Category: History

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.

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.

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

A Sermon by Vincent van Gogh

Matthew Gage
“The Sower” (1888) by Vincent van Gogh

I hope in the future to put together some information on Vincent van Gogh and his Christian experience. So many books downplay any of this religious experiences or undertakings as expressions of his insanity, but it is clear so many of those authors have little or no understanding of Christianity themselves. I was surprised to learn while listening to the audio book of Van Gogh: The Life by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith about Vincent’s experience with Evangelical Christianity in the late 1870’s. I recently purchased and read At Eternity’s Gate: The Spiritual Vision of Vincent van Gogh by Kathleen Powers Erickson which shows the profound and lasting impact of Vincent’s faith throughout his life.

While reading At Eternity’s Gate, I was amazed to learn that Vincent included a copy of a sermon he delivered in English as part of a letter to his brother Theo. The letter is available online thanks to the Van Gogh Museum‘s VanGoghLetters.org. It was sent to Theo van Gogh and dated November 3, 1876 and can be read in full here.

Vincent’s Sermon (1876)

Psalm 119:19 I am a stranger in the earth, hide not Thy commandments from me.

It is an old faith and it is a good faith that our life is a pilgrims progress ─ that we are strangers in the earth, but that though this be so, yet we are not alone for our Father is with us. We are pilgrims, our life is a long walk, a journey from earth to heaven.─

The beginning of this life is this. There is one who remembereth no more Her sorrow and Her anguish for joy that a man is born into the world. She is our Mother. The end of our pilgrimage is the entering in Our Fathers house where are many mansions, where He has gone before us to prepare a place for us.─ The end of this life is what we call death ─ it is an hour in which words are spoken, things are seen and felt that are kept in the secret chambers of the hearts of those who stand by, ─ it is so that all of us have such things in our hearts or forebodings of such things.─ There is sorrow in the hour when a man is born into the world, but also joy ─ deep and unspeakable ─ thankfulness so great that it reacheth the highest Heavens. Yes the Angels of God, they smile, they hope and they rejoice when a man is born in the world.─ There is sorrow in the hour of death ─ but there too is joy unspeakable when it is the hour of death of one who has fought a good fight. There is One who has said, I am the resurrection and the life, if any man believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.─ There was an Apostle who heard a voice from heaven, saying: Blessed are they that die in the Lord for they rest from their labour and their works follow them. There is joy when a man is born in the world but there is greater joy when a Spirit has passed through great tribulation, when an Angel is born in Heaven. Sorrow is better than joy ─ and even in mirth the heart is sad ─ and it is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasts, for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. Our nature is sorrowful but for those who have learnt and are learning to look at Jesus Christ there is always reason to rejoice.─ It is a good word, that of St Paul: As being sorrowful yet always rejoicing. For those who believe in Jesus Christ there is no death and no sorrow that is not mixed with hope ─ no despair ─ there is only a constantly being born again, a constantly going from darkness into light.─ They do not mourn as those who have no hope ─ Christian Faith makes life to evergreen life.

We are pilgrims in the earth and strangers ─ we come from afar and we are going far.─ The journey of our life goes from the loving breast of our Mother on earth to the arms of our Father in heaven. Everything on earth changes ─ we have no abiding city here ─ it is the experience of everybody: That it is Gods will that we should part with what we dearest have on earth ─ we ourselves, we change in many respects, we are not what we once were, we shall not remain what we are now.─ From infancy we grow up to boys and girls ─ young men and young women ─ and if God spares us and helps us ─ to husbands and wives, Fathers and Mothers in our turn, and then, slowly but surely the face that once had the “early dew of morning” gets its wrinkles, the eyes that once beamed with youth and gladness speak of a sincere deep and earnest sadness ─ though they may keep the fire of Faith, Hope and Charity ─ though they may beam with Gods spirit. The hair turns grey or we loose it ─ ah ─ indeed we only pass through the earth, we only pass through life ─ we are strangers and pilgrims in the earth. The world passes and all its glory.─ Let our later days be nearer to Thee and therefore better than these.─ 

Yet we may not live on just anyhow ─ no, we have a strife to strive and a fight to fight. What is it we must do: We must love God with all our strength, with all our might, with all our heart, with all our soul, we must love our neighbour as ourselves. These two commandments we must keep and if we follow after these, if we are devoted to this, we are not alone for our Father in Heaven is with us, helps us and guides us, gives us strength day by day, hour by hour. and so we can do all things through Christ who gives us might. We are strangers in the earth, hide not Thy commandments from us. Open Thou our eyes, that we may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. Teach us to do Thy will and influence our hearts that the love of Christ may constrain us and that we may be brought to do what we must do to be saved.

On the road from earth to Heaven
Do Thou guide us with Thine eye.

We are weak but Thou art mighty
Hold us with Thy powerful hand.

Our life, we might compare it to a journey, we go from the place where we were born to a far off haven. Our earlier life might be compared to sailing on a river, but very soon the waves become higher, the wind more violent, we are at sea almost before we are aware of it ─ and the prayer from the heart ariseth to God: Protect me o God, for my bark is so small and Thy sea is so great.─ The heart of man is very much like the sea, it has its storms, it has its tides and in its depths it has its pearls too. The heart that seeks for God and for a Godly life has more storms than any other. Let us see how the Psalmist describes a storm at sea, He must have felt the storm in his heart to describe it so. We read in the 107th Psalm, They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep. For He commandeth and raiseth up a stormy wind which lifteth up the waves thereof.─ They mount up to Heaven, they go down again to the depth, their soul melteth in them because of their trouble. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble and He bringeth them out of their distresses, He bringeth them unto their desired haven.─

Do we not feel this sometimes on the sea of our lives. Does not everyone of you feel with me the storms of life or their forebodings or their recollections?

