Author: Dave Mallinak

Dave Mallinak has served as pastor of Berean Baptist Church of Ogden, Utah since 2001. He has a beautiful wife and five kids, who are even now in the process of flying the coop.

Is the King James Version Inspired?

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church

I am republishing an article (with links, comments, and edits for spelling) I originally published November 27, 2009 on the old Jackhammer blog. You can view the original article, along with the 116 comments that followed, at https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/is-the-king-james-version-inspired/

Your argument is sound… nothing but sound.  —Benjamin Franklin

I, being of sound mind and body, am about to touch the third rail.  I do so reluctantly, yet resolvedly.  But before I do, I should like to say a very fond farewell to both of my readers (Hi mom!  Hi dad!) and it has been nice knowing you all.  Not that political suicide is the best way to go or anything.  I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.  But from time to time, it becomes necessary for one to sacrifice oneself for the sake of an important issue.  So, here I go.  I’m stretching forth my hand even as I type, reaching for that superconductor of electricity that is sure to send a shockwave through the ole’ system and land me flat on my back, perhaps pushing up daisies.  Just remember, I did it for the Gipper…

All Spark and No Fire

So, here go I.  Much of the controversy swirling around the King James issue centers on the question of whether or not the King James Version is inspired.  The English Preservationists have made this the particular sticking point on this issue, and of course, we who also consider ourselves KJVO’s are loath to challenge them on the question.  At least, if we value our place in the KJVO orbit, we better leave this one alone.

Which is exactly why I find myself anxious to address it.  First, there is just something about a third rail that is especially electrifying.  And secondly, I don’t believe that this particular third rail has enough juice to toast a piece of Wonder Bread.  It is all spark and no fire, or something like that.  I certainly don’t believe that this issue will be my undoing.  But then again, I’ve never stepped on a landmine before either.

The real issue here is in the definition of terms.  English Preservationists throw the term “inspiration” around as if it means nothing at all.  Then, they stretch the term around like Gumby, trying to make it sound rational to (a) deny double inspiration, and in the same breath to (b) claim inspiration for our English Version.  One might wish for a grain of honesty, just the size of a mustard seed, so that one could ascertain exactly what it is that they are arguing for, since they believe that the English version of the Bible is inspired, and deny that this means “double-inspiration.”

Since God inspired Hebrew words in the Old Testament and Greek words in the New Testament, and since, as far as we know, English words weren’t around at the time that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, we are faced with a dilemma.  If we deny double-inspiration, then we can’t argue that our English version is inspired.  If we argue that the English version is inspired, then we must necessarily believe in double-inspiration.

Either that, or else we will need to admit that we have elasticized the word “inspired,” turning “inspiration” into a clay humanoid figure.  Logicians call it “equivocation.”  When we use the same term in two different senses, all within the same argument, we are guilty of equivocation.  Equivocation is very popular in humor.  But equivocation is always misleading when we change the meaning of our terms mid-argument, without offering any sort of explanation for the suddenness of our switch.

Depends on What the Meaning of “Is” Is

When a man says that the King James Version is inspired, we understand that to mean that the English words proceeded directly out of the mouth of God.  That would be the plain meaning of the statement.  That is, if we are applying the commonly understood, 2 Timothy 3:16 meaning of “inspired” (theopneustos).  If that same man then turns around and denies “double inspiration,” well then, either he is lying, or he is equivocating the meaning of his terms.

Humorous arguments rely on equivocation in order to make their point, and we generally understand that.  For instance, a student was arguing that there is no such thing as black or brown feathers.  In order to make his point, he argued that since a feather is light, and what is light cannot be dark, therefore a feather cannot be dark.  You might recognize the equivocation in that argument.  It is humorous, so long as he isn’t serious.

Worse examples can be found.  My wife really hated the man who argued that women are irrational because the only rational being is man, and women are not men.  She had an almost irrational desire to bash his brains out of his head.  Fortunately, I was there to point out his equivocation.  Necessity once required us to bring a man before the church because he argued that Ray Charles is God.  He claimed that God is love, and love is blind.  Since Ray Charles is blind, he concluded that Ray Charles must be God.  In his case, he should have understood what the meaning of “is” is.

