Category: Church History

“KJB: The Book That Changed the World” directed by Norman Stone

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. The King James Bible has shaped the English language, inspired political and religious thought for generations and, arguably, changed the world.

The story behind the King James Bible has been told before. And several new books this year will aim to tell it again. 1A Productions and Lions Gate studio have created a first class documentary featuring John Rhys-Davies which puts this story on screen. And the result is almost as breathtaking as the powerful prose of the King James Bible itself.

KJB: The Book That Changed the World takes us on a historical survey of the years preceding 1611 and the political and religious landscape which confronted the new King. The story follows James I from his birth to his ultimate ascension to the English throne. Particular focus is placed on the role the King James Bible would play in James’ strategy to unify the landscape, politically and religiously.

Director and producer, Norman Stone does a fantastic job of capturing the life of Jacobean England with all of its intrigue. The plot of Guy Fawkes is detailed in memorable fashion. Filmed on location in England and Scotland, the film takes one inside Westminster Abbey and Oxford College to some of the actual rooms where the translators labored over their charge. The photography and quality of the film is superb, countrysides and cathedrals alike are displayed in all their evocative power.

John Rhys-Davies exudes energy and vigor in his lively narration. His booming, deep voice adds to the grandeur of the story. At one point he climbs up into the pulpit of a centuries-old church to read from the pages of the King James Bible.

The documentary focuses almost exclusively on the historical setting and making of the King James Bible, only briefly explaining its lasting impact. While acknowledging the place the Bible has for Christians, the film aims at a wider audience. At times some historical license seems to be taken to make the story fit the producer’s goals. While Puritans and Anglicans worked together on the various translation committees, it should be noted the Puritans were at a decided minority. More detail on translation techniques and practices could have been expected, too. Still the film does not disappoint. It brings to life the world of King James and the creation of his most lasting monument.

This documentary should be available on DVD in the United States next month, and Amazon is already taking pre-orders. If you are in the UK, you can pick up a copy now. Learn more about the film (and watch the trailer) at KJBtheFilm.com.

Disclaimer: This DVD was provided by 1A Productions Ltd. for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

UPDATE: You can purchase the DVD now from Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or Christianbook.com.

~cross posted from my group blog, KJVODebate.Wordpress.com

Still a Fundamentalist at Heart: My Stance on Roman Catholicism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Some readers of my blog dismiss me as having in effect abandoned the faith. They are so committed to certain fundamentalist practices and positions that they refuse to look on me with any grace. I am a hopeless liberal to them, and have abandoned important implications of the Gospel, and rejected Scriptural teaching.

My blog professes to stand “for the Unity of the Faith for the Glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7”. In fact I strive for that. Much division in the body of Christ is avoidable and harmful. I’ve expressed my concerns over a radical separatism which views anyone who doesn’t self-identify as a fundamentalist with suspicion and distrust — even scorn.

I have found a wider grace in Christ through my experience with Reformed Theology, which rather than making me more narrow-minded has freed me to hope the best in people and let God do His work. This charitable spirit which many have taken time to thank me for, is nevertheless acknowledged by some critics to be just the spirit of this post-modern age. I’m nice and want to be nice. And niceness is all this is about. I don’t have the backbone needed to defend the faith as fundamentalists really should.

So I find it somewhat ironic that I am now being taken to task for my stance on Roman Catholicism by people to the left of me. I guess this is proof positive that I am still a fundamentalist at heart! In my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill, I added the following caution:

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

I am now said to be the harsh judgmental one, who refuses to extend grace to the millions of Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians around the world. I’m being denounced in no uncertain terms; here, here and here, and especially here. I’m hindering “the unity of the faith”, I’m the one who isn’t nice and is making harsh judgments.

Let me be clear, I still hold that the Bible does lay down guidelines and boundaries to the faith. We are not given the right to just blur those boundaries whenever we want. We don’t find Paul doing that, he names names and contends for the faith (as do the other Apostles). There is “another gospel” which is no gospel. The danger of false teachers looms large all over the New Testament. It behooves those who prize the Gospel, to defend the Gospel. Unity goes up to a point, but ultimately it must be tethered to the Gospel. Where the Gospel is in danger of being lost, unity can not continue.

So that makes me a fundamentalist, I guess. I think some doctrine is so vital to the essence of Christianity, that it must be defended and cannot be denied without serious consequences.

