WM 322: Interview: Taylor DeSoto, The Received Text: A Field Guide

 

JTR

The Vision (2.21.25): Jacob’s humility in prayer: Unworthy of the least of all the mercies

 

 Image: Jacob Prays for Protection, 1866, Gustave Doré, Doré's English Bible.

Note: Devotion taken from Sunday sermon on February 16, 2025.

“I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant” (Genesis 32:10a).

The old adage is that there are no atheists in foxholes. In times of deepest distress men often turn to the LORD in prayer, even if it is a prayer of desperation.

In Genesis 32, as Jacob faces the prospects of being met with hostility by his estranged brother Esau, he offers a prayer of deliverance.

The prayer begins in v. 9 as the addresses God: “O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD….” He recalls that it was the LORD who sent him on this journey (cf. 31:3. 13b), with this promise, “and I will deal well with thee” (v. 9b).

In v. 10 we hear what might be a highpoint of Jacob’s spirituality, as he expresses humility, lowliness, and offers a declaration of his unworthiness before a sovereign God: “I am not worthy of the least of all mercies, and of all truth, which thou hast shewed thy servant…” (v. 10a).

There is an evangelical spirit in these words. It recalls Christ’s parable of the Pharisee and the publican, with the tax collector unwilling so much as to lift his eyes to heaven, smiting his breast, and saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). The apostle James likewise exhorted, “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (James 4:9-10).

It is only after his humiliation that Jacob petitions, “Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother….” (Genesis 32:11).

Jacob offers us a model of sincere prayer, which begins with lowliness and contrition. We are not worthy of the Lord’s mercy and truth, and yet he extends these to us, and he hears and answers our prayers.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 321: Fidelity and Intelligibility: Has Mark Ward Misunderstood Tyndale's Plowboy?

 

My notes for this episode:

Mark Ward is a freelance youtuber who has become well known as an, and sometimes extremist, critic of popular contemporary use of the incessant King James Version, even claiming that it should no longer be used in Christian institution and declaring recently that it would be sinful to give a KJV to a child.

If you’ve ever listened to any of Ward’s videos, there’s a good chance you’ve heard him make the claim that he is simply following the spirit of William Tyndale (1494-1536), the first person to translate the NT into English from the original Greek, who once famously declared to a Roman Catholic cleric, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”

In a recent debate with an independent Baptist pastor, Ward finished his closing statement with several dramatic references to Tyndale and the plow boy.

He lamented that some folk supposedly have put “having the Bible” over “understanding the Bible.”

He claimed that “Literally no one has done more work than he has to help people understand the KJV.”

He recalled (as he has often done in the past) that in his senior year of high school he played Tyndale in the school play.

He declared, “I have the heartbeat of William Tyndale.” Continuing in an impassioned and theatrical tone to say, “Please do not deny that my heart’s desire is for the plowboy to understand God’s Word,” saying, “I don’t want to miss a single [word], and I don’t want the plowboy to miss them either.”

And adding, “You cannot have the help of a preacher. You need a translator.”

He closed his speech with this paraphrase, “Lord open KJVOnlyism’s eyes.”

If you know Ward, you know he has a very broad definition of KJVOnlyism, essentially encompassing anyone who prefers its use to other translations.

The question remains as to whether Ward has properly understood what Tyndale meant in his famous statement, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Did Tyndale carry out his work of translation in the way that Ward suggests?

I’ve noted before some of many problems with Ward’s approach is his insistence on “absolute intelligibility” in Bible translation. Unless the reader—no matter his age, experience, or maturity—understands the meaning of every single word and phrase at his first sitting, Ward suggests, then the translation fails.

Criticism of Ward’s “absolute intelligibility” view was well stated by James Snapp, Jr. on his blog on October 29, 2024, in an article titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim about the KJV.”, a critique that Ward has yet to acknowledge, much less to offer a response.

In that post, Snapp said, “Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….”

I thought of this recently as a I read an essay by Alan Jacobs, an Humanities Professor at Baylor University. The essay is titled, “Robert Alter’s Fidelity,” and it appears in a collection of Jacob’s essays, titled, Wayfaring: Essays Pleasant and Unpleasant (Eerdmans, 2010).

The essay is about Jewish scholar and literary critic Robert Alter’s publication of his translation of The Five Books of Moses. He has since completed the entire OT. Jacobs praises Alter’s translation not for its readability but its fidelity, and he makes much of that distinction.

In the opening pages he also makes some interesting comments about Tyndale’s saying about the plow boy and his interpretation of it is not the same as Ward takes it to be.

See Jacobs’ essay pp. 12-15.