And now let us read a description of another storm at sea in the New Testament, as we find it in the VIth Chapter of the Gospel according to St John in the 17th to the 21st verse. And the disciples entered into a ship and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.─ So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea and drawing nigh unto the ship and they were afraid.─ Then they willingly received Him into the ship and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went. You who have experienced the great storms of life, you over whom all the waves and all the billows of the Lord have gone ─ have you not heard, when your heart failed for fear, the beloved well known voice ─ with something in its tone that reminded you of the voices that charmed your childhood ─ the voice of Him whose name is Saviour and Prince of peace, saying as it were to you personally ─ mind to you personally “It is I, be not afraid”. Fear not.─ Let not your heart be troubled. And we whose lives have been calm up to now, calm in comparison of what others have felt ─ let us not fear the storms of life, amidst the high waves of the sea and under the grey clouds of the sky we shall see Him approaching for Whom we have so often longed and watched, Him we need so ─ and we shall hear His voice, It is I, be not afraid.─ And if after an hour or season of anguish or distress or great difficulty or pain or sorrow we hear Him ask us “Dost Thou love me” then let us say, Lord Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee. And let us keep that heart full of the love of Christ and may from thence issue a life which the love of Christ constraineth.─ Lord Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee, when we look back on our past we feel sometimes as if we did love Thee, for whatsoever we have loved, we loved in Thy name. Have we not often felt as a widow and an orphan ─ in joy and prosperity as well, and more even than under grief ─ because of the thought of Thee.─

Truly our soul waiteth for Thee more than they that watch for the morning ─ our eyes are up unto Thee, o Thou who dwellest in Heavens.─ In our days too there can be such a thing as seeking the Lord.─

What is it we ask of God ─ is it a great thing? Yes it is a great thing, peace for the ground of our heart, rest for our soul ─ give us that one thing and then we want not much more, then we can do without many things, then can we suffer great things for Thy names sake.─ We want to know that we are Thine and that Thou art ours, we want to be thine ─ to be Christians.─ We want a Father, a Fathers love and a Fathers approval. May the experience of life make our eye single and fix it on Thee. May we grow better as we go on in life.

We have spoken of the storms on the journey of life, but now let us speak of the calms and joys of Christian life.─ And yet, my dear friends, let us rather cling to the seasons of difficulty and work and sorrow, even for the calms are treacherous often.

The heart has its storms, has its seasons of drooping but also its calms and even its times of exaltation.─ There is a time of sighing and of praying but there is also a time of answer to prayer. Weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.

The heart that is fainting
May grow full to o’erflowing
And they that behold it
Shall wonder and know not
That God at its fountains
Far off has been raining.

My peace I leave with you ─ we saw how there is peace even in the storm. Thanks be to God who has given us to be born and to live in a Christian country. Has any of us forgotten the golden hours of our early days at home, and since we left that home ─ for many of us have had to leave that home and to earn their living and to make their way in the world.─ Has He not brought us thus far, have we lacked anything. We believe Lord, help Thou our unbelief. I still feel the rapture, the thrill of joy I felt when for the first time I cast a deep look in the lives of my Parents, when I felt by instinct how much they were Christians. And I still feel that feeling of eternal youth and enthusiasm wherewith I went to God, saying “I will be a Christian too”.─

Are we what we dreamt we should be? No ─ but still ─ the sorrows of life, the multitude of things of daily life and of daily duties, so much more numerous than we expected ─ the tossing to and fro in the world, they have covered it over ─ but it is not dead, it sleepeth.─ The old eternal faith and love of Christ, it may sleep in us but it is not dead and God can revive it in us. But though to be born again to eternal life, to the life of Faith, Hope and Charity ─ and to an evergreen life ─ to the life of a Christian and of a Christian workman be a gift of God, a work of God ─ and of God alone ─ yet let us put the hand to the plough on the field of our heart, let us cast out our net once more ─ let us try once more ─ God knows the intention of the spirit, God knows us better than we know ourselves for He made us and not we ourselves. He knows of what things we have need, He knows what is good for us. May He give His blessing on the seed of His word that has been sown in our hearts.

