Christianity on Dandelion-Utilitarian

Joshua 5:13-15 - Thoughts and questions.

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 20:52:55 +0000

Usually when I write about scripture, I have my own musings to share. Today, however, I want to just point at something and say, “Wow, that’s neat!”

The verse in question.

13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, “Are You for us or for our adversaries?”

14 So He said, “No, but as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?”

15 Then the Commander of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, “Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so - (Joshua 5:13–15~, NKJV)

See that? The Commander of the Lord’s army accepted worship. Angels do not accept worship. This raises the question as to the identity of the Commander, doesn’t it?

Even the first time I read through the Bible, this passage struck me as odd. Just a couple of verses, where a man tells Joshua to take off his sandals and then leaves. No other comment is made. For such a brief passage, it’s dense with enigmas. And to be clear, I have no insight on this, no comment to make. Our church pastor is currently teaching through Joshua, and this passage came up. This is the point at which I got a bit obsessed and read a bunch of commentaries.

The questions I had when I originally read the Bible were the following:

Why is this major interaction such a small passage of the book?
What did this mean?
Did he have to fight the entire battle without his shoes on?

Now though, as a more seasoned traveller of the Word of God, I have, hopefully, more mature questions instead.

Why did the Commander accept worship?
How did this affect Joshua and his role as leader?
Did he have to fight the entire battle without his shoes on?

As I have said, I have no good answers for you, not really. But, the commentaries I read may be able to glean something for you.

It may be noteworthy that two of my favourite books on the topic of scripture, the Norm Geisler tomes, ‘When Critics Ask,’ and ‘When Skeptics Ask,’ had nothing to say on this topic. Meaning, there is likely no secular objection to the passage. Not sure what that means, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

The comments.

While I read a bunch of things on this topic, these were the ones which, I think, echoed the consensus, or had something unique to say.

This Man was the Son of God, the eternal Word. Joshua gave him Divine honours: he received them, which a created angel would not have done, and he is called Jehovah, chap. 6:2. To Abraham he appeared as a traveller; to Joshua as a man of war. Christ will be to his people what their faith needs. Christ had his sword drawn, which encouraged Joshua to carry on the war with vigour. Christ’s sword drawn in his hand, denotes how ready he is for the defence and salvation of his people. His sword turns every way - Henry, M. and Scott, T. (1997) ~Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary~. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, p. Jos 5:13.

Mr Henry does not open up to discussion here. He clearly states that, in his opinion, as an accomplished biblical scholar. He believes that this is Christ. Notice he says Christ, not Jesus. I think there’s probably a long and interesting article to write on the topic of the pre-incarnation and how we think about it/Him. I greatly enjoy how this makes a comment of the reason for the visit, to encourage Joshua. The implication is also an endorsement. Something he likely needed as he was trying to fill the shoes of his predecessor.

The real character of this personage was disclosed by His accepting the homage of worship (compare Ac 10:25, 26; Rev 19:10), and still further in the command, “Loose thy shoe from off thy foot” (Ex 3:5). - Jamieson, R., Fausset, A.R. and Brown, D. (1997) ~Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible~. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., p. 146.

Another agreement here from a well-known source. This also sees little debate in the identity, but fails to actually state it, which is interesting.

If this was only an angel, he would have repelled Joshua’s worshipful response. Joshua is reminded here that he is merely the leader of God’s army for whom God abundantly supplies the most important kind of armor—the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10–18). - Longman, T., III (ed.) (2009) ~Deuteronomy through Ruth~. Barbour Publishing (Layman’s Bible Commentary), p. 115.

This commentary does not see the vision as a supportive comfort only, but also as a reminder that Joshua is ‘merely’ the worldly leader of the army, and the army is God’s. I don’t think this perspective dismisses the visit as an endorsement, but it focuses on the reminder of place for Joshua. Intriguing stuff, to me at least.

Here Joshua met Jesus, Jesus the Captain of the Lord’s host. You see, if it were an angel then He would’ve refused his worship. John several times in the book of Revelation, tried to worship the angel, and he said, “Stand up worship the Lord. - Chuck Smith C-2000

As I have said many times in many posts, I find Chuck Smith’s Commentary to be one of the best I have access to, in no small part because of his style of writing. Chuck not only states that if this were just an angel, then the worship would have been rejected. He also points to the Book of Revelation as an example of this.

Conclusion.

I scoured my physical library, my eSword library and my shiny new Logos library, and I cannot locate a single respectable source which rejects the notion that this Commander is more than an angel. There are a great many sources that make no comment on this passage, which may be a comment in its own right.

Regardless of where you personally fall on this topic, I think at the very least we have to recognise this as a fascinating few passages which perhaps would not benefit from further expansion within the Bible. Take it how you like, but Joshua got confirmation that he was the man for the job. The results of this confirmation are seen, laid bare, throughout the rest of the book of Joshua, and the legacy he left to the people of Israel. I can’t help but be humbled by the impact of the short interaction. I think there is something to be said for how much God can do with a single moment in someone’s life.

And no, I do not think he had to finish the battle without his sandals on.

Cross-references

Below are the cross-references as listed in my NKJV Study Bible. I think you may find them interesting if you are looking for some related reading.

Exodus 3:5 - Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”
Genesis 18:1–2 - Then the LORD appeared to him…
Genesis 32:24 - Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day.
Acts 7:33 - ‘Then the LORD said to him, “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”

Notes: I do not use AI in my writing. I have, however, recently begun using the Logos software, which gives me easy referencing and linked searching. I constantly try to state sources and link back to original articles where I can. Also, please note, I am not a theologian; I am simply an interested reader of the Bible who enjoys sharing thoughts.

KitKats made me Christian. - My testimony

Sun, 12 Oct 2025 17:16:07 +0000

the following is reworking of the testimony I gave at my Baptism in June of 2024, I am sharing it here, so that I have a quick way of sharing it when I need to, and, on the off chance others want to read it.

I haven’t been Christian for that long, not really. Actually, the first time I ever walked into a church, on purpose, and willingly, was the fifteenth of January 2023.

I entered, filled with suspicion, eager to figure out what the scam was. I know that sounds bad, but a few months prior, I had walked into the Manna House food bank, next door to the church, to drop off a few hundred KitKats from work.

I think it was at that moment that I actually became a Christian, I just hadn’t realised it. You see, if you had asked me at the time, I would have told you I was a Wiccan. I had been to festivals and read possibly hundreds of books about the illusive old-ways. But in twenty years of books about mysteries and too many YouTube videos about ancient monuments, I had never once seen a Wiccan helping the local community. To be honest, finding them outside the books or the internet was enough of a hurdle.

I may have left KitKats on the table that day, but I took away a sense of confusion, and a nagging in the back of my brain. _What was the scam?_I knew that Manna House was associated with the Elim church, so, that evening, I searched the web for food banks and Christians, trying to learn the link. One thing led to another, and I spent the next week in a nerd-hole, reading everything I could about Christianity, Jesus, and oddly, Nestlè, because it was still KitKat’s fault, after all. I ordered a Bible, when I realised there was a manual.

Once Christmas was over, I walked in the front door one Sunday. I stayed quiet and wondered how long before someone asked me for money or tried to get me to join a cult. I was on the inside, and I was going to figure out the scam this time.

Turned out ,it was a lovely morning. I kept coming week after week, waiting for the other shoe to drop, expecting the ‘crazy bit’ each time.

I kept reading that Bible too, I read that thing every day because it’s an enormous book which takes quite a time to get through. I had learned from the internet to start at Matthew rather than Genesis. The day I got to the end of Hebrews, I realised something. I wasn’t looking for the scam any more. At some point, the words had rewired me, and I wasn’t looking for ancient mysteries, or secret answers. I had everything I needed. I kept reading and eventually finished the Old Testament too. By the end I didn’t want it to be true, I didn’t hope it was true, but, I knew it was true and changes had happened along the way.