Highlights and conclusion:

Jacobs says, “In translation, fidelity is the ultimate imperative and trumps every other virtue: even clarity or readability” (12).

Jacobs says we must not think that Tyndale assumed “the ideal experience of reading Scripture” is one in which “clarity manifests itself fully and immediately” (13).

He warns against translations that are swayed by “an assertively egalitarian, democratizing, and anti-clerical culture like our own today” (14).

He warns also of translators who think of themselves as being in loco parentis, thinking of readers as “little children” who need “scholarly fathers” to protect them “from the agonies of interpretive confusion” (14).

 Tyndale himself did not do this. He introduced words in his translation that his readers would not know (because he himself coined those words and phrases: like, Jehovah, atonement, Passover, scapegoat, mercy seat, etc.).

Tyndale was more concerned with fidelity than intelligibility. This same sense led AV translators to use terms like “propitiation” to describe the atonement in Romans and 1 John. The term was not well known to the readers of that day, but it rightly taught the meaning of Christ’s atoning death.

Jacobs says men of this era knew that Scripture “exhibits its clarity only to those who undergo the lengthy intellectual discipline of submitting to its authority” (14).

No matter how passionately it might be stated, we must conclude that Mark Ward does not, in fact, demonstrate “the heartbeat of William Tyndale.”

Ward’s understanding of Tyndale seems frozen in a simplified and unsophisticated version of Tyndale’s thought, retained from Ward’s memory of a high school play.

It does not represent a mature and accurate understanding of Tyndale or his view of what makes for a good translation.

As Paul puts it in 1Corinthians 13:11: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

One of the marks of Ward’s confusion on this issue is that he claims the text underlying a translation is an unimportant factor in evaluating the worthiness of that translation. This is a total rejection of fidelity as the guiding principle of Bible translation.

In the end, we have to conclude, with Jacobs, that those who approach Bible translation, as does Mark Ward, do not approach in the spirit of Tyndale, whose concern was not that the plowboy might immediately have complete comprehension of every word, but that he might, over time, with the Spirit’s help and the instructions of officers appointed in Christ’s church, come to know it truly and faithfully.

JTR

The Vision (2.14.25): The LORD protects fallen saints in a fallen world

Note: Devotion take from last Sunday's sermon on Genesis 31.

“God hath seen mine affliction and the labor of my hands…” (Genesis 31:42b).

The account of Jacob’s flight from Laban in Genesis 31 teaches us that the LORD protects his fallen saints in this fallen world.

One commentator noted that this account of Jacob and Laban is “a disturbing vignette of human history,” adding, “It reflects the human predicament in a sinful world. It declares… the brokenness of creation and humanity” (Currid, Genesis 2:110).

This is not some idealistic portrait of Christian family life. This is a family ready to go to war against one another, withholding and taking from one another, accusing and attacking one another. But all the while the God of the Bible is there, and he is protecting Jacob.

God intervenes through special revelation to direct the path of Jacob, telling him to flee from Laban and return to the promised land (vv. 3, 13). The LORD intervenes also in a dream to restrain the hand of Laban (v. 24).

We might look on with real encouragement at the final scene of reconciliation that is worked out here between Jacob and Laban, despite their conflict, through a covenant and a covenant meal (vv. 43-55).

And what does God do today? He speaks to us through the special revelation of the Word to direct our path, and he works in ways, ordinary and extraordinary, to protect his people. He sees our affliction and the labor of our hand (v. 42).

I read this week an account of John G. Paton (1824-1907), Scottish missionary to the New Hebrides islands in the South Pacific. He woke one night to hear a mob of armed and hostile natives burning down the church next to his house and urging one another to strike a blow at him as well. Just then a sudden storm arose, with rushing wind, thunder, and rain. The mob became silent, lowered their weapons, and withdrew terror stricken, saying, “That is Jehovah’s rain!” (see Currid’s account, Genesis 2:120).

Sometimes the LORD intervenes like that. But even when he does not do so temporally, he will do so ultimately. As Paul said in Romans 8: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (v. 31), and nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 39).

God will protect his fallen saints in a fallen world, providing for them a life that can never be taken away from them, through Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 320: Initial Response: ESV Text Update (2025)

 

JTR

The Vision (2.7.25): Four Lessons on Life After Life from the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

 

Image: The Rich Man and Lazarus, Drawing by John Everett Millais, 19th century, Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Luke 16:19-31:

“There was a certain rich man,… And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus….” (Luke 16:19-20).

In our Lord’s Day afternoon services, we are currently doing a sermon series on eschatology (the doctrine of last things). At present we are examining topics related to personal eschatology (What happens when we die?), and later we will look at topics related to cosmic eschatology (How will the world and all history end?).