God helping us, we shall get through life.─ With every temptation He will give a way to escape.─

Father we pray Thee not that Thou shouldest take us out of the world but we pray Thee to keep us from evil. Give us neither poverty nor riches, feed us with bread convenient for us. And let Thy songs be our delight in the houses of our pilgrimage. God of our Fathers be our God: may their people be our people, their Faith our faith.─ We are strangers in the earth, hide not Thy commandments from us but may the love of Christ constrain us. Entreat us not to leave Thee or to refrain from following after Thee. Thy people shall be our people, Thou shalt be our God.─

Our life is a pilgrims progress. I once saw a very beautiful picture, it was a landscape at evening. In the distance on the right hand side a row of hills appearing blue in the evening mist. Above those hills the splendour of the sunset, the grey clouds with their linings of silver and gold and purple. The landscape is a plain or heath covered with grass and heather, here and there the white stem of a birch tree and its yellow leaves, for it was in Autumn. Through the landscape a road leads to a high mountain far far away, on the top of that mountain a city whereon the setting sun casts a glory. On the road walks a pilgrim, staff in hand. He has been walking for a good long while already and he is very tired. And now he meets a woman, a figure in black that makes one think of St Pauls word “As being sorrowful yet always rejoicing”. That Angel of God has been placed there to encourage the pilgrims and to answer their questions:

And the pilgrim asks her: Does the road go uphill then all the way?

and the answer is “Yes to the very end”─

and he asks again: And will the journey take all day long?

and the answer is: “From morn till night my friend”.

And the pilgrim goes on sorrowful yet always rejoicing ─ sorrowful because it is so far off and the road so long.─ Hopeful as he looks up to the eternal city far away, resplendent in the evening glow, and he thinks of two old sayings he has heard long ago ─ the one is:

“There must much strife be striven
There must much suffering be suffered
There must much prayer be prayed
And then the end will be peace.”

and the other:

The water comes up to the lips
But higher comes it not.

And he says, I shall be more and more tired but also nearer and nearer to Thee. Has not man a strife on earth? But there is a consolation from God in this life. An angel of God, comforting men ─ that is the Angel of Charity. Let us not forget Her.─ And when everyone of us goes back to daily things and daily duties, let us not forget ─ that things are not what they seem, that God by the things of daily life teacheth us higher things, ─ that our life is a pilgrims progress and that we are strangers in the earth ─ but that we have a God and Father who preserveth strangers, ─ and that we are all bretheren.─

Amen.

And now the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, our Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us for evermore.

Amen.

(Reading Scripture Psalm XCI)

Tossed with rough winds and faint with fear,
Above the tempest soft and clear
What still small accents greet mine ear
“’t Is I, be not afraid.”

’t Is I, who washed thy spirit white;
’t Is I, who gave thy blind eyes sight,
’t Is I, thy Lord, thy life, thy light,
’t Is I, be not afraid.

These raging winds, this surging sea
Have spent their deadly force on me
They bear no breath of wrath to Thee
’t Is I, be not afraid.

This bitter cup, I drank it first
To Thee it is no draught accurst
The hand that gives it thee is pierced
“’t Is I, be not afraid.”

When on the other side thy feet,
Shall rest, mid thousand welcomes sweet;
One well known voice thy heart shall greet ─
’t Is I, be not afraid.

Mine eyes are watching by thy bed
Mine arms are underneath thy head
My blessing is around Thee shed
“’t Is I, be not afraid.”

Brass or Bronze?

Matthew Gage
Image by Thanasis Papazacharias from Pixabay

Compare Bible translations or references and you may notice a difference in how the Hebrew word nechosheth (Strong’s H5178) is treated. There are three possible translations that are asserted: copper, brass, or bronze. Which is accurate?

The KJV translates nechosheth as “brass” or “brazen” 131x. It can also be translated as other things, such as “fetters” or “chains” based on context. It has a very broad application. Strong’s defines it as “copper; hence, something made of that metal, that is, coin, a fetter; figuratively base (as compared with gold or silver): – brasen, brass, chain, copper, fetter (of brass), filthiness, steel”.

Is brass a proper and acceptable translation of nechosheth? Some claim it cannot be, by asserting:

  • “In ancient Israel there was no such metal known as brass.” [source]
  • “The word translated ‘brass’ in the King James Version would be more correctly translated bronze, since the alloy used was copper and tin (Ex 27:4).” [source]
  • “[Brass,] which is an alloy of copper and zinc, was not known till the thirteenth century. What is designated by this word in Scripture is properly copper (Deuteronomy 8:9).” [source]
  • “The word nechosheth is improperly translated by ‘brass.’ In most places of the Old Testament the correct translation would be copper, although it may sometimes possibly mean bronze a compound of copper and tin.” [source]

We may simplify these claims into two arguments: (1) the term brass is anachronistic and inaccurate, and (2) brass did not exist in the ancient world.

Is brass an inaccurate term?

In modern English, the word brass refers to a specific alloy of copper, but until the 1700’s is would be a more general term for any copper alloy.

The Online Etymological Dictionary states that brass was “originally any alloy of copper, in England usually with tin (this is now called bronze), later and in modern use an alloy of roughly two parts copper to one part zinc.” The same source also states: “In Middle English, the distinction between bronze (copper-tin alloy) and brass (copper-zinc alloy) was not clear, and both were called bras”.

So, etymologically and historically speaking, brass has been a much broader term to refer to any copper alloy. This changed in the 1700’s when advances in science made it easier to discern different elements and alloys, which also brought a need for more technical terminology. Wikipedia states of brass: “…its true nature as a copper-zinc alloy was not understood until the post-medieval period because the zinc vapor which reacted with copper to make brass was not recognised as a metal.” As part of this new knowledge of metals, the term bronze was first used around 1721 (see Online Etymological Dictionary and Merriam-Webster).

Therefore, we see that brass is historically as broad of a term as nechosheth. In the English of the KJV, it is the best and most accurate term.