My motivation was no longer simply falling in-line with what people expected of me. It wasn’t staying out of trouble and not being annoying. I wanted, to live in a way that pleased Jesus. Because, suddenly, it seemed like the right way to live. Before that, I wasn’t a particularly bad person. I did okay, but my reasons for doing things had changed. On the outside, I’m not sure how different I actually am. But, on the inside, all the wiring is new. I used to care about people because I was expected to. I do care now. I help people where I can, not because “It’s how you make them like you,” but because, I want to support people in my life, wherever I can.

I used to think my life would always be lonely and without purpose. Now, thanks to the Bible, Jesus and, the church, I have met numerous wonderful people and stopped looking for meaning in empty books. I love life now, more than ever, because of Christianity. And, likely unrelated, I’ve not had a KitKat since.

Thank you for reading

Minimum Viable Prayer - When does a thought become a prayer?

Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:28:43 +0000

The MVP in sports is a well-known acronym for the ‘Most Valuable Player.’ Likewise, I think there are some ways in which the ‘Minimum Viable Prayer,’ is also the ‘Most Valuable Prayer.’

Disclaimer: As I have said many times in many posts, I am not a theologian. I’m just an avid Bible reader and thinker of things. So, please, if the following resonates with you, seek advice from a more qualified person, or please do your own study.

What is a Minimum Viable Prayer?

When I go outside, of an evening, while my dog answers the call of nature, I often look up at the sky and admire the early nighttime clouds and stars. Sometimes, I am blessed to see the Moon glowing through those clouds. A vista which I adore. The sharp lines of the moon and the soft glow never fail to warm my soul, even on the coldest of evenings.

In those moments, I typically find myself almost absentmindedly thanking God for the time outside, the clean air, my little dog and a myriad of other things which wash across my mind.

As another example - I had a conversation with a non-christian friend the other day. After the conversation, I found myself asking God to help them with the problem they faced and to help them to meet Jesus. I also found the thought evolving into thanking God for a few of the people in my life.

In both of these examples, I did not consciously think, ‘time to pray!’ It was more organic than that. I began thinking about a blessing or a need in my life, and before I even knew it, I was lifting these thoughts up to God. I had not consciously realised that I had done this until later when I was reflecting on my day.

During these little emergent moments praised God, thanked God and I did so without consciously thinking about worship. Which got me thinking, Biblically speaking, what is a prayer, and what is the minimum required words, effort, or intentionality to be classed as such?

To scripture, I go…

Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

I think Isaiah addressing God (answering him) is inarguably a short prayer. It does not conclude with Amen, or have a formal structure. It is just the words “Here am I, Send me” in the NKJV. In the more common NLT, the wording is a touch more modern, with it reading “Here I am. Send me.” - Still just five English words.

Matthew 15:25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

In this verse, we see a Canaanite woman asking Jesus to heal her daughter. I feel, strongly, that seeing Jesus in his incarnated flesh and asking something of him is clearly a prayer. Whether she realised it or not, asking something of God in this way is truly the most pure of prayers.

Luke 18:13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’

Here we have Jesus himself telling a parable, where a tax collector asks God, ‘be merciful to me, a sinner!’

In this parable the tax collector is the hero of the story, showing humbleness, giving his problem, guilt, and grief for his life to God. A faithful, God-fearing man. It’s an earnest moment of pure faith, in prayer. And, again, you may notice, no Amen, no structure and no pomp. This was someone crying out to God for forgiveness.

I have one more example which I feel worth looking at before I expand on some more thoughts. This one, though, maybe the greatest single prayer in the entire of the New Testament (besides the ones from Jesus.)

Matthew 14:30 But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me!”

Another instance of someone asking Jesus, directly, for help. In this case, a literal request for salvation, though, the physical kind rather than the more common spiritual sort.

This one is three words and possibly the simplest format a sentence can be, a request for help. It literally could have just been the word ‘Help’ directed at Jesus, and the meaning would be no different.

When I began writing this article, and scouring the Bible for examples of short prayer, I found myself quite stunned by this verse. The more I thought about the scene, the more it resonated with me.

Now for a tangent, related, but somewhat off the beaten track…

My first through was to imagine having the privilege to reach out to Jesus with an open hand, and a great need and be able to ask, or perhaps even scream for direct, physical, instant, help.

I then felt a wave of something close to shame, as I realised that we all, do, in fact, have that privilege. When Jesus spoke of having enough faith to move mountains, I never understood the meaning, not really, until now. I have spent a long time envying the Apostles for their relationship with Jesus, and I had not thought about my own relationship with Him. As a Christian, I too, not only can reach out and ask, but do, and have done. He may not be wondering around the sea of Galilee while we tentatively climb out of a boat. But, he is with us all the time, and because of the relationship forged with faith and through scripture, he is waiting for us next to the boat, regardless of what that boat may be in our lives. How can my faith move mountains if I don’t even understand it well enough to truly grasp what that faith even means?

Rant over, back to the actual topic

The traditional format

It is in Matthew 6:9 that we get the template for prayer from Jesus in the form of the Lord’s Prayer. It is this prayer that teaches us about thanking God, praising him, recognising his position in the universe and only then, humbly asking for our needs to be met. While this is a massive simplification of the theological leviathan which is the Lord’s Prayer, I think the point that a prayer should include praise is a solid one.

The Bible is filled with exceptions and standards not met (which is literally a topic of another article I am currently working on.) I think when we intentionally pray, we should do so with an understanding of the process, expectation and ethical implication. But, I also think that God wants a relationship with us. While I know it’s important to maintain friendships and family bonds through visits, phone calls and historically, perhaps letters. I also maintain those bonds through text messages, forwarded pictures of cute dogs I saw on the internet and, occasionally, a thumbs up, to a received message.

I think God wants those calls, in the form of formally structured and intentional prayer, and visits in the form of Church attendance. I also think there is enough in Scripture to prove to us that it’s also okay to give God the Facebook thumbs up in the form of these moments of acknowledgement and forward him dog pictures in the form of these small, minimum viable prayers.

Refining the point

I would like to turn to the book of Romans for one final thought here…

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

When our words are small, the Spirit remains big. While I know that the book of Romans is talking about the moments when words fail us, and we cry out to God. But, it’s also another point that helps to build the picture of a God who wants us, as we are, while He refines us into whom we should be.

And finally.

Maybe if or only prayers were ‘Thanks God,’ when we are waiting for our dog to pee, there would be a problem in our relationship with Him. When we read our Bibles and go to church and pray in the way which is ideal, I think it is likely that our little ‘top-ups’ are well received.

Or using as few words as I can think, to make this point - The Amen, doesn’t make the prayer.

Note: This was written by a human, not an AI.

Dead writers and socially acceptable crime. A Christian struggling with copyright.

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 22:08:20 +0000

The Bible was not written recently. Well, if we measure time from the beginning, it was written quite recently, but measuring it in human historical terms, it was not written very recently at all. Occasionally, I struggle with something which would likely be made far clearer if the Bible was written after the invention of the internet.

For instance, the book of Romans has come up a lot recently (and I am measuring time as a person, not from the start, so recently means the last year or so.) It has come up as part of multiple discussions about whether Christian’s have to follow all laws or not. Specifically, in my conversations, the topic of piracy has come up. Not high sea piracy, but the more modern ‘media’ kind. You know… movies, TV, music, books and all that jazz.

Let’s preface this with some scripture.

Rom 13:1 - Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Which is Bible talk for “don’t break the law, you moron!” The commonly accepted wisdom here is that we obey the laws of the land, except where the laws contradict Scripture, then we follow the higher authority, which is God’s word.

I don’t actually believe for a moment that anyone can read that, then shrug and rob a bank. Christians, especially nerdy ones, however, do rationalise this point in a microcosm, in a way which allows them to sail the digital high sea’s and virtually plunder all the episodes of “Friend’s” they want.

There are some commonly used attitudes and arguments around this, such as the old ‘piracy is not theft’ argument. I think many of them are a psychological coping mechanisms rather than obedience to God. Specifically, there are two of these copes which I have struggled with, I will now unpack them.