Last Sunday we looked at Christ’s account (not a parable) of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

I offered these four simple points from the text:

First Lesson: There are two ways or two outcomes at death: the way of the rich man or the way of Lazarus (vv. 19-21).

Second Lesson: There are two destinations: Either hell (Hades), or the bosom of Abraham, Paradise, the heavenly rest (vv. 22-23).

Third Lesson: There are two very different experiences: “torment” or “comfort” (vv. 24-25).

Fourth Lesson: There are no second chances after death, no purgatory, no post-mortem evangelism, no moving from one place to another, but “a great gulf fixed” (vv. 26-31).

In this life we either confess Christ before men and are confessed by him before the Father, or we deny him before men and are denied by him before the Father (see Matthew 10:32-33).

We ought soberly and seriously to consider these four lessons.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 319: A Response to Mark Ward's Offer to "Translate" the 1689 Confession

 

Self-identified recovering KJVO-ist, freelance youtuber, and now ardent critic of the King James Version, Mark Ward recently issued a call on his youtube channel for a new “translation” of the 1689 Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration and WCF) into modern English.

Ward begins this call by noting, “In 2021 in preparation for my ordination I translated the 1689 LBC into modern English.”

Ward, somewhat unsurprisingly, notes that he found “dead words” and “false friends” in the Confession, terms those familiar with his dogged attacks on the “intelligibility” of the KJV will quickly recognize.

Ward says he dealt with such terms in his “translation” of the Confession using modern language as he prepared for his ordination to pastoral ministry at the now defunct Cornerstone BC of Anacortes, Washington.

We’ll return to this statement later to examine Ward’s RB ministerial credentials.

Ward gives five examples of supposedly outdated words in the Confession that, he insists, need to be “translated.”

I found no merit in any of the five examples that would justify this. More importantly, I found that two of Ward’s examples are theologically problematic.

The first of these is “circumstances” from 1:6. Ward says this term is “obsolete” in the modern context. He makes no mention of the fact, however, that “circumstances” has long been a technical term among Reformed theologians in discussions especially over the Regulative Principle of Worship.

He does not draw attention to a classic distinction between “substantial” (essential) elements and “circumstantial” parts of worship.

Michael Bushel in his book Songs of Zion, explains:

Circumstances are defined by [James Henley] Thornwell as “those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all or cannot be done with decency and decorum.”

Bushel continues:

The time and place of worship, for instance, may be seen as a circumstance of worship, because one cannot worship God without doing so at a specific time, and yet the aspect of time does not, and need not, be considered in a definition of what constitutes an act of worship (29).

In Ward’s so-called  “translation” of the Confession, he says he rendered the word “circumstances” as “extraneous details.” This does not, however, accurately convey what the framers of the Confession meant by the term “circumstances.” The time when the church meets for worship is not an “extraneous detail,” but a part of worship which is not “substantial” or “essential.”

The second example is Ward’s handling of the word “authentical” in 1:8. According to Ward this word has nothing to do with the contemporary word “authentic,” meaning genuine or matching with the originals, despite the fact that in context the framers refer to the text as immediately inspired and “kept pure” in all ages (i.e., the true text is consistent with the originals).

Here Ward’s bias towards the “reconstruction” method of textual criticism shines through. “Authentical,” for Ward, can’t mean that the text kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence matches the original, because, according to Ward, they did not have the originals. So, it can only more vaguely mean something like an approximation of the text which is, nonetheless, still “authoritative.”

New Zealand Reformed theologian Garnet Howard Milne, however, in his book Has the Bible been kept pure?, a monograph dedicated to WCF 1:8 cites the 17^th century definition of “authentical” by the English divine Edward Leigh (1602-1671). Leigh said:

The question betwixt us and the Papists, now cometh to be considered, which of these Editions is authentical, that is, which of it self hath credit and authority, being sufficient of it self to prove and commend it self, without the help of any other Edition, because it is the first exemplar or Copy of divine truth delivered from God by the Prophets and Apostles (133).

Milne concludes, “In other words, the authentical edition is the correct copy of an author’s work” (133). Such a definition does not fit with Ward’s “translation.”

The other three examples Ward offered [“private spirits” in 1:10; “opposite to all good” in 6:4; and “necessities” in 27:2], as noted, IMHO do not warrant any adjustment in the text, but can be more than adequately understood by the mature reader.

Ward’s approach to the Confession recalls some of the problems evident in his approach to the AV, as pointed out by James Snapp, Jr. in an October 29, 2024 blog post, which Ward, has, thus far, completely ignored. Snapp, BTW, is hardly a proponent for either the traditional text or traditional Protestant translations.