But, with what we know today about the differences between brass and bronze, is brass still an accurate translation for today’s world? This can only be answered if we are absolutely sure that nechosheth refers exclusively to bronze and that brass is an impossibility.

Did brass exist in the ancient world?

It is clear that the alloy we today call brass was present in the ancient world. Conclusive evidence and scholarly opinion establish this fact. A few examples:

  • The Roman dupondius coin used in the early Roman Empire was often struck in a type of brass called orichalcum [source]
  • “Calamine brass” was being made in Asia Minor as far back as the 1st millennium B.C. [source]
  • “…numerous copper-zinc alloys (e.g. brass, gunmetal) that have been found in prehistoric contexts from the Aegean to India in the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC.” [source]
  • Brass artifacts have been discovered from 5th millennium B.C. in China [source]

Since (1) brass existed in the ancient world, (2) since nechosheth is vague at best about the precise alloy of the metal, we can therefore safely say it is plausible that the metals described could be actual brass.

Do we know what the metals were?

Since the term nechosheth, and even the Greek word chalkos (Strong’s G5475), are vague terms for copper or its alloys, we simply cannot say for certain the precise metal they are speaking of. The terminology is too vague and the ancient metallurgists themselves almost certainly did not have the sophisticated understanding of metal composition we have today.

It must be state that according to history and archeology that bronze was in far greater use than brass. It was far cheaper and easier to produce, and it would appear that ancient brass was considered to be more valuable. We might assume that because bronze was more common that it is more likely that bronze and not brass is being referred to. But this is purely supposition and we cannot rule out that at least some appearances of nechosheth could be referring to brass. We simply do not know since we cannot examine every object made of nechosheth.

Conclusion

The truest definition of nechosheth would need to be vague and inclusive, so “a copper alloy” is probably the best definition. In modern English, there just is not a simple, concise word to use that has that same meaning and “copper alloy” fails to be an workable translation. To try to force nechosheth to be simply bronze is inaccurate: an interpretation rather than a translation. We cannot honestly say what the metals used were by modern classification. It is like trying to take the English word snow and determine which of the dozens of terms of snow used by Eskimos it should be.

The word brass in its classic, KJV English definition is the best equivalent term to be found. It is the same broad term for any copper alloy that we see in nechosheth.

Book Review: A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship

Matthew Gage
Find it at Amazon

As I have been preparing to teach a course on church music in the near future, I have been assembling a small library of books old and new. Some are practical, some philosophical, some historical. When I found out about the recently published (December 2021) book A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship I was intrigued, and when Scott Aniol recommended it, I knew I had to buy it.

I will be clear in the start that I am no fan or supporter of either contemporary or praise & worship music in church worship. I do not even enjoy either privately. I don’t think I am the target audience of this book at all, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The reason I can enjoy this book along with those that do love these modern worship trends is because it is all dealt with fairly and at “face value”. The authors do a fantastic job of letting the people and events speak for themselves without providing commentary. It is honest, straightforward history, which is a rare thing in Christianity today. I personally could not write something like this, as I would want to point out along the way all of the fallacies and flaws I found in the movements.

The authors trace the origins of modern church music to two sources that they describe as “rivers”. The first is Praise & Worship (I am keeping the ampersand since they purposely use it), which traces back the Latter Rain movement, a controversial offshoot of Pentecostalism in the 1940’s that has been widely influential in more recent Charismatic movements. The second is Contemporary Worship which has many tributaries, like the Jesus People and the Church Growth movement, which all attempted to make religion more accessible or relatable to modern culture. By the late 1990’s these essentially merged into the approach used in so many churches today.

I would label the two sources as “Pentecostal” and “Pragmatic”. The first focuses on praising to the point God shows up and then intimately worshipping Him. It is founded primarily on a novel interpretation of Psalm 22:3 and some unfounded typological conclusions regarding the Tabernacle(s). It is based on human experience, emotion, and expression. The second focuses on relevance to the world outside the church. It is founded on a misconception that the church must continually adapt to culture and a rather extreme application of I Corinthians 9:22. It is based on comfort, camouflage, and compromise. (See why I just can’t be impartial?)

There is hardly a page in my copy that I did not underline a name or note some statement in the text or footnotes. There is truly a wealth of information here, most of which I believe would surprise or shock conservative Christians.

Well-written, well-researched, and well-received, this book is a great read for anyone interested in the origins of, not just the music, but of the landscape of modern American Christianity.

The Pseudo-Fundamentalism of Today’s Reformed Movement

Matthew Gage
Photo by Karl Fredrickson on Unsplash

As we look back over the centuries, we can discern movements and counter-movements in the history of Christianity. One that easily discernable today is the resurgence in America of Reformed theology and tradition. I believe this is largely a reaction to the theological drift of American Christianity toward liberalism, “wokeism”, and (dare I say it?) apostacy.

So many Christians today are seeking more from Christianity than what a modern seeker-focused megachurches are teaching. They want deeper theology and richness in their Christian walk. Just hop on any social media platform and see these modern day Puritans denounce men, movements, and messages they deem as heretical and unscriptural.

What are these people turning to? In turning from the modern they seek the ancient. In turning from the emotional they turn to the logical. In turning from the shallow they turn to the profound. They are turning more and more to the the tenets of Calvinism and Reformed theology.

The influence of Charles Spurgeon in this is tremendous. Spurgeon himself reacted to the theological drift of his day by embracing the past preachers and theologians. He promoted the writings of the Puritans like no one else.