The media I want is not available to purchase.

Okay, this really is one of the things which I find the most challenging. For example, there is this show called ‘Galavant’ which is a pretty rubbish musical adventure that ran for two seasons back in 2015. I adore it.

I checked and it’s literally not available. I can’t buy it, I can’t rent it, and I can’t stream it. Outside of piracy, there is no way to watch it online.

If I want to watch it and I can’t buy it, am I stealing if I download it? Remember, I cannot give anyone any amount of money to watch this show via the internet.

That’s not the conversation, though, is it. It? The question is, am I following God’s will by ignoring the law of the land?

Oh, and if you are interested, you can get a DVD from a region I can’t play back, on eBay, for £114 at the time of writing… for two DVDs. Also, I don’t have a DVD player.

I could get a pirate copy for free in three minutes. And, I don’t need a DVD player to watch an MKV file.

What about dead authors?

A lot of the authors I read are dead. It feels strange to have to pay for a book by a dead guy who will not get any money for it. But, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 doesn’t make an exception for this. Legally, you should pay, dead or alive. Doesn’t matter. Feels odd, but until a book drops into the Public Domain, you can’t have it for free. To be honest, though, I have noticed that the comparatively low cost of books (in print and digitally) that no one seems to argue for this. Maybe it is about cost after all.

There is also the argument that if you purchased something from the Kindle store and want it on your Kobo, you should be allowed to rip and transfer it. You are not. This is still illegal… I think… perhaps I should check that one, now I think about it.

I was going to imagine a hypothetical scenario here where I asked about someone who could not afford a Bible but could pirate one. Would that be wrong? — well, you see, the reason I didn’t waste very many words here is because you can install a Bible app, for free, on any device that you would have read that illegal download on… I mean, if someone has a phone for piracy, they have a phone for a Bible app. I think the scenario of someone who literally only has a Kindle would be pushing the bounds of believability, which is not useful for a thoughtful hypothetical.

The top result for ‘read bible for free’ on Google lands you here: https://www.bible.com/bible/111/JHN.1.NIV - And, the BSB version is free to download directly as PDF.

God’s rules

How sure are we that God cares about this? Well, we’re not really sure at all. When God said obey your leaders did He also want to add, ‘including all copyright laws what are fluid, regional and ultimately temporary.’

The reality here, I think, is the spirit of the words, not the legalistic loopholing of them. I think God wants us to obey the law because we are less likely to get in a pickle if we are good citizens. I think while God isn’t likely concerned about Mickey Mouse’s cut of the profits, He does care about how it looks when Christians are ignoring laws that they, and secular people, are expected to follow. Do you want to see a Christian in trouble for downloading ‘The Big Bang Theory’ when they could be spending their time learning, reading, praying and spreading the Gospel?

As Christians, we should be examples to the world. We should strive to be better every day and, sadly, that means we should buy that copy of Zootopia, and when a friend asks, we can say we are living the principles of the Bible which we hold so dear. Let us not be hypocrites when we know we should drive for better, especially over something so vapid.

If we break the law, it should be for living in a Christ like way and standing up for that. Not for downloading things we shouldn’t.

This topic is in no way to be taken as an admission of piracy on my part. It is a theological, and philosophical musing, not a recounting of my guilt.

Curse words, bad words, swear words - I was wrong.

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:56:50 +0000

As a Christian, I have always been somewhat out of step when it comes to swear words. Now, I am not a sailor mouthed bleep spewing filth monster. However, I have always shrugged when it comes to ‘bad words’ because I held an incorrect view. Apparently…

I think this may take some unpacking.

Before I was a Christian, I swore as part of my regular communication. I have always felt that respectfulness was the point of ‘clean’ speech, not word exclusion. If the people I interacted with didn’t care, why should I? I have never been easily offended. There are no words that make me gasp and clutch my pearls. Most of the people I interacted with in life have been similarly minded. So, I have never seen any issues with it.

Then I became a Christian and started spending more time with other Christians, as often happens. Again, being respectful and reasonable, I have, without conscious effort, not sworn around them. But, in the rest of my life, while I have naturally migrated to having cleaner and more considered language (the influence of The Spirit, no doubt.) Playing video games, chess and in heated conversations, I have never held back from the spicy lexicon.

When in the workplace, I have always reflected people’s own dialogue style and did so because I thought I was ‘making them more comfortable.’

Then, the other night at my Bible study group, this topic came up. Eventually when I shared my stance of, well, not really worrying about an occasional use of traditional Saxon vocabulary, well, mostly no one agreed with me. Including our new Pastor who was there. This is a nice bunch of people and no one pushed back hard on the topic, but I knew I was in the minority with my view that “God likely doesn’t actually care much about this, and it’s more about respectfulness than specific word choices.”

Part of my reason for feeling this way, I think, is because I consider myself to be a writer (click at the top of my web page, where it says ‘My Writing’ for proof, if you want), and as a writer, I am enthusiastic about words and their impact. I also know that language change’s over time and what is acceptable now, likely was not about an hour and a half ago (or a little more) and there are words we have recently invented which have become instantly unacceptable. I just never bought the idea that it matters.

The Bible it on my side, right?? Right?

Well, as with all things I speak about, when I got home I thought about the conversation some more, mulling over the points raised.

I skipped checking my Bible because I wasn’t sure where to start, but, the next day, I did some searching for articles (hoping to find something agreeing with me… obviously.) Eventually, I did the right thing and went to Scripture, the place where I should have started.

With this framing in place and the scene set, let’s do a little reading and find out just how wrong I was about this…

Ephesians 4:29

29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Unwholesome is a great word, though the KJV chooses ‘Corrupt’ from the original Greek word ‘σαπρός’ (sapros) meaning bad, unwholesome, as well as rotten and worthless. (ref 1)

Ephesians 5:3-4

3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Okay, so Ephesians states that there should be no obscenity. What’s the meaning of obscenity in this context?

As usual, I traced the word back from the NIV to the KJV and then to Strong’s, where it is translated as ‘Filthiness’ but the original word is ‘αἰσχρότης’ (aischrotés) which has choices for translation including shamefulness and obscenity. (ref 2)

Coupling this with the clear warning about ‘Foolish talk’ and ‘coarse joking,’ I can’t help but think we’re seeing a picture of how Christians should speak, and none of it involves the words we are discussing. But is this the only book which tackles this?

James 3:9-11

9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.

10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be.

11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?

As much as the Ephesians passages could charitably be interpreted as topic rather than words, I think this is a little more direct. The mouth we praise God with should not be a source of cursing. Not only does it put me off cursing, it gives me a clear reason too. I don’t even feel like I need to look up a specific word here; it makes its point holistically.

Matthew 2:35-37

35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.

36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.

37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Specifically, verse 36 is the relevant point. Will have to give an account of every word we have spoken. There’s something to consider.

Colossians 3:8

8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

I think I’m starting to see a theme here, but, let’s look up ‘filthy’… (Ref 3)

‘αἰσχρολογία’ (aischrologia) which, yep, has no ambiguity to it, it literally means what it says ‘Filthy Language,’ or Vile, disgraceful conversation. Which really is quite direct.

Conclusion

There is a way in which you can spin this and say that vile communications is a reference to topic and attitude, rather than word. This is the stance I previously took. But let’s be honest, thats not really the point Scripture is making, is it?

Being literal, the curse words of ancient Greek are not the curse words of modern English. God is not a robot. God is not a checklist. God is not someone who works in absolutes. As such being honest, the point about language and fluidity is being used dishonestly.

I think these passages not only build a picture of how we are expected to communicate, but they also make clear that this is the mouth we worship our Lord with! Think about that for a moment, please, because there is weight to it.

James 3:11 really hit me hard too. Fresh water and salt water cannot come from the same spring. Wow, that’s a powerful line, and it hammers home the point perfectly.