And I am not alone in my assessment of Roman Catholicism. Consider the words of one of the original fundamentalists from the 1920s:

I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions. [T. W. Medhurst, “Is Romanism Christianity?” in The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey, online here]

Or consider the eloquent and large-hearted Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it. [source]

I must say I haven’t read primary Catholic authors writing after Vatican 2. But in what I’ve heard and read about Vatican 2 it never abrogates the Council of Trent and it doesn’t change church teaching on additional things “necessary unto salvation”. I’m foolish enough to trust the Reformers and evangelical Protestants up through the middle of the 20th Century who have studied these matters and conclude that Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation is confusing at best and damning at worst.

Consider just a few of the statements from The Council of Trent, the reaction that Rome officially gave to the Protestant Reformation:

On Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

On Baptism
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

On the Eucharist
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

On Penance
CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

On the Mass
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

This is addition to the Gospel and hence it is “another Gospel”. See Galatians 5:2-6 and 1:6-9. That is my understanding and the understanding of the Reformers and most evangelical Protestant churches. I consider the trappings of the religious system which is Catholicism conspire to cloud out the simplicity of the gospel. Veneration of the saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, the role of priests, the place the Eucharist holds, penance, beads, icons, holy object, the holy pope “” all of these easily vie for central place.

UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem anathematizing me. The pope has no problem not recognizing my church as valid. Why isn’t that a big deal worth getting upset about?

I freely admit evangelicalism has its problems, and in many places another gospel is preached there too. But I cannot turn a blind eye to Rome’s problems. Call me a kook if you will. There are intelligent and careful responses to Rome’s doctrine available for those who search. Perhaps some of my readers can recommend good resources on this. I do respect and appreciate much that the Roman Catholic Church stands for and has bequeathed to us. But it is dead wrong on salvation and is misleading countless millions of followers around the world.

I realize this won’t win me many awards (except negative ones), and it won’t make me popular. But I aim for faithfulness rather than acceptance by the biblioblogging community.

John Sailhamer’s Messianic Interpretation of the Song of Solomon

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

I came across the NIV Compact Bible Commentary and was delighted to find that John Sailhamer was its author. I’ve so enjoyed his The Meaning of the Pentateuch, that I picked up his commentary on the Pentateuch. I’m going to have to pick up this compact Bible commentary of his as well.

I was able to read the section on the Song of Solomon and was fascinated by Sailhamer’s insights, which I plan to share here. The following quotes are from his treatment of the book on pages 359-361 in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1994), emphasis added.

Sailhamer begins by briefly recounting the traditional figurative interpretations of the book and the quite literal modern interpretations.

Although it is, on the face of it, just that–an ode to human love–one must ask whether it was originally intended to be read as such by its first audience. There are some indications within the book itself that suggest it was not…. There is no question that the book is a poetic drama of a lover’s longing for his beloved and of her willing complicity. To suggest, however, that this drama of two lovers is, in fact, the intent of the book is to confuse the poetic imagery with the purpose of the poem.

He is careful to say that this does not “justify the wholesale allegorizations of the poem that have characterized much of its history.” He admits the picture of the relationship of God/Christ with Israel/the Church, is a wonderful picture, but avers “there are no clues within the book itself to support such a reading. In the last analysis, one’s interpretation should come from within the book itself, and preferably from the clues given by the author himself.”

Sailhamer goes on to uncover several clues which do confirm that there is more to the Song than may meet the natural eye, however. He first points out from the overall structure of the book, that “the ‘reflections of love’ of the lover and the beloved do not progress and build in intensity in the course of the poem itself.” This is no average love story. He also argues that “though the poetic imagery comes close at times to suggesting the lover and his beloved have in fact come together and joined themselves in that union that they so longingly describe, the structure of the book itself suggests that has not yet happened.” Rather, the “lovers’ quest is an ideal, a longed-for desire that lies beyond their own grasp.”

Setting aside these preliminary observations for the moment, we come to Sailhamer’s focus on the “larger structural movement given to the poem by the author.” The repeated refrain throughout the book reads, “Do not arouse or awaken love until she [NIV, it] so desires” (2:7b; 3:5b; 8:4b). The meaning of this refrain comes from its connection to 8:5b where the author links it with the last statements made by the beloved (the woman): “Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth.” In this connection, Sailhamer sees an allusion to two other key biblical texts: the prologue of Proverbs (chapters 1-9), and the account of the Fall in Genesis 3.

If an illusion [sic] is intended to these passages, it suggests that “the beloved” in the Song of Solomon is intended to be understood as a personification of “wisdom” and Solomon, or “the lover,” is intended as a picture of the “promised seed” of Ge 3:15, i.e., the Messiah.