I see a parallel to this modern Reformed movement in the Fundamentalism of the early 20th century. I am certain they will crucify me for even suggesting that if they ever read this. But at that time so many across a broad spectrum of denominations were rejecting modernism and liberalism while embracing the “old time religion”. Fundamentalism was and is a reactionary movement to the theological drift towards liberalism. It was a movement towards conservative theology and historical practice.

The same things are are driving the modern Reformed movement. They are embracing and promoting practices such as singing of traditional hymns (even resurrecting some long forgotten ones) and the use of the liturgical calendar. I like to joke that Fundamentalism wants to keep things like they were in the 1950’s, but the Reformed movement honestly tries to keep their faith and practice in the 1700’s if not the 1500’s.

The modern Reformed movement and historic Fundamentalism are born of the same desires, reacting to similar concerns of theological drift, embracing traditionalist forms of worship, and rejecting unorthodox teachings and practice. Both promote the basis of Sola Scriptura in defining faith and practice. Both embrace their heritage, some of which overlaps as in the case of Charles Spurgeon. Today both can be seen taking similar stands on issues such as the use church music or their stances on abortion. You can watch these new and upcoming Reformed leaders come to the same realizations that Fundamentalism did a century before.

While they are similar, there can still be quite a bit of difference depending on what group you are examining. I, for one, reject the liturgical calendar as an unnecessary and extra-Biblical tradition. I reject the practice of infant baptism as unscriptural though classic Reformed theology promotes it. I reject the entire Calvinist-Arminian scale for measuring theology as outdated, unnecessary, and impractical. I reject much of the ecclesiology (I find the Baptist positions more in line with Scripture) and eschatology. I would not define the doctrines of election, predestination, or atonement the same as any Reformed theologian though thankfully I believe we are in agreement in “salvation by grace through faith”.

As a side note, the one area that I am surprised that the modern Reformed movement has not taken is the promotion and use of an historic translation of the Bible such as the KJV or the Geneva Bible. They have no problem reading authors or singing songs that read more like Shakespeare than any modern literature. I find it odd that in so many ways they embrace the theology, writings, and songs from the past yet use a Bible that does not reflect the same traditions.

To conclude, I believe what we are seeing in American Christianity is another repeat of a reaction to theological drift. Just as the Fundamentalists took at stand in the early 20th century against liberalism we are seeing Reformed leaders take a stand against apostacy in the church. These two are not the same but the similarities are striking.

Book Review – “In the Name of God”

Matthew Gage
Amazon link

I heard months ago from Raymond Barber that O.S. Hawkins was writing a book on Norris and Truett. I was very excited to hear that since Hawkins had written an article about Norris and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. To hear someone within the SBC take a objective view on Norris’s ministry is quite rare.

In the Name of God: The Colliding Lives, Legends, and Legacies of J. Frank Norris and George W. Truett is published by B&H Academic. It is 213 pages long, with 152 of those being the text and the rest endnotes, bibliography, etc. List price is $29.99.

Before I begin my review, I want to acknowledge that this very website is cited as a source (see pages 64, 164, and 206) – which is so exciting for me! Having studied, collected, and written about Norris off and on for 15+ years there is a sense of vindication when you see your work cited in print. Even if it was just a reference to membership number at the First Baptist in Fort Worth which I had compiled from various sources and not something really original it still excites me. So much more so than the time this site was cited on Wikipedia. Anyway, I will note that the particular page that is referenced is not currently available. I did not put it back up after I switched over to WordPress. Guess I need to fix that.

In the annals of Southern Baptists, the name of Truett has been revered and the name of Norris reviled. Hawkins’s objective approach in this book is that there is a much more balanced view that needs to be taken of the two. The two men are so easily compared and contrasted – they ministered some 30 miles apart, their paths intersected often, they were both leading pulpiteers, they both led in building some of the earliest megachurches, and so on. This is not the first work on the subject, nor will it be the last.

Hawkins does spend far more space dealing with Norris than Truett. That is because the main thrust of this book, though many will argue and refuse to acknowledge it, is that Norris’s impact on the SBC today is greater than Truett’s. Chapter 5 – “The Influence of J. Frank Norris on Modern Southern Baptist Theology, Church Growth, Evangelism, and Practice” is the best in the book. The previous chapters are largely background for this analysis. The Baptist historian Leon McBeth had written that Norris “had no constructive part in Southern Baptist ministries in this century.” Hawkins takes him to task, even calling out that statement five times with clear examples of its error.

Hawkins is clear that the ministry and personality Norris are complex. He does not paint him as a hero nor a villain. He is objective and analytical in his approach. But he shows that Norris was right on many issues, which is difficult to find SBC writers to acknowledge. Norris’s tactics and combativeness have distracted many from seeing that in so many ways he was right.

Some points of controversy are finally addressed, such as whether Norris was valedictorian at Louisville and if Norris gave rotting fruit to SBTS staff. I will say that Hawkins does take the word of Norris and Entzminger with less skepticism than I would expect since they can embellish things a bit.

I will say that I find the writing to be uneven. Sometimes it sounds very much like a sermon with elaborate and unnecessary alliteration. A couple of sentences I honestly had to reread a few times because they felt incomplete. It is not academic or dry by any stretch. Overall an enjoyable read.