I still think that part of this is about what is said as a topic. Humans can be really nasty without the use of a single curse word, but after reading all of this, I can no longer defend my original stance. Regardless of the audience, we should not be allowing ourselves to think it is okay to use words we know are displeasing to God.

If you have an opinion, and it conflicts with Scripture, then your opinion is wrong and needs to be changed. With this in mind, I am pleased to say that I was wrong. I will now take the Scripture I have read and think about it. I will alter my behaviour accordingly. And, I apologise for my previously unchristian language, without reservation.

References

I have given the Bible hub links to the Strong’s data I have used; however, in reality, I used the KJV+ and Strong’s which is a part of the eSword software. The supplied matches perfectly.

I have not listed the referenced Bible verses here, as I would assume all readers have a Bible. But, I should note that all quoted passages are from NIV, unless stated otherwise.

In defence of Reckless love. A case study.

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:42:15 +0000

Reckless Love is a Christian worship song released by Bethel Music, and popularly performed by one of its writers, Cory Asbury. It was released in 2017 and appears to have been overall well received by the Christian community, as a whole. For transparency, I think it is worth pointing out that it is also one of the few songs in the category of ‘Worship music’ that truly resonates with me. Overall, I don’t enjoy ‘Jesus Music,’ which is ironic, as I adore the album ‘Jesus Music’ by CAIN. Anyway, I digress.

Reckless Love is a song that felt truly edifying from the first time I heard it. The parable of the Lost Sheep is also one that resonates with me, so perhaps the lyrics simply align with my favoured Scripture, which is why I like it so much.

It quite literally, never occurred to me that it was objectionable to anyone. As time when on, I learned that it is not the overall message of the song which people find problematic, but specifically the idea, or accusation, that God is reckless in his love for us. This is something that always made sense to me. Is there anything more reckless than truly unconditional love for a person? However, I’ll do the work of breaking down the point and discovering if there is a Biblical defence for this, or if it really is problematic. Either way, I doubt it will affect my enjoyment of the actual song, but let’s find out.

Defining the term ‘Reckless’ and its usage.

The Cambridge Dictionary has this definition for Reckless:

“doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and the possible results” It offers synonyms of careless, sloppy, rash, and, slapdash, among others. (ref 2)

None of this is a good start when I am trying to defend the Song. But at least Cory Ashby is aware of the criticism.

“When I used the phrase, ‘the reckless love of God,’ when we say it, we’re not saying that God Himself is reckless, He’s not crazy. We are, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so.” - Cory Ashby (ref 1)

The line in the song which seems to create the controversy is the following:

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God. (see ref 6 for Full song lyrics)

Even well-regarded internet theologian Mike Winger concluded that the usage was not accurate or in line with scripture. (ref 3) which, again, does not bode well. For context, I have a lot of respect for Mr Winger and enjoy almost all his videos. One of his strengths is in taking things directly to scripture, rather than allowing secular opinion to ‘muddy’ his views. So again, defending the usage of Reckless maybe difficult with this in mind.

Pastor John Piper, when interviewed by the ‘Desiring God’ website, went as far as saying it is a heretical usage of the word. Despite his disagreement with my perspective, as a theological hobbyist, I enjoyed his words in the interview a great deal. The website ‘Berean Test’ has had a little dive into scripture to resolve this and came out with less than convincing results (ref 5, if you want to read through it yourself.)

Scripture that we should consider.

Firstly, to be specific, all Scripture should be considered. A working understanding of the Bible is not only useful but essential for the thoughtful follower of Jesus. However, some strike me as being more topical than others when discussing this. The below is coloured by my own interpretation and I encourage you to reread quoted passages before reading my summary. Please nte that for all the scripture below, I read both NLT and NKJV, however I do favour NKJV.

Luke 15:4-7 (Parable of the Lost Sheep): In this parable, ninety-nine sheep are left while a Shepherd goes to look for one. The implication is that the group is left alone to fend for themselves. Something considered to be a reasonable and noble thing. Which, in my opinion, is relatively reckless, but the one is likely in more danger than the ninety-nine at any given time.

Luke 15:11-32 (Parable of the Prodigal Son): The story of a father accepting the return of his son, who by contemporary standards had disowned him, insulted him and taken money and resources out of the family in order to strike out alone. The father’s love is illustrated to be somewhat reckless, as it has the potential to damage his relationship with another son in order to rebuild one with the returning son. This is framed in scripture as being entirely positive.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25: This passage encapsulates the idea of the Cross being foolish in the eyes of the world. God sacrificing his only son to pay for the debts of people who have failed him time and time again. All being written by the Apostle Paul, who was planting churches and doing outreach to the Gentiles, the very people who he just agreed thought the Cross was foolish.

These are only three examples. I could also point to the poor woman who donated all she had, and Jesus complimented her on it. I could point to the very fact that Judas was a disciple of Jesus, something the Father obviously knew was going to end the way it did. Though, we have good evidence, I think that this was not kept from Jesus either, who welcomed him. Or perhaps to choosing to come to Earth as a poor preacher instead of a King, in its very self being an absurdly deep and impactful act of understanding and love.

My thought noodling.

While I have only been a Christian for a handful of years, in that time I have studied, read the Bible most days, and reflected on the teachings of Jesus. It is not lost on me that God knows all things. But what is also known to him is how his actions may appear to the people on Earth who do not have the benefit of omniscience.

To those of us on the ground level. Those of us who live inside time, no matter how much we trust God, and no matter if we have faith enough to move a mountain, surely there must come a moment where we all are awed by God’s love. But, I’m also sure that there are moments when we are baffled by it.

When the murderer finds Jesus in prison, we know that he is saved, just like everyone else who didn’t kill anyone. It is not fair that he has Jesus. But it is right. It is right because it is God’s will and God is right, just, and good, even if it is ludicrous to us. We may worry this man is ‘faking’ and will strike again, but God tells us that those who come to him through Christ are saved. God knows his heart.

In the Book of Exodus, when God, through Moses, took the nation of Israel out of Egypt. Did anyone there, no matter how much faith they had, not feel that it was at least a little reckless to get up and leave under the watching, and eventually perusing, eye of the entire Egyptian army?

To me, one of the reasons, one of the many reasons that I love God is simply because he (from the point of view of here and now on Earth) will make decisions which appear reckless in order to summon beauty, change, and faith from us.

Poetic language

One of the things which objections to this song do not satisfactorily explain is the idea of poetic language (including the Biblical art of rhetoric.) The Bible often uses poetic language to make a realistic and rational points. The Psalms are entirely this, and it is also found within Job, Ecclesiastics, and Isiah quite explicitly. Though I don’t think any book of the canon is without it at some point. Poetic writing is a tool of any good writer and is used as one of the many ways a person has to communicate accurately and expressively. Is it not reasonable for a contemporary songwriter to use a word that is not theologically accurate but emotive of a theological principle in order to express worship?

Much like an artist may not draw the mountain as well as a photograph, they could likely express the feelings they had about the mountain with a pencil or paints better than ten photographs could. Human creativity often defies absolutism.

God’s love may not be so reckless when you are a deity. But to me, I have seen many examples of God choosing to go after that one sheep while the others are waiting patiently. Even if it is not 100% theologically sound to accuse Him of being reckless, there is a feeling in my soul that tells me that he will chase me down, fight until I am found and leave the ninety-nine for me. Even though I could not earn it and definitely don’t deserve it. It’s overwhelming and never-ending, this reckless love of God.

Conclusion

I think everyone should strive to have a clean conscience before God. We will likely fail, but we should nevertheless strive for it. Romans 14 speaks to this point, especially from verse 2 onwards, where Paul discusses not condemning someone who does not agree with your opinion. With Romans 14, the topic is meat and what is or is not proper to eat. However, this is a lesson that we can equally well apply to word selection and song choices.

Language is a fluid thing, and meanings change. But less discussed is the lens through which we interpret these words. As an enthusiast of the written thought, I am perfectly happy to extract the meaning at the expense of the literal interpretation. But, if a song makes you feel uncomfortable, then do not sing it. If another worshipper finds it to be a good outlet for their worship, feelings, and joy, then let them sing and sing proudly.