The Non-Inspired Argument

Unfortunately, not all equivocations are equally apparent.  On the question of whether or not the King James Version is inspired, the definition-shift befuddles and be-muses at times.  This is never more the case than when a man takes it in hand to explain how it is that he believes our English version is inspired.  One favorite trick that he will use is to argue that if the King James Version is not inspired, then we have an “uninspired” or “non-inspired” Bible.  Take this statement from Shelton Smith of The Sword of the Lord as an example.[1]  Under the head “If not inspired, then what is it?” he makes this statement:

As I hold the King James Bible in my hands, if it is not the inspired Word of God, then what on earth is it?

Are you telling me that it is somehow the Word of God but yet not inspired?  Are you saying it is the uninspired Bible?

Ironically, the next section is entitled, “An Inspired KJB is not Double Inspiration.”  And Dr. Smith goes on to say,

None of the men that I know who believe in a preserved, inspired text believe in “double inspiration.”  We do not believe that the KJB translators were gifted (theopneustos) with God’s inspiration!

What we very strongly believe is that the Lord God Almighty promised to “preserve” His inspired Word.  He did use those translators to preserve the text for us so that we have an authentic English Bible.

To automatically equate our insistence on a preserved inspired text as double inspiration reflects neither reality nor the truth.

I repeat – we do not now, nor have we ever, advocated or believed in double inspiration!

As a side note, we should point out that neither does Peter Ruckman.[2]

Nevertheless, we do struggle to answer this charge. If we say that the King James Bible is not inspired, then are we saying that we have an uninspired Bible?

The charge really is not so difficult to answer.  Instead, the reader should note the shift in the terms of the argument mid-stream, because what we have here is a sort of extended equivocation—yet  another misleading use of ambiguity employed by Shelton Smith and those who make this same argument.  We are discussing whether or not a translation of the Bible is inspired.  If I say that the translation was not inspired in the same sense that the original Greek and Hebrew words were inspired, am I saying that my King James Bible is the uninspired Bible?  Absolutely not.

You see, whether intentional or not, this kind of argumentation is dishonest.  Those who make it are glossing over what they mean, and they are doing this by shifting terms back and forth.  First, we are discussing a translation, then, without any warning whatsoever, we shift the argument to Scripture.  The Scriptures are inspired.  The King James Version is a faithful translation of Scripture.  So, we can say that the King James Version is the inspired Word of God.  It is not, however, contradictory on our part to say that the Authorized Version is not inspired.  You ask how that can be so?  Very simply.  When I said that “the King James Version is the inspired Word of God” a moment ago, I was referring to the KJV as Scripture.  And we know that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  When I said that “the Authorized Version is not inspired” immediately afterward, I was referring to the KJV as a translation.  The translation was not inspired. That would require double inspiration.  But the Scriptures are still inspired.  And since the Scriptures are not lost in translation, the King James Version is the Very Word of God.

When a preacher insists that the King James Version is inspired, and insists in the next breath that he is not arguing for double inspiration, he is equivocating.  He should explain what he means when he says that “the King James Version is inspired.”  Is he referring to the KJV as an English translation of Scripture, or is he referring to it as Scripture?  When he calls the KJV inspired, what does he mean by “inspired?”  Does he mean that God breathed it out in the same sense that God breathed out the Greek and Hebrew words?  Does he mean that God divinely superintended the translators as they translated?  Is he referring to the fact that translated Scripture is still Scripture?  There is a significant difference between each of these meanings of inspiration.

The point is that he needs to do a better job of defining his terms.  All arguments aside, it really is misleading to argue that the KJV is inspired, and then to turn around and say that you don’t believe in double inspiration, without any kind of explanation in between those statements.  If a man believes in inspiration for any translation, if he believes that the translation itself is inspired, then he believes that God rewrote the Bible, re-gave the words, this time as English or Spanish or Russian or Latin words.  If he doesn’t believe that, then he needs to find a better way to say what it is that he means.