The book is well sourced (and I am not saying that because my website is referenced). However, I get the feeling that not everything in the lengthy bibliography was actually referenced in the making of this book. I cannot prove that statement, just a hunch. I compared it to my own Norris bibliography that I have been working on in an attempt to compile an exhaustive list of resources and especially Norris’s publications. Many of these books and pamphlets are extremely hard to find. It took me years to find copies of some of them. So many of them I have never been able to locate copies of and I simply have recorded their reported existence. Yet I find all but a handful listed in Hawkins’s bibliography regardless of their relevance to the subject. Perhaps he is, like me, merely acknowledging the existence of the works. I sincerely doubt he has actually referenced them all.

There are some finer points that he does get wrong. Speaking of Norris heading to Baylor University on p. 23, Hawkins writes: “No evidence exists to show how he acquired the resources for this journey and his initial college expenses…”. However, Ray Tatum (whom Hawkins references multiple times) wrote: “…Frank presented himself in the small office of the family doctor, W.A. Woods, and told him, with confidence, of his aspirations to attend Baylor University. He asked the doctor for a loan of one hundred dollars, and received ‘one hundred and fifty.'” (Conquest or Failure?, p. 42, with a citation from a 1945 article in The Fundamentalist)

Another example that Hawkins either missed or simplified is that impact of Louis Entzminger on Norris’s ministry. He credits Norris with influencing Arthur Flake’s Sunday School system (p. 111-113). It was not Norris that invented that system, but Louis Entzminger who arrived in Fort Worth in 1913 to build that Sunday School system. Entzminger is also the man who convinced Norris to adopt Premillennialism.

Some other things he is wrong on or curious:

  • Repeats the unfounded rumor that Norris killed his father-in-law (p. 27). The endnote highlights the suspicious nature of the accusation.
  • J.T. Pemberton’s name is misspelled as Pemperton repeatedly (p. 27 and so on).
  • Attributing “multisite campuses” to Norris (p. 110, 136). Norris had to be creative in finding places to meet or to hold the crowds but these were never satellites of his churches – they were the same church meeting in different places.
  • Saying that Norris “wrote” commentaries (p. 129). These were lectures he gave so writing may be a stretch.
How to spell Pemberton

I also would like to take issue with a couple of statements made about Norris’s legacy. On page 144: “In the end, much of what Norris stood for diminished. His network of churches was repeatedly divided across the decades and is virtually unnoticeable today.” [emphasis added]. Splintered, yes. Unnoticeable? Only to those who do not look. Strong SBC bias against Independent Baptists there.

Also I would like to take issue with the statement in the end notes on page 160: “The remnants of Norris’s seminary still exist today…” [emphasis added]. Remnants? That is a loaded word and surely a better one could have been used.

I suppose we can give Hawkins a pass on some of this. He is many things but a professional historian is not one.

Lest you think otherwise, I do really like this book. Hawkins’s approach and perspective is a welcome one.

I like what Hawkins brings out when he compares Norris and Truett. Norris was for “doctrinal fidelity” and Truett for “denominational loyalty”. Norris reveled in conflict, while Truett stayed aloof from it. Norris preached with passion and animation, Truett with precision and dignity.

There is little new ground covered in chapters 1 through 4. We have brief histories of Dallas and Fort Worth, biographies of Norris and Truett, and synopsis of their conflicts and interactions. You will readily find better and deeper resources for the material, except maybe the presentation of the information in chapter 4. Chapter 5 is, again, the best in the book and a welcome addition to catalog of Norris research available. That chapter could only be written in today’s time with the perspective gained over the decades.

I was very glad to see the relationship between Norris and B.H. Carroll emphasized. Too little study has been done on it.

I absolutely love this perspective on page 148: “The fact that the church [First Baptist of Fort Worth] did, indeed, fragment after his death proved to be a blessing to many sister churches as Bible-believing men and women dispersed to find their places in the local churches of their city, thereby multiplying the ministry and lasting influence of J. Frank Norris many times over.” So true. The fragmentation of the Norris empire did not weaken it, instead it multiplied it.

Final verdict: Despite my nitpicking, this is a worthy and welcome addition to anyone’s library with interest on the SBC or Norris. I think the list price of $29.99 is far too steep so maybe everyone should wait for used copies to become available.

Landmarkism: The Original Fundamental Baptists?

Matthew Gage

I have long argued that there is a connection between the Landmark Movement of the 1800’s and the the Independent Fundamental Baptist Movement of the 1900’s. Generally this is met with resistance, I think mainly because of ignorance of the subject or as an attempt to distance from some of Landmarkism’s positions. However, the more I have considered the idea, the more convinced I am that there is some link between the two.

The histories of both are so strikingly similar that a connection seems so evident yet few official ties have existed to my knowledge. Both created new separatist Baptists movements with emphases on foundational positions. Both impacted the larger Baptist world through their staunch defense of their beliefs.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

History of Landmarkism

Landmarkism began as a movement in the mid-1800’s mainly in the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s chief spokesman was J.R. Graves (1820-1893) and other key early figures include A.C. Dayton (1813-1865) and J.M. Pendleton (1811-1891). Ben Bogard (1868-1951) was its chief defender during his lifetime.