To better form this very thought — Artists should be allowed to use their art as worship, and in the case of writers, emotional words may sometimes be used over accurate ones when it helps to better form the art. I think this is no different to the hyperbolic choosing language which is often found throughout scripture.

Though possibly the debate really centres around the idea of recklessness being a negative trait, whereas many people find it to be a virtue when God displays it. Knowing God will sacrifice because he loves us is one of the most comforting things in all the Bible, to me.

Sources

1. Reckless Love (song) - Wikipedia

2. reckless

3. Thinking Biblically about “Reckless Love”

4. Should We Sing of God’s ‘Reckless Love’?

5. Is ‘Reckless Love’ Biblical? | The Berean Test

6. Cory Asbury – Reckless Love

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (and 6:19)

Sun, 07 Sep 2025 16:35:50 +0000

These Verses, as with the last two I have written about, were suggested for study by a friend, and, I have to say, he’s doing a fantastic job of selecting them.

1 Corinthians is my most read and most loved book of the Bible. It has also been the book which I have found to be the most challenging.

This epistle is attributed to Paul beyond any reasonable doubt. There is some debate whether 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is original or a later addition. (ref 1) - However, thankfully, the passages we have here are without authorship contestation.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

1 Corinthians 6:19

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

(NIV)

My pre-Commentary thoughts.

As usual, the below was my raw reading, no commentary consultation, just a lot of thinking.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 - Saying that we are God’s temple feels like it can be supported without objection by the indwelling of the Spirit. Before the Spirit was within us, he was in the temple. This is a diligently, delightfully self-supporting verse.

The next says that destroying the temple will result in God destroying the person. Is this speaking about abusing one’s own body, through injury, immorality, physical sin, or is this a direct remark about despair (and suicide?) Sin often damages the body, but it does not destroy it. Is encouraging someone to leave the faith also destruction of the temple, I wonder? Does losing one’s faith result in the exiting of the Holy Spirit?

Another way this could be interpreted is to focus on the word ‘together.’ Together, we are the temple. Perhaps more likely, now I think about it, that it is speaking about the church, as in, a group of believers. Perhaps, like so much scripture, it’s speaking about both these things. (Because The Word is usually smarter than all of us. ☺️)

1 Corinthians 6:19 - Here we have another verse which reminds us that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. I have always enjoyed that we are owned by God. I know to whom I belong, spiritually speaking. The Spirit being inside me is comforting. He keeps me safe. He wards off lesser spirits (which is literally all of them.) and he is the guiding force within me, which I think accounts for my desire to do better in life. I am, after all, not my own. — I find this very reassuring.

I notice though that the word Temple here is never plural; we, collectively, are the (singular) temple. We are not all temples. I’m not sure about the implications of that, but it certainly makes me feel connected to other believers.

Striking word

The word ‘temple’ here simply cannot be ignored.

Original Word: ναός (nah-os’)

Meaning: From a primary word ναίω naiō (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple: - shrine, temple.

Total uses: 46

Translated as: Temple (43 times) - Temples (2 times) - Shrines (1 time)

Source: (ref 2) Strong’s

The word temple actually means ‘indwelling’ and we are in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. We, believers, are literally temples. Wow. This wasn’t a ‘close enough’ usage. The writers of the New Testament literally mean that we are temples. That somehow makes sin far worse, now I think about it.

Sermon Bible

Within my application, eSword, there is a commentary which is simply called ‘Sermon Bible Commentary,’ I’ve had some difficulty finding the actual source material for reference (Ref 3) but it provided some good information and phrasings I found useful.

The commentary points out that it is this entrance of the Holy Spirit which accounts for the born again nature of the believer. Without its entrance, we could not claim to be a new creation. It describes the attunement which takes place as turning away from a tendency for evil, towards a tendency for good. Overall, I think the point is that when the Spirit is within you, you are more prone to act in line with God’s will, not bound to, but inclined to, overall. _(Attibuted to H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2067.) _

The Sermon Bible has other comments from different writers who all make similar points, leading me to believe that I have properly understood the core of this verse.

Chuck Smith (C-2000) (ref 4)

As I have come to expect, Chuck does an outstanding job of summarising the ‘common’ wisdom around these passages, which align with the above. However, Chuck also points out that there is a linguistic and possibly spiritual parallel here between the believer as a temple vs Satan taking Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple when he was tempted. He also says that here is an external and internal word for temple in the original language, and when Jesus spoke about rebuilding it in three days, it was this internal temple meaning he was using. I am not a linguist, but I think Chuck is a pretty good source for this claim.

He also says that as the Holy Spirit is within us, so is Jesus, and when we go somewhere, or commit a sin, we are in some way taking Jesus with us when we do. The implications of that will take me some time to unpack, I think. Maybe I’ll follow that up with a musing when I have it fully, theologically noodled out. What are the implications of taking Jesus along for your sin?

It is also commented on, that we should eat right and look after our physical form, as we have been trusted to look after temples, we need to do a good job and look after our bodies. Something I have often failed at (though, I am trying my best in recent months.)

Final thoughts.

Wow, three scripture posts in a row, which all, essentially escalate the same point. I feel like I am at the end of this thread right now. I need to be a better custodian of my temple, for sure. I also must remember the third person of The Trinity. The Spirit is doing a lot, day-to-day in my life, and often we put all our focus on the Father and the Son, forgetting the helper, who is with is inside us, in the most direct way possible.

Something to think about, for sure. I’ll do my best to internalise these teachings.

References

Barclay, John (2001). “65. I Corinthians”. In John Barton; John Muddiman (eds.). The Oxford Bible Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1130. ISBN 978-0-19-875500-5 (https://archive.org/details/oxfordbiblecomme0000unse/page/n9/mode/2up(https://archive.org/details/oxfordbiblecomme0000unse/page/n9/mode/2up))
Strongs Concordance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
eSword Library https://www.e-sword.net/contents.html referenced source was H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2067. Available online https://biblehub.com/commentaries/sermon/1_corinthians/3.htm
Chuck Smith’s C2000 bible commentary series. Available in original Audio, for free.

This post was written and researched without the use of AI (unless you count a spell checker)

Ephesians 1:3-6 — A casual Bible study.

Sat, 30 Aug 2025 18:36:11 +0000

Time for another deep read, this time Ephesians 1:3-6. (if you are curious about my methodology, please check the bottom of this post.)

Ephesians was written by Paul, around 62AD (though this has been challenged in recent years. It still seems likely that Paul did, in fact, author this.) The Halley’s Bible Handbook (ref 1) notes that his was a circular letter to the Asian Churches, with blank spaces, so each city could insert its name. This is the reason for the lack of personal greeting. (It is, however, worth noting that the author does not give citation for this.)

I enjoy the poetic outlook that writer John Cassidy has on the letter, where he states its general point as being:

Salvation brought about through the death and resurrection of Jesus will bring about unity and harmony on a cosmic scale

(ref 2)

With this framing in place, it is the following specific verses of Ephesians which I am looking at today:

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love,

5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

(NIV)

Thoughts.

After reading these verses repeatedly every day for the last week, I have come to the conclusion that they are direct and uncharacteristically simple for Paul. Not that I don’t think they are wonderful and have profound meaning, but the meaning isn’t encrypted or behind a layer of theology. They are a simple (by Pauline standards) statement about who we are and what God has planned for us. I don’t see a hidden layer behind them, as I do with so many of Paul’s writings.

In verse three, we have acknowledgement of the trinity, which I always enjoy. It also says that these blessings are ‘in Christ’ which to me says that God is praised, and accessible to us through Jesus. Without being followers of Jesus, we are not invited to praise. This is, at least, the way I interpret these words. We are also thanking him for the spiritual blessings we have received. I am not sure if I have any spiritual blessings, but I do feel blessed by Jesus, so maybe that’s the same thing.