He goes on:

What appears to have happened in the composition of the Song of Songs is that the author has seen in this love-song the possibility of a portrait of Israel’s long-awaited messianic king. Solomon, the son of David (cf. 2Sa 7:16), whose quest for wisdom characterizes the central core of the book of Proverbs, speaks in the prologue of that book of binding wisdom to himself and on his heart (Pr 3:3; 7:1-3) in the same way that in this book [Song of Solomon] the beloved says, “Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm” (8:6). Moreover, in Proverbs Solomon says, “Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister'” (Pr 7:4), just as here the beloved says, “If only you were to me like a brother” (8:1). An extended comparison of these two books suggests that these are not mere coincidental similarities of words and phrases, but rather a deliberate “inter-textuality,” or allusion of one text to another. Such verbal links and allusions between the personified Dame Wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the young beloved in the Song of Songs invite our attempts to see a larger purpose behind this love song. I have suggested that such a purpose is to be found in the growing messianic hope found in these sections [i.e. the Wisdom Literature] of the OT.

Thus far then, Sailhamer has shown “the Song of Songs is intended as a portrait of the promised Messiah’s love for divine wisdom.” He goes on:

The Messiah is here pictured by Solomon, and “wisdom” is personified by the young and beautiful beloved. Throughout the poem the notion of love is idealized by the fact that its obtainment lies in the future. The quest for wisdom was aroused “under the apple tree” (8:4a), probably an allusion to the time of the Garden of Eden when the first woman “saw that the fruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining wisdom [and] she took some and ate it” (Ge 3:6). The obtainment of wisdom, however, will come only when one like Solomon comes to claim his beloved.

Sailhamer also sees the reference to “there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth” (8:5b) as suggesting that the author of the Song of Solomon “also understood both the promised ‘seed’ in Ge 3:15 and the reference to Eve as ‘the mother of all living’ (Ge 3:20) messianically.”

The result of these inter-textual links, “if… intended by the author of this book” then,

…would place this song on a quite different level than that of an ode to human love. It would, in fact, give credence to the traditional attempts to see more in this poem than meets the eye. It would also provide some guidelines along which the symbolism of the book is to be read.

One final argument supports Sailhamer’s conclusions:

Finally, such a reading of the book would also provide needed insight into the underlying justification for the book’s inclusion into the OT. There is general recognition today that the time of the formation of the OT canon coincided with a significant surge in the hope of the imminent return of the messianic king. This book was included in the canon, one might say, because it was intended as a picture of the Messiah.

I am not one to discount seeing the Divine Author’s hand behind the human book as intentionally foreshadowing future covenant realities. I would see no problem in taking Sailhamer’s lead and affirming that this authorial intent was expanded in the wisdom of God, to allow the book as we have it in our Bible to suggest analogies between Christ and the Church. Think of the many songs that have been written culling from the poetic imagery of this Song of Songs.

Still, I had never seen Sailhamer’s reasoning for seeing a human authorial intent behind the Song of Solomon including an explicit Messianic connection. I’d be interested to know, if any of my readers knows whether Sailhamer has written more explicitly of this connection. The section on the Song is only a few pages long in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary. Along these lines, I’d also love to know what you think of this. Does this ring true to you? Or do you think Sailhamer is off base?

You can pick up a copy of this little book at Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.

Book Excerpt — Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre

~ Bob Hayton

I’m reading through a new Christian Focus book entitled Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre. In this book, the author explains why singing the Psalms was so precious to saints through all ages, prior to the rise of the 18th century hymnwriting movement. LeFebre succeeds in making the Psalms come alive and in equipping the modern church with tools for recovering the use of the Psalms.

I wanted to offer an excerpt which has captivated me. LeFebvre describes the difference between singing to Christ, and singing with Christ. He avers that when Christians sing the Psalms, we are singing with Christ in a unique way.

You can learn more about the book at Christianfocus.com, and in the next couple weeks, I’ve heard this book will be showcased at their new Christian Focus Booknotes blog, too.

Without further ado, I provide an extended book excerpt. For more, you’ll have to get the book!