Snapp’s article is titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim About the KJV,” and was written to respond to a now rather infamous statement made by Ward that it would be sinful to give the KJV to a child. Here, in part, is what Snapp wrote:

Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture.  No Scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum.  Christians are instructed to worship together.  Christians should consider the Scriptures together…

We are expected to mature.  With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible.  We are expected to fellowship together.  We are expected to learn…. The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings.  The shortcoming is in the individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.   

 Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….

 I encourage Mark Ward:  come out of your fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new things.

Snapp makes the valid point that Ward advocates for an impossible goal of “absolute intelligibility” in a Bible translation, for any reader, of any age or maturity.

Snapp’s critique of Ward’s views on English Bible translations is also applicable to his newly expressed views on the Confession. No substantial and significant written document will ever be “incapable of being misunderstood.”

What is more, the case can be made that the historical Confession in its original form is not unintelligible to modern readers, who approach it with humility in the context of Christian community, instructed by teaching elders, and informed by a tradition of classic Protestant interpretation.

Oddly enough, after covering his five examples of supposedly “outdated” terms in the confession, Ward proceeds to justify revision of the Confession based on how the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) was updated after WW2. The Anglicans did it, so why shouldn’t we?

This seems to be a peculiar argument, because it was, in fact, the liberal mainline factions of the Episcopal denomination that embraced revision to the prayer book on their way to liberalizing church practices relating to issues like ordination of women.

It has been the conservative and orthodox Anglicans who broke away from the liberal mainline that have held fast to the 1662 prayer book.

I can tell you that if there ever comes a time, in my lifetime, when a group of Reformed Baptists reject the original text of the 1689 Confession in favor of a modern “translation” of it, I and my church will be among many that will be forced to separate from them.

I have no doubt that if any church were to accept even the few changes Ward suggested in his video, they would be at risk of departing, at the least, from the classic confessional view of the regulative principle of worship and from the classic confessional view of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved Scriptures as “authentical.”

Eventually, Ward proposes that a set of recognized experts should get together, and, according to Ward, they should invite “a red-headed word nerd” to join them and help them with all his vast knowledge and expertise.

He adds, “it will take big names and institutions.”

Ward proceeds to say that he offers this counsel “from my tiny little spot on the Reformed spectrum as an independent—and I’ve been independent since I was born.” That last statement, oddly enough, does not seem very Baptistic.

So Ward sees himself a “Reformed” independent. But what exactly does that mean?

He continues, “I’m issuing this call. I think Reformed denominations should hold a sort of ecumenical council and translate the confession—not revise it.”

By using the word “translation” Ward thinks he can head off conservative opposition to any efforts to “update” or “revise” the Confession. But by “translation” Ward, of course, means “interpretation” and “change” (see the examples of “circumstances” and “authentical”).

Ward insists he only wants to make the confession more accessible to the ordinary reader. He adds that this would especially fit with the concept of the “priesthood of the believer,” a phrase more familiar to twentieth century SBC moderates than to 17^th century Particular Baptists.

As I listened to Ward’s unsolicited call to change the Confession I began to wonder about his confessional convictions, his ministerial standing, and his ecclesiastical commitments. Until recently I did not know that he even claimed to be a “Reformed Baptist” of some sort.

As a guest on the podcast of Covenant Baptist Seminary (an RB seminary) on October 21, 2024, Ward said (c. 17:56 mark), “I was ordained according to a lightly edited (by myself) [edition] of the 1689 Confession…” He adds, “I also took some minor exceptions, but we can get into that in another interview…”

The podcast host did not follow up on this statement, and did not ask Ward to explain in what areas he does not fully subscribe to the confession, or what these so-called “minor exceptions” might be.

Ward was a guest again on the Covenant Baptist Seminary podcast on December 17, 2024. In this episode, Ward said (c. 18:43 mark), “I am sort of a Reformed Baptist, because in God’s providence I’ve never been near enough to a 1689 congregation for it to be a reasonable option for me…”

So, by Ward’s own admission, he has never actually been a member of a confessional RB church.

What is more, he gives further explanation in this episode about his inability fully to subscribe the 1689 Confession. He states,

“I’m probably just a little bit different on eschatology than the standard 1689 guy.” Yet, he adds, “I’m a confessional guy.”

Neither of the podcast hosts expressed any curiosity about what Ward meant by this statement. What is his position on eschatology? Where does his view on eschatology depart from the 1689 Confession to which he cannot fully subscribe and to which he takes exception? Is he a dispensationalist? If so, can he fairly be said to be a “confessional guy”?