I have never considered that God planned me before the creation of the world. This is comforting to me. It goes on to say that we will be blameless in his sight, in love. I was planned and chosen and loved, and blameless to him, even at this planning stage. Wow. There’s a thing to think about, isn’t it.

Now we see that he planned for us, and planned to make us his children, through Jesus. Again, we have this implication that accepting Jesus is the way we get the things which were planned for us.

Verses three, four, and, five speak to me about what is desired and planned for me. Reminding me that it is through Jesus which this comes, but, in verse six, we again come full literary circle and Paul praises. He is thanking God for that which he is giving us, freely. There is a condition though, isn’t there, the condition that we accept Jesus as our saviour. But, then again, I suppose it is freely given, isn’t it. Why would someone not accept Jesus once they know what he did for us, and what rewards he secured for us in doing so?

If Halley’s Bible Handbook is correct in the assertion that it was not actually written to a specific church, but to a general collection of churches, then there is something to notice. Paul doesn’t directly tailor it with deeper and relevant meanings, as his audience is wider than it usually is.

Wider reading

As I said in my previous scripture study post — I try to read the passage without wider influence, and, have the above opinions before moving on. In this case, though, I was literally reading Halley’s when the suggestion to study this passage came up; I couldn’t resist a peek at the section. All of the above notes were made before moving on to wider sources and commentary. The below were written after my study.

Chuck Smith’s C-2000 Commentry. (ref 3)

Below is a summary of things I learned through reading this. You should read it too… Or listen to it if you like, it’s a transcript after all.

Paul is thanking God for spiritual blessings, not physical ones. This is in direction opposition to the prosperity movement, thankfully.
If you continue reading, Paul spends three chapters telling you what God has done for you.
Chuck touches on the Doctrine of Election here. When he speaks about being chosen by God and Chuck, like many people, feels it’s unfair to be simply selected. He thinks he had a choice though, and that is something he is grateful for. I am not sure if I think he’s right about that, but, it’s a complicated point. Glad he touched on it.
He mulls over the idea of being selected before the beginning of time. He mentions that he likes the idea that God selected him before he had ‘cleaned up his act,’ which, I too, find comforting. I was selected, back when I was drinking too much, worshiping false gods and generally not being a nice person. Nice to know that God still wanted me, even then.
When talking about being adopted through/in Jesus. Chuck says something so wise, so wonderful, that I have to just quote it directly here. —“One of these days my name is going to be called, and I am going to stand out, and God is going to look at me, and Jesus is going to step up and say, “Father, one of mine.” In Christ, holy, without blame. “He is innocent Father. He is without blame. He is faultless.” He is going to present me faultless. How? Because He is going to present me in Him. It is in Christ that I have this standing before God of faultless, without blame, holy. That isn’t me, that isn’t my works, that isn’t my efforts; that is the way God is going to receive me in Christ Jesus.” I’m not going to gloss over this, I had a very manly tear in my eye when I read that (and the next three times I read it too.)

Actually… I wanted to take a moment here — Chuck Smith is Awe inspiriting. If you get a chance, read his biography, it really moved me. His commentary is, I feel, one of the most insightful out there. Also, there’s a movie about him. It’s called Jesus Revolution. Chuck he is played by Kelsey Grammer.

Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (ref 4)

Mr Henry is very wordy, and as such, my bullet points will be insufficient to truly capture his points.

Writing in something like 1706, Mr Henry was not too focussed on capitalistic perils. But he does say, rightly so, that spiritual blessings are the best blessings. Which I enjoyed.
One of the Spiritual blessings which he postulates we have received is salvation though Christ. Which is something I didn’t consider earlier.
He muses that adopted children have all the rights of born children and then goes on to say that in his opinion more meaning and weight is extracted because this was all decided before creation. He speaks of it as being part of eternal council, which is something I need to unpack in a proper study one day.

There you go. That’s everything I could glean from this passage. As usual, I would like to remind you that there are an infinite number of commentaries at this point and there are many ways to interpreting the words of the Bible. This is a chronicle of what I read. I am sure, when I revisit this in a year or so, there will be far more to add, as I grow and learn. But for now, I do not have anything additional to say.

Thank you for reading.

References used

I have used in reference the following sources, as well as the NIV and NKJV bible printings (via eSword.)

The Halley’s Bible Handbook - page 614. 24th edition, printed in 1965, ISBN 0-310–25720-4
A brief introduction to Ephesians by Ron Cassidy, 2008. Archived on the wayback machine in 2015. Originally published by Virginia Theological Seminary.
Chuck Smith’s C2000 bible commentary series. Available in original Audio, for free.
Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible - Available to read online, but I believe its in the Public Domain.

1 Peter 1:1-2 — A casual Bible study.

Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:17:37 +0000

Recently, a friend and I ended up having an impromptu ‘deep read’ of 1 Peter 1:1-2. We went away and did a little research and met back the following week top discuss it. While I’m sure (certain) that there are deeper dives into these verses by people far more qualified than me to do so (I’m just an enthusiastic reader), I did the study and thought I would share it, as it may be of interest, to someone else.

1 Peter

The first epistle of Peter has debated authorship, and may have been written as late as 81AD, I am quite comfortable, personally, with the traditionally embraced authorship of this letter. I don’t find any of the reasons for it not being Peter’s own scribed words to be compelling. Mostly because, if you are going to fake a letter, it would be more effective to attribute it to Paul, who was a prolific letter writer. All the comments or critique seem to be hinged on the idea that ‘a fisherman couldn’t write this well,’ which is at best insulting to fisherman, and at worst classist arrogance.

Regardless of the actual source of this letter, for the purpose of this study I will take the stance, as did the early church, that this is, as it introduces its self, a letter from Peter.

I have taken the passage below from the NIV translation as it is likely the most well known, however I, personally, favour the NKJV

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,

1Pe 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance—(NIV)

Striking word: Elect

All numbers below are based on the KJV (all numbers and data below sourced with Strongs, not AI)

Original language word: ἐκλεκτός (eklektos)
Meaning (Strongs): select; by implication favourite: - chosen, elect.
Number of usage in NT: 23
Translated as: Elect (12 times) - Chosen (7 times) - Elect’s (3 times)

Based on the translation choices, it is clear that this implies that the person/people addressed in this verse are the chosen people. They are the selected, the identified (and favourite?) It is not a choice we make, but a choice God makes for us. Is this something done to/for us rather than something we do?

We are elected, like a leader or a politician, rather than democratically. It’s the democracy of God; he is the only voter.

Striking word: Exiles

Original language word: παρεπίδημος (parepidēmos)
Meaning (Websters, 1828): To banish, as a person from his country or from a particular jurisdiction by authority, with a prohibition of return; to drive away, expel or transport from one’s country.
Number of usage in NT: 3
Translated as: Pilgrims (2 times) - Strangers (1 time) - Please note, this is the word which the NIV has translated as ‘Exiles’, I assume for clarity. But, Strangers/Pilgrims both appear to make more sense, overall, in my opinion. However, as the NIV is not a word-for-word translation, the exact reason could well be more nuanced.

This was the second word which struck me as having a deep relevance to the meaning, and I’m glad it did. The NKJV and KJV chose different translations for it, with the NKVJ using ‘pilgrims’ and the KJV using ‘strangers’ — I checked my printed version of the NKJV Open Bible and my NKJV Life application study Bible and neither have comment around this, choice. I have, however, done a little more work and found a reference to it:

Wayne Grudem, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, notes that parepidēmos means “one who is only temporarily residing in a place, a foreigner.”

The English meaning seams to have changed since 1611, where Stranger, meant foreigner, rather than outsider. An interesting case of linguistic ‘false friends,’ given how subtle the difference is.

I think the traditional concept of exiles is accurately conveyed in both versions, and the point seems to me that it is addressing the scattered. I realise at the time it was historically Jewish people who were being addressed here, but I firmly believe that every word of the Bible is for everyone, despite not being to everyone. With this in mind, are we strangers or exiles from God, in the way that we are away from him right now, in a physical sense?

