

[2] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/2_chronicles/22.htm – accessed 10-13-23

[3] “Brief notes on 2 Samuel 15.7, 2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2” by the Rev. M. H. Watts from the Trinitarian Bible Society’s April-June 2004 Quarterly Record. Found at: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/156A9AA2-2086-4C4E-BE0A-08A4508415DA/Brief-Notes-2-Samuel-2-Kings-2-Chronicles.pdf – accessed 10-13-23

[4] So says Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on this passage.

[5] Matthew Poole’s Commentary, E-Sword module.

[6] Ruckman, for example.

[7] Reese, Gill, and Barnes are examples.

[8] Reese estimates that Rehoboam was 24 at his son’s birth.

[9] Reese estimate that Abijam was 19 at his son’s birth.

[10] Reese estimates that Asa was 24 at his son’s birth.

[11] Reese estimates that Jehoshaphat was 25 at his son’s birth.

[12] Gill’s Commentary on II Kings 8:16 – E-sword module.

[13] Reese’s Chronological Study Bible, p. 624.

[14] Gill’s Commentary, E-Sword Module