The catalysts that launched Landmarkism are unclear. For J.R. Graves, he said that he had witnessed as a young man a minister immerse, pour, and sprinkle various converts in a single meeting. For others it was a reaction to conflicts with other denominations, especially the newly emerged Church of Christ.

My understanding of Landmark history makes me believe that the conflict with the Church of Christ is the primary reason for the rise of Landmarkism. It is not that they held any new or revolutionary position. They were responding to an attack on their own identity as an upstart group emerged to claim to be the one true church with the only true doctrines. Conflicts and debates between Landmark Baptists and the Church of Christ (or “Campbellites” as Landmarkers liked to call them) were very common. I have read numerous accounts of those debates taking place here in Texas in the late 1800’s and even into the early 1900’s.

Landmark Teachings

In The Baptist Heritage, H. Leon McBeth lists these positions as illustrative of Landmarkism’s stance on the church:

  1. Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.
  2. The true church is a local, visible institution.
  3. The churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous.
  4. There must be no “pulpit affiliation” with non-Baptists.
  5. Only a church can do churchly acts.
  6. Baptist churches have always existed in every age by an unbroken historical succession.

As you can see, Landmarkism places much emphasis on the practice and position of the church. The extent of those positions has led many to dub them “Baptist Briders”, as their belief that only Baptist churches are the true churches and therefore only they must make up the Bride of Christ.

Relationship with Fundamentalism

Should you compare the six positions listed above to those of Fundamental Baptists, I think only #3 would not be the same generally. #1 may not be taught but is is definitely practiced, and in fact there are those that would question the validity of even a non-Fundamental Baptist church. #2, #4, #5, and #6 are definitely taught and promoted.

There are two major differences that I see. One is that Landmark Baptists can have a more organized denominational structure (Association vs. Fellowship). Two is that Fundamental Baptists are, I think, more open to be influenced by non-Baptist sources. This could be because Classic Fundamentalism was not limited to just one denomination. Many early Fundamentalist leaders and writers were not Baptists but their works are still highly valued.

Historically there hasn’t been much overlap or fellowship between the groups. Landmarkers were suspicious of Fundamentalists and largely isolated from their battles. Fundamental Baptists were often not willing to hold some of the more extreme conclusions of Landmarkism. I know of anecdotal instances of Missionary Baptist churches (a typical name here in Texas for churches with old ties to Landmark movements) having fellowship with Fundamental Baptists or even becoming Fundamental.

Similar Histories

Note – to illustrate this, I am going to here limit the breadth of Fundamental Baptists to just those whose heritage is from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both movements began as reactions to movements or ideas that were deemed unorthodox.

Both movements sought to define what constitutes true doctrine.

Both movements created controversary in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both movements could not wield enough influence to take control of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both movements separated from the Southern Baptist Convention to create their own alliances and fellowships.

Both movements have their own schools/seminaries to train their own leadership.

Both movements have their historic positions continuing to influence the Southern Baptist Convention to this day.

Both movements are largely concerned with local church work and their own affairs with little effort to be ecumenical.

Conclusion

Landmark and Fundamental Baptists share many common positions and a similar history. Many of the positions of the earlier Landmark movement are evident to some degree in the Fundamental Baptist movement. Both remain defenders of their own brands of conservative Baptist identity.

I contend there that Landmarkism, with its staunch defense of Baptist identity and fierce independence, paved the way for the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement. I doubt the “Independent” portion would even exist without the principles developed and ingrained into the Baptist psyche by Landmarkism.

There is far too much to cover in just one quick article, and I doubt there is much of an audience clamoring for such a study anyway.

UPDATE – 7-13-21

Discovered this nice tidbit in a J. Frank Norris sermon I was adding to the website, in which he called J. R. Graves “the outstanding fundamentalist of his day“.

J. Frank Norris and Donald J. Trump

Matthew Gage
I can’t wait for this picture to make it onto Google Images! – MBG

On more than one occasion I have been asked to whom we can compare J. Frank Norris to today. Some preachers have imagined themselves as a spiritual heir of Norris and there are some with similarities, especially among those who were influenced by him and his ministry. Some preachers are polarizing like Norris, some are controversial like Norris, some are trailblazers like Norris, but I have yet to find another man whose life and ministry parallels that of Norris.

A couple of years ago, I had an epiphany on the matter. I saw that the presidency and actions of Donald Trump show many similarities to the ministry and methods of J. Frank Norris. I have mulled over this comparison since then and feel that I can finally articulate it enough to foster a discussion on its merits.

Now, let me say up front that there are many areas in which the two could not be more different. For instance, I do believe Norris was sincere in his faith while Trump is not (and I probably just lost a lot of readers with those two statements). The greatest attack on Norris is that he did shoot and kill a man, which was ruled to be self-defense in a court of law, and I do not see a parallel in Trump’s life. The many instances of immorality in Trump’s life and business career are different than the questionable and debatable actions of Norris. It has only been in recent years, almost seventy years after his death, that accusations made against Norris concerning improprieties with women have been put into print and gained acceptance among his detractors. Quite a different situation than the cases brought against Trump by multiple women. Also let me say that I am looking largely at the five or so years of Trump’s candidacy, election, and term in office while looking at many decades of Norris’ ministry.

What I want to emphasize here is the similar mindset and methods of these two men. How one reacted to opposition is similar to the way the other did. How one promoted his agenda is similar to the way the other did.