This should not concern us, as the text goes on to say that through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through obedience to Jesus, Grace, and peace will be ours. And abundantly so.

Wider meaning I have extracted from this

We are chosen to be here. To be away from God, in physicality. We’re not here accidentally. We are here because God elected us to be here, and now.

We are assured of grace and peace because we have the spirit with us, and we have faith in Jesus to feed us (John 6:35.) While this passage does not tell us what to do, it does say that the Spirit is working. With this in mind, we should trust in the Spirit, put our faith in Jesus and do what we know to be right, according to God, through study of scripture. To be just and good. Our reward will be Grace and Peace.

These two passages, to me, contain the literal core of the entire teaching of the New Testament. It is a microcosm of Christianity, and I never before realised how wonderfully concise and deep so few words could be. I strive for this elegance in my own writing.

Commentary says

Only after drawing my own opinions did I open a commentary. My usual go-to is Chuck Smith’s (C-2000), so I started there. Obviously, it is not useful for me to recount and quote directly here but reading, I gleaned the following:

Chuck prefers ‘scattered’ to ‘exiles.’ A change of word which I think was changed to make the passage clearer in some small ways. I am not sure if I agree but reading it again with this new word adds a new flavour to it.
Chuck talks about the doctrine of election here. The idea that God has perfect knowledge and all who are saved are elected. This is a very Calvinist way of looking at things, and if you are not familiar with it, please do read up on it. It’s not something a Pentecostal church would teach (I attend a pentecostal, for clarity) but something I, personally, agree with. This is a controversial topic which is very sensitive to some people, and I am still not done learning about. I am very much still researching it. I do think the doctrine of election is an interesting topic, regardless and not something which really occurred to me when reading the passage, thought it really should have done.
He points out that the Trinity is in these verses. Explicitly so. This is something I missed when reading it. It refers directly to the Father, Son, and Sprit in clear terms. They really are a good couple of trinitarian verses.
The last thing he says before moving on is that not only does this mention the Trinity, it explicitly mentions the blood of Christ, his sacrifice. It is a perfect reflection of the teachings of the entire Bible. Something I noticed, but not in such a direct way.

Moving on now to my second most referenced commentary, the Matthew Henry commentary (it’s an older one, written between 1708-1710.)

I felt the following points here noteworthy:

Peter identifies himself with the name Jesus gave him, not Simon, but Peter. He is speaking _as_the the rock here. In fact, whenever he speaks with the name Peter, there is an authority in it. A name given to him buy Jesus, it’s quite a statement.
He notes that Peter also identifies himself with his credentials, his rank, apostle.
Mr Henry points out that once, the nation of Israel was the elect. Now it is you and me. God did not change his mind, but instead kept firm that those who believe in him are elect, whom the elect are changed, not God.

Mr Henry uses many pages to cover this verse, and a lot is said, most of which are covered through my own thoughts and the additions I found in Chuck Smith’s comments. However, as always, everyone should read Matthew Henry; it’s excellent.

I checked the Cambridge Bible Study and John Wesley’s notes on the Bible, and, while all works give a delightful unpacking of the points in different ways, I think I have covered all the points which I found useful. Not to say there is no more in there, but this was enough for me to feel like I had a deeper grasp. I think this is worth revisiting, perhaps after a full study of 1Peter.

_The article is over, the rest is optional reading for people how have questions about how I study. _

Notes about my study methods

I just wanted to take a moment to say that I am not presenting myself as an expert here. As I said at the start, I am just an enthusiastic reader. I did, however, want to leave some information about my study methods (this is how I approach all Bible study, not just this one.)

Software

The science fiction dystopia we live in has some perks, as such I embrace them, and for Bible study I use the eSword software. It is available on all major platforms (including my favourite, the iPad version) and comes for free, or very low cost (a few pounds) on mobile platforms. I did pay for access to NKJV, MSG, NIV, and NLT. The software included TSK, Websters and Chuck Smith C-2000 for free, which I make great use of. I really like eSword.

I use Apple Notes to write up my study, and then Ulysses when I want to format it for sharing. My website is hosted on Micro.Blog, and I like it. I do not trap statistics regarding visits or clicks, and, I do not advertise. _(I make no money from this site) _

I do not use AI for Bible study, or writing. There is nothing wrong with using AI to find a reference or get a quick summary of something, but it’s disrespectful to repackage that when writing for an audience.

Print

My goto Bible for study is the Life Application Study Bible (NKJV). I also use the Open Bible, (NKJV) as the version I have put each verse on a new line, making it ideal for study, though it has less commentary than the Life Application one.

I also make use of the cheapest Message paraphrase I could find, as I enjoy its framing of verses. I recommend the NLT when reading aloud in groups, as it flows better for group study.

Theological stance

I believe that scripture is infallible, but all translations are all flawed in one way or another, so using multiple is useful. I enjoy reading passages on my own and write my thoughts before consuming commentary, this is useful in forming my perspective and is interesting when commentary disagrees with my reading as it gives me more in-depth insight.

Thanks for reading.

Art: Sleeping in the garden

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 07:02:48 +0000

Art: The before the last supper.

Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:17:42 +0000

While i usually post my art on Niceferatu.net (see comic link in title bar) I had a random idea which I decided to draw last night.

Please note, this is meant to be taken as a cute (hopefully) lovingly drawn little cartoon, not theology!

Christianity: Bible translation comparisons and thoughts, from an interested reader.

Mon, 30 Dec 2024 22:45:21 +0000

Recently I was reading the translation notes in my NLT bible and there were a few lines which made me raise an eyebrow. This led me to go on a bit of a deep dive into all the translations which I read.

I am not an expert and all information provided can be found online with ease. All I did was read and collate it with some thoughts.

To be clear, despite this information, I believe all the listed translations are reliable enough to be inspired. This is a narrative on translation philosophy, not an attempt at critique. It is intended to be a research session in which I educate myself and share my findings. I believe they are all good translations for different purposes. However, I have preferences, which I will summarise at the end.

NLT

First Published: 1996 (second major edition was 2004)

Type of Translation: Dynamic equivalence, “Designed to be read aloud,” according to translation notes page.

Translation basis:

– OT: Masoretic Text as primary with comparison to Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Greek manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate

– NT: The UBS 4th revised edition and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition (basically, the Greek NT)

Examples of translation philosophy: Gender-inclusive language is used where the editors believed that it was appropriate and deity pronouns are not capitalised. Plural pronouns (they, them) are used in place of the masculine singular (he, him) example of this is in Proverbs 22:6 (table below)

The tetragrammaton is rendered as “the Lord” (small caps, no idea how to do that on my keyboard)

– Weights and measures, money, dates and times, etc., are described in modern terms, with footnotes giving the literal translation. For example, John 6:7 reads: “Philip replied, ‘Even if we worked for months, we wouldn’t have enough money to feed them'”, with a note that the Greek text reads “Two hundred denarii would not be enough” and an explanation that a denarius was equivalent to a laborer’s full day’s wage. (Found on wikipedia but I checked the reference)

– When the content of the original language text is poetic in character, NLT has rendered it in English poetic form. NLT sought to break lines in ways that clarify and highlight the relationships between phrases of the text.

– “ten shekels of silver” becomes “ten pieces of silver”

– “denarius” is rendered as “the normal daily wage”

Information sourced from:

– [www.tyndale.com/sites/nlt...](https://www.tyndale.com/sites/nlt/faq)

– [www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2prefa...](https://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2preface.html)

– [www.tyndale.com/sites/nlt...](https://www.tyndale.com/sites/nlt/translation-process)

– …and, Wikipedia, all claims checked.

NIV

First Published: NT 1973 & OT 1978, 2011 update.

– Updated ‘gender inclusive version’ published 1996, but only in the UK and commonwealth publishing areas.