Given by Inspiration

We have discussed this before in our comments section,[3] but we thought it appropriate once again to attempt a more complete treatment of the question.  In 2 Timothy 3:16, the Bible says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  In English, this phrase is 8 words long.  It is the translation of 3 Greek words—and I apologize to the Greek purists who hate transliteration here, but those three Greek words are, “Pasa graphe theopneustos.”  Literally, all Scripture is God-breathed.  Theopneustos is an adjective in the predicate position, hence the word “is.”

We have had some amount of debate in the past as to whether theopneustos refers to the product or the process.  In other words, does theopneustos refer to the process of giving the words, or to the words as the product of the process?  If we would understand the issue concerning the KJV and inspiration, we must understand the answer to this question regarding theopneustos.

Theopneustos is Product

An adjective in the predicate position makes an assertion about the noun.  All Scripture is theopneustos — God-breathed.  We understand the word “is” to refer to a state of being or existence.  We describe the nature of the existence of Scripture as “God-breathed.”  All Scripture exists as God-breathed Scripture, and that quality is never lost in any of those words.  In the past, we have argued that we know which words were the God-breathed words, because we still have them.  We have all of them.  Non-inspired words were lost, or lost for long periods of time before they resurfaced, thus proving that they were not God-breathed words.  The breath of God produced words, and those words formed Scripture.  All the writings of Scripture are God-breathed.

Theopneustos is Process

Our English Bible translates theopneustos as a verb — given by inspiration.  In fact, the phrase “by inspiration” modifies the verb “given.”  It explains how it was given, the instrument by which all Scripture was given.  If the product of theopneustos is God-breathed words, then the process must necessarily have been by God breathing out those words.  Our English Bible is correct then in its translation.  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  Inspiration was a process, and the result of inspiration was the product of the totality of inspired Scripture.

Inspiration as a process occurred over a fixed period of time.  We believe that God closed the canon, that God finished that process in time past.  The product continues, per the promise of God, forever.  But the process was completed almost 2,000 years ago.  God did not restart or redo that process somewhere around 1611.  But God did enable English-speaking men to give a faithful translation of His Words in English.  The product continues.  We have the ability to examine that product continually, and a great assistance in examining that product, through our English Bible.

But our English Version is not inspired.  To say that it is would be to say that God redid the process.  Our English Bible is the inspired Word of God.  But that is different than saying that the English Version is inspired.  Our English Bible is the inspired Word of God because it faithfully translates God’s Word (the product) into English.  The product is not lost in translation, nor is the process redone.

Much of the argument on this issue has revolved around the “breath of God” and whether or not it can be lost in translation.  I would agree with those who insist that the words retain that quality of being the “breath of God.”  But I would also point out the words that retain the quality of being the “breath of God” are not the English words.  The words that God originally gave, those are the inspired words.  We must understand our English translation in that context, or else we are undoing ourselves in this debate.

[1] Unfortunately, I did not properly cite the article I am quoting from the Sword of the Lord and cannot track it down now. However, Smith’s comments here are consistent with what he has said in other places. See this more recent article for example: https://faithalone.org/blog/kjv-is-inspired-says-dr-sheldon-smith-in-sword-of-the-lord/

[2] In fairness to Dr. Smith, he has also taken heat from those who believe the King James is inspired. This article, for instance, chastises Smith for arguing that “the Greek text allows us to fully discover the beauty of the Bible. In other words, he was saying that the King James Bible is INFERIOR to its underlying texts.”

[3] For the curious, you might be interested in the extended discussions we had on this issue under the category “King James Only” at https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/category/king-james-only/ are undoing ourselves in this debate.

Not All KJVOs are Created Equal

On By Dave MallinakIn Uncategorized1 Comment

Re-printed (with editorial comments) from the article published June 22, 2007 at https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/not-all-kjvo%e2%80%99s-are-created-equal/

Regarding the issue of preservation, on a basic level there are those who believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word, and there are those who believe that God has not.