With no particular order, let me begin with:

I. Norris and Trump both utilized cutting-edge media to reach their audiences and were both had their message censored or ignored by traditional media outlets.

Trump was legendary for the use of his Twitter account to attack his enemies and push his message. When Trump’s message was ignored or attacked in major media outlets, he promoted upstart networks or promoted it himself online.

Norris did not have modern social media, but he was as effective as anyone at using the media of his day. He was a pioneering radio broadcaster, which is a fact that is largely unmentioned today. He used his personal paper, known by various names like The Searchlight and The Fundamentalist, to disseminate his sermons and launch attacks on his foes and even on his allies. Local newspapers and denominational publications would reject Norris’ material in their pages but his message still went out. If Norris had been able to have a Twitter account, I think he would have used it almost exactly like Trump did.

II. Norris and Trump both demeaned and demonized their opponents through name-calling and personal attacks

Trump famously gave nicknames to his opponents. “Sleepy Joe” for Joe Biden and “Pocahontas” for Elizabeth Warren are some well-known examples. His enemies, not mattering if they were in his own party, would expect to be treated to constant accusations and attacks that Trump used to transform their message or person into a caricature.

Norris had his nicknames also. For example, he said he was attacking “Dawsonism” (named after J.M. Dawson) instead of just Modernism in the Baptist denomination. He used Dawson to personify these attacks. The attacks on Dawson are legendary, but I’d like to point out that Dawson did openly and unapologetically hold modernist positions in areas such as Creation and Inspiration of the Scriptures. But Norris could not keep the battle in the theological realm and instead made it personal.

III. Norris and Trump both developed extremely loyal followings that dwindled over time and after controversy.

As I write this we are less than a month from Trump’s successor Joe Biden being sworn in as President. Yet I still see Trump flags and signs displayed proudly. Not as many as a few months ago though. After the riot at the Capitol, even some of his strongest supporters where ready for his departure. Now his own party is largely ready to move on from Trump’s time in office.

Norris had an entourage of extremely loyal followers and supporters. I have heard more than one preacher who claimed to be Norris’ “right hand man” before embarking on their own pastorates. I have seen reports that Norris would hold meetings at the same time and place as denominational conventions and outdraw those meetings. Even today, a few preachers are fiercely loyal to and quick to claim the name of Norris, but they are not many. His contemporary and somewhat rival George W. Truett is not afforded the same popularity and loyalty.

IV. Norris and Trump both used the “cult of personality” to their gain.

Trump promoted Trump. When press conferences were held in the early days of the COVID pandemic he was front and center. His campaign was largely on the name TRUMP and not the ticket of Trump/Pence.

Norris promoted Norris. Other men came and went, like John. R. Rice or G.B. Vick, but Norris was the center of attention. Roy Kemp tells of him preaching about selling J. Frank Norris to the crowds so people would come hear the Gospel. From page 17 from Kemp’s Extravaganza!:

“Then Norris – his soul on the wing – soared up, and up, and up! And for what purpose? Answer: To get his people to sell J. Frank Norris to the masses – by house to house visitation – in order that they might get the sinners out to hear him. And then, he pressed upon them, the claims of Christ, unto eternal salvation, and service in the Lord’s church; yes, and Heaven!”

V. Norris and Trump both attacked their own institutions and made enemies of those of similar beliefs.

Trump was largely and outsider to the political realm. He did not spend time strengthening his party’s influence or strength. He made enemies of some of the most influential party leaders like Romney and McCain. Many in his own party were prepared to lose a presidential election just to rid themselves of Trump.

Norris held few loyalties in his life. I think the only major denominational leader of his time that he did not attack was B.H. Carroll. He attacked leaders and programs of the local, state, and national Baptist conventions of which he began his ministry strongly advocating. He attacked his alma mater Baylor University when evidence of modernistic teachings came to light. His own followers split over Norris’ leadership when many broke away and formed the Baptist Bible Fellowship in 1950. Over the course of his life many of his enemies had earlier been in the ranks of his allies.

VI. Norris and Trump both used populism to push their agenda.

Trump appealed to the “every man” in his message. I have spoken to many people that were convinced Trump had the back of the common man. Much of his message could be interpreted as common man vs. the elite.

Norris appealed often to the common Christian layperson. He accused the denominational institutions of moving in directions that rank-and-file Baptists would not approve of. He appealed not to intellectualism, but to the ordinary faith of the ordinary Christian.

VII. Norris and Trump both thrived on controversy and upheaval and eschewed bipartisanship and compromise.

Many of Trump’s more memorable acts were in the heat of battles. I’ve already mentioned the demeaning names which he would lambast his enemies with. Those usually flew around when he was forced to work with those individuals in effort to throw pressure on them to accept his proposals. We can see much of Trump’s demeanor in the first presidential debate of 2020 in the way he went on the offensive against both Biden and the moderator Chris Wallace.

Norris fostered controversy and many of his attacks had little impact on the issues. He had an ability like P.T. Barnum to market any situation to his advantage. He used sensationalist and controversialist methods that alienated him from potential allies and often hindered any progress to address the issues at hand.

I’m sure these observations are not exhaustive but I hope that the reader can see the same conclusion that I have come to; that is, we finally have someone in Donald Trump in which we can use in comparison to foster a greater understanding of the ministry and methods of J. Frank Norris.