This conversation sparked my curiosity about Ward’s ministerial and ecclesiastical standing.

So, I took a look at the “About Me” page on Ward’s blog (By Faith We Understand) where I read the following:

I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church for 18 years while in Greenville, SC, and I “pastored” an outreach congregation there Sunday mornings for the last (almost) six of those years.

MCBC is a well-known Independent Baptist Church but certainly not a confessional RB church. Notice Ward only says he “attended” this church but not that he was a member of it. Notice also the nuanced language. Ward does not say he served on the staff or as a recognized pastor in this church. In fact, he puts the word “pastored” in quotes, indicating his role was not officially pastoral. He continues:

After moving to Washington, I was something of an assistant pastor for six years—though ordained for only the last 9 months of that time—at Cornerstone Baptist Church of Anacortes. The church voted to close toward the end of the COVID era.

Presumably Cornerstone BC of Anacortes was also an independent Baptist church and not a confessional church. Again, Ward’s language here is unclear, He does not say he served as elder in this church or as an assistant pastor, but that he was “something of an assistant pastor” for nearly six years and was ordained nine months before the church dissolved. Was he ever installed as an officer in this church? He concludes:

My family now attends Emmanuel Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, WA, where we serve in various capacities.

This church is also an independent Baptist congregation. I find it interesting that Ward only says he “attends” this church and does not say he is a “member” of this church. The church’s leadership page lists seven elders and six deacons. Ward is not listed as a church officer. I did not locate any sermons or teaching by Ward that were posted on this church’s youtube page (but, admittedly, my search was not exhaustive). What are the “various capacities” in which he has served in this church?

The church’s belief page lists twelve brief doctrinal points, but it offers no mention of any classic Christian creeds or Protestant confessions. The statement on “The Last Things” reads, “We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.” Though vague, it might indicate belief in dispensational premillennialism and a millennial kingdom, and I did run across one sermon preached by the lead pastor titled “The Rapture of the Church.”

So, at this point I am unsure of Ward’s confessional, ministerial, and ecclesiastical standing.

Confessionally, he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession.

Ministerially, he was ordained to the gospel ministry by an independent Baptist church within nine months of its closing but does not say he served as an elder in this church.

Ecclesiastically, he states that he has never been a member of a confessional RB church and only says he presently  “attends” an independent Baptist church (that apparently holds to some form of dispensationalism).

I want to be clear, I am not criticizing Ward for the convictions which he holds. I do not believe that the kingdom of God begins and ends with confessional RBs. I have many friends who are not confessional RBS.

I am concerned, however, by the fact that Ward is suggesting not only that the 1689 confession be “translated” (i.e., changed) but also that he would offer himself up as a candidate to be on a committee to do this work.

I’m also concerned that he claims to be a “confessional guy” even though he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 confession, has never been a member of a confessional RB church, has never served in the office of elder in a confessional RB church, and he may be only “attending” a church at present.

I also wonder what Ward would make of Confession 26 on each Christian’s duty to give “up themselves to the Lord, and to one another” in particular churches (26:6), where the bishops or elders are given “the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty” (26:8), it being “incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office,” while others “also gifted” might also preach only if they are “approved and called by the church” (26:11). I wonder how Confession 26 reads in Ward’s “translation” of the Confession.

Has any church at present approved him as a public preacher and teacher, or is any church giving oversight to the teaching he now offers in various venues, including on his youtube channel and especially behind the paywall in the courses he now offers and charges his patrons to access? I wonder also whether this teaching adheres to any confession that might be examined.

I also wonder about the fact that at least one Reformed Baptist Seminary has welcomed Ward as a lecturer and lists him on its faculty page. I even wonder that an RB seminary would welcome him as a podcast guest to speak to areas of interest to confessional Baptists.

In the end, I want to give my answer to Mark Ward’s call to “translate” the confession and his offer to serve on a committee which would take up such a work. My response, quite simply is, No.

The better option, IMHO, for one who considers himself to be confessional (and Baptistic) would be to join a confessional RB church and to sit under the teaching and instruction of that church to grow in one’s knowledge of Scripture, as well as in his understanding of corresponding confessional RB beliefs and practices. If one aspires to teach and interpret doctrine, including that found in the confession, he should express these desires to the elders of his church so that he might be examined as a candidate to become an elder or sanctioned as a “gifted brother,” and only then to exercise his ministry not independently but under the authority of a particular church.

JTR

WM 318: Article Review: Scribes, Distigmai, Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14:33-34

 

JTR