In the Gospels, Jesus often took the Psalms to his lips as his own praises. He sang Psalm 41 as his own song: ‘My close friend in whom I trusted…has lifted his heel against me’ (Ps. 41:9/John 13:18). He sang Psalm 118, not as a common experience of God’s people but as his own experience as our true king: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’ (Ps. 118:22/Matt. 21:42). Jesus identified himself as the anointed king in psalm 110: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand.”‘ (Ps. 110:1/Mark 12:36). In these and other examples, Jesus frequently showed himself to be the Son of David by taking the Psalms of David to his lips as his own songs (e.g., Matt. 27:46/Ps. 22:1; Luke 23:46/Ps. 31:5; John 2:17/Ps. 69:9).

In fact here is Jesus’ own explanation about his relationship to the Psalms of David:

As Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son (Mark 12:35-37, quoting Ps. 110:1)?

Jesus says that David wrote Psalms for a descendant who would be greater than himself — the coming Christ. In the Holy Spirit, David understood that his songs would ultimately be taken up by the Christ.

Peter makes a similar point in his sermon at Pentecost. Peter preached from a string of Old Testament texts, including several Psalms (Pss. 16, 89, 110, 132)…. According to Peter, David wrote the Psalms ‘knowing’ that God had promised the Christ would come from his line. And he wrote Psalm 16 ‘foreseeing’ the resurrection of Christ. The Psalms were born out of the experiences of David and his heirs, but David wrote with awareness of the coming Son of David who would ultimately take the Psalms to his lips as our perfect king and songleader.

From the beginning, the Psalms were composed for Jesus — as his songs. No wonder the New Testament church never set the Psalmbook aside. They took up the Psalms in great delight, singing in them with Jesus.

Let me offer a word picture to anchor this principle. Imagine that a friend of yours has invited you to a concert. A famous choir is in town, and your friend bought two tickets. As you slip into your seats in the concert hall, a one hundred voice choir lines the platform before you. And the music begins. The singing is superb. It could not be better. It is such a pleasant evening, you and your friend decide to return the next week for another concert.

The next week, you return to the hall and find the same choir singing again. This time, however, a world famous tenor is going to be on the platform with them. As you sit in the audience listening, you are entranced by the beauty of the soloist’s voice, surrounded majestically by the hundred-voice choir behind him. Perhaps you will come again another time to hear more.

What is the difference between these to, imagined performances? In the first, the audience is listening to the voices of a hundred singers. The song is the choir’s song. In the second performance, however, the audience is listening to the voice of one singer accompanied by a hundred others. But it is the one singer in front who stands under the spotlight. His song is being performed, and the rest join him in singing it.

In Christian worship, God is the audience of our singing. Many congregations today see themselves as that hundred-person choir singing to God. They imagine that they stand as a mass of worshipers, singing their songs of faith to him. That is the expectation behind modern hymns and praise songs. Modern hymns do not say, for example, ‘What a friend I, Joseph Scriven, have in Jesus.’ Hymnwriters compose songs for the congregation to sing as their song to God, with the song’s original author and his experience disappearing from view.

This is where the Psalms are radically different. The Psalms are composed for a use like the second performance imagined above. Our divinely appointed leader, King Jesus, leads our praise. Jesus sings his own songs in his own words (composed prophetically for him). They are his praises of the Father which he calls us, as his subjects, to join him in singing. Rather than disappearing from view, we are supposed to sing in conscious identification with Jesus as our Psalm leader, and with his experience of the cross and resurrection before us.

[emphasis added, from pg. 51-54]

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Christian Focus Publications. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

You can pick up a copy from Amazon.com, Monergism Books, or direct from Christian Focus.

Quotes to Note 23: Calvin on Christ-Centered Bible Reading

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

With the New Year, many of us have chosen our new daily Bible reading plan. With that in mind, I recently stumbled across an important quote from John Calvin that bears on how we approach our Bible reading. I thought sharing it with you all would be especailly appropriate, on this first Monday of 2011.

Commenting on John 5:39, Calvin notes:

…we are taught by this passage, that if we wish to obtain the knowledge of Christ, we must seek it from the Scriptures…. First, then, we ought to believe that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God? Next, as we are commanded to seek Christ in the Scriptures, so he declares in this passage that our labors shall not be fruitless; for the Father testifies in them concerning his Son in such a manner that He will manifest him to us beyond all doubt. But what hinders the greater part of men from profiting is, that they give to the subject nothing more than a superficial and cursory glance. Yet it requires the utmost attention, and, therefore, Christ enjoins us to search diligently for this hidden treasure…. By the Scriptures, it is well known, is here meant the Old Testament; for it was not in the Gospel that Christ first began to be manifested, but, having received testimony from the Law and the Prophets, he was openly exhibited in the Gospel.