– 1996, additional: An easier to read version, New International Reader’s Version (NIrV), was published in 1996. It was written at a third-grade reading level, to enable those with limited English literacy levels, the ability to read the Bible

– 2011: Many criticisms addressed and minor changes made.

Type of Translation: Hybrid of literal and phrase-by-phrase.

Translation basis:

– OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. (Source: wikipedia, checked)

– NT: New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland. (Source: Wikipedia, checked)

Examples of translation philosophy: The NIV should not be confused with the NIrV or the NIV-Gender-Inclusive-Version. I would encourage you to check all claims as these versions have been confused, often intentionally, online.

– The 2011 edition of the NIV aims to avoid using “he” or “him” as the default reference to an unspecified person.

– “the Lord of hosts” and “God of hosts” have little meaning, this version renders them “the Lord Almighty” and “God Almighty.”

– The word προσερχόμενον – means “he who comes” and is in the male singular accusative case. Yet the NIV translates this with the gender-neutral “anyone who comes.” (nickcady.org)

The tetragrammaton is rendered as “Lord” (small caps, still no idea how to do that on my keyboard)

– NT Wright commented saying: “if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.”

– Mark Given (Missouri State University) commented saying “several inaccurate and misleading translations” since many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek.

– Poetical passages are printed as poetry, that is, with the indentation of lines and separate stanzas

Information sourced from:

– [www.christianitytoday.com/1997/06/b...](https://www.christianitytoday.com/1997/06/bibles-hands-off-my-niv/)

– page 51: [books.google.co.uk/books](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6i2xvonpvMwC&redir_esc=y) (NT Wright comments)

– Mark Given (Missouri State University): [web.archive.org/web/20161...](https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024005/http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm)

– [s45600.pcdn.co/wp-conten...](https://s45600.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Development-and-Use-of-Gender-Language-in-Contemporary-English-Collins-Report.pdf)

– [www.thenivbible.com/niv-trans...](https://www.thenivbible.com/niv-translation-philosophy/)

– [midmichigannow.com/news/loca...](https://midmichigannow.com/news/local/gender-neutral-2011-niv-bible-creates-controversy)

– [web.archive.org/web/20090...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090906220811/http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/09/bible-politics-a-new-new-new-niv-announced-today/1)

– [www.bible-researcher.com/niv-prefa...](https://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html)

– [nickcady.org/2018/06/1...](https://nickcady.org/2018/06/13/making-sense-of-different-bible-translations-part-3-gender-inclusive-language-and-the-niv/)

– …and, Wikipedia, all claims checked.

NKJV

First Published:

– OT: 1982

– NT: 1979

Type of Translation: considered to be a word-for-word (complete equivalence) translation, which I found surprising.

Translation basis:

– The NKJV is described by Thomas Nelson as being “scrupulously faithful to the original King James Version, yet truly updated to its clarity and readability. (wikipedia, source no longer available)

– A note from me: This does not seem to be totally accurate as different translational choices were made (as illustrated by footnotes and other consulted texts, however the core of the statement appears to hold.

– A word that occurs 11 times in the NKJV: “Hades.” In each of those places, the KJV has “hell” instead.

Examples of translation philosophy: Honestly, in this case its worth reading the Pronouns section of this site [www.tbsbibles.org/page/TheN...](https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/TheNewKingJamesVersion?srsltid=AfmBOoo2WzyTiFMMDujmGT7egxObeuYd7iOY4ddluq8g629dsfKaAJGH#Pronouns) Because there is a lot there to unpack but here are the highlights:

the KJV uses older English pronouns like “thou,” “thee,” and “ye,” which are singular and plural forms respectively, while the NKJV modernizes these pronouns to “you”

Specifically the NKJV replaces most “thou” and “ye” pronouns with “you” which can sometimes lead to ambiguity in certain verses

Tetragrammaton rendered as “LORD” in all capital letters

Information sourced from:

– [web.archive.org/web/20210...](https://web.archive.org/web/20210823082918/http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html)

– [www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html](https://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html)

– [www.bible-researcher.com/comma.htm...](https://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html)

– [www.gotquestions.org/New-King-...](https://www.gotquestions.org/New-King-James-Version-NKJV.html)

– [byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/03/1...](https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/03/13/why-do-our-tr-only-brothers-reject-the-NKJV-with-such-passion-the-trinitarian-bible-societys-examination-of-the-new-king-james-version/)

– [cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbi...](https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/What-Todays-Christian-Needs-to-Know-about-the-NKJV.pdf)

– [www.tbsbibles.org/page/What...](https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/WhatTodaysChristianNeedsToKnowAboutTheNewKingJamesVersion?hhsearchterms=%22nkjv%22)

– [www.paulkhosla.org/blog/ive-...](https://www.paulkhosla.org/blog/ive-shelved-my-nkjv-maybe-you-should-too)

– …and, Wikipedia, all claims checked.

KJV

First Published: 1611

Copyright: Public domain

Type of Translation: considered to be a word-for-word (complete equivalence)

Translation basis:

– OT: Masoretic Text, Apocrypha: Septuagint and Vulgate

– NT: Textus Receptus

Examples of translation philosophy: Its not modern English so you need to put some work in

– “T” pronouns are singular: Pronouns starting with “t” (thou, thee, thy, thine) always refer to a single person.

– “Y” pronouns are plural: Pronouns starting with “y” (ye, you) are used for multiple people

– Luke 2:33 is an example where the KJV and NKJV refer to Joseph, where other translations refer to ‘his father’ which actually lacks clarity while paraphrasing, which is the opposite of the intended purpose. there are multiple cases of this which are outlined in [www.scionofzion.com/kjcompari...](https://www.scionofzion.com/kjcomparisons.html) ← honestly after reading through this, I have reassessed my thoughts on translations somewhat.

Information sourced from:

Please note the KJV is the only translation which has been referred to as a ‘new revelation’ and there are many people who a ‘KJV only’ – As far as I know most of these people do not accept NKJV as an option, despite its similarities and identical textual source.

– [nickcady.org/2018/06/0...](https://nickcady.org/2018/06/06/making-sense-of-different-bible-translations-part-2-the-king-james-bible/)

– [www.thebereancall.org/content/s...](https://www.thebereancall.org/content/september-1992-q-and-a-3?sapurl=Lys5MjZkL2xiL2xpLyt3dm44dWs4P2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQnd2bjh1azg=)

– [www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only....](https://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html)

– [joshuateis.com/2019/11/2...](https://joshuateis.com/2019/11/25/the-history-of-kjv-onlyism/)

– [www.scionofzion.com/kjo.htm](https://www.scionofzion.com/kjo.htm)

– [www.scionofzion.com/kjcompari...](https://www.scionofzion.com/kjcomparisons.html)

– [www.scionofzion.com/luke_2_14...](https://www.scionofzion.com/luke_2_14.html)

– …and, Wikipedia, all claims checked.

Conclusion

While I have given you a somewhat confusing outline and comparison of each bible translation which were of interest to me, the attached web links give more context to each section. I read it all. and a lot more on top of that. After literally days, (and days) of reading I came some surprising conclusions (at least, to me.)

Up until this point have favoured two translations they have been the NLT for group study and reading for enjoyment and the NKJV as a more formal source for studying.

After all this research and consideration, I think there is a case to consider the KJV with more weight than I previously did. I also can not find a major inconsistency between it and the NKJV, as all NKJV printings offer excellent foot notes and translation notes where there are differences to the KJV. As the NKJV has promised, none of these are doctrinal in nature.

Before all this I knew of some of the controversy regarding early NIV editions and have always taken it as a secondary source for study. I now consider this a wise decision.

Even assuming the absolute worse comments about all these translations are correct, I don’t think that there is a ‘wrong’ choice, however, can’t help but think more highly of the KJV now. But, I think there is a chance, that it is historical weight which has added to this opinion.

Hyperbolic and overly confident opinion: NKJV maybe the best translation! and any translation which ends with something other than “Amen” is trash, because the poetry of Amen as the last word is too good not to use!!