Those who believe that God has not perfectly preserved His Word typically will say something like this: The Bible is inerrant in the originals, however… the however indicating that copyists and translators and the human element has corrupted the perfection of the originals.

We can divide those who deny perfect preservation into two different camps. On one side are those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture altogether (we call them modernists). Opposed to the modernists, though not entirely separate from them are those who believe that God preserves His Word in a sort of Theistic Evolutionist way, through man discovering new copies and gaining new understanding of Greek, finding new light through scholarship. Modern Versions have come from these Critical Text promoters.

Opposite these MVOs (Modern/Multiple Versions Only), we have those who believe in Perfect Preservation (commonly referred to as KJVOs). The KJVOs can also be divided into two camps. On the one hand, we have those who believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the English Language, which we can call English Preservationists. On the other side, we have those who believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the Original Languages. We can call them Original Language Preservationists. Both sides will hold to the King James, and both sides agree that God has perfectly preserved His Word. But the two sides differ on a number of important issues.

I wish I would have understood that division before writing the infamous Plea for an update. Having spent a significant amount of time debating for the side of the King James Version, I was a bit taken back by the personal attacks launched against me over that one article. Honestly, I was blindsided by it. I have always known, in the back of my mind, that it wasn’t enough to be King James Only, that one could not simply hold the position, but that he must also say it right. One’s membership card will not be adequate. KJVOs must have two forms of identity and pass the shibboleth. Even as a KJVO, I’ve often felt that a discussion of the issue was like a walk on eggshells. So, I wasn’t surprised that I slipped up. After all, I’ve never been one for tiptoeing.

What surprised me was not the fact that I said the wrong thing. That never surprises me. What surprised me was the massive efforts from busybody pastors (some my friends, some not so friendly) who set the phone lines ablaze all across the country rallying the troops against me. What disappointed me was the efforts of some to stir up strife within my church. What disgusted me was the move of some to cut me off without so much as a trial, let alone any effort to set me straight. I heard about many phone calls that were made about me, but had only one phone call made to me. The pastors who did this should be ashamed. The conduct was frankly ungodly, and I cannot be silent about it. Short of naming names (y’all know who you are) I/ll simply say that I will be more wary of friendship in the future.

Photo by John-Mark Smith on Pexels.com

But that aside, it forced me to give more attention to the differences between the English Language Preservationists and the Original Language Preservationists. I am not an English Language Preservationist. I should be clear about that first. But from my little seat in the bleachers, I am noticing that the English Language Preservationists have done much to damage our cause and to hijack our position. As you read, notice the influence that English Preservationists have had on the King James Only position, and then consider this my attempt to isolate their position and refute it.

English Preservationists

I would not purposely misrepresent the position of anyone, and since I consider those who are English Preservationist to be on our side, I especially do not want to misrepresent theirs. Of course there are a variety of differences even amongst those who are of this persuasion, so I’ll try to recognize that and not spend too much time on the extreme views that are not necessarily shared by all.

I’ve attempted here to identify the basic tenets of this position, boiling down to the essential elements. Forgive me where I have left too much skin hanging on the bones.

1. Basically, the English Preservationist believes that God wrote the King James Bible, in much the same sense that God wrote the Bible. God used men to do the work, but God wrote them both.

2. The English Preservationist believes that the Bible has always been preserved in one form or another throughout New Testament history. However, they also believe that when the King James Bible was written, it was written to preserve Scripture, and that from 1611 on (or for some, from 1769 on), the English version became the standard, and that it is now the place where God is preserving His Word. This is key to understanding the English language position.

3. I don’t know of any English Preservationist who would claim INSPIRATION for the King James Bible (including Ruckman, from what I’m told). Most English Language Preservationists will deny secondary[1] inspiration though they believe that the English version is inspired. However, every English Preservationist would say that inerrancy applies to the Version itself.

4. Amongst the English Preservationists, there is some disagreement as to whether any other language could also have their own perfect translation. Some believe that the English translation is the preserved word for all languages. Others believe it to be the preserved word for English, while Spanish or Chinese could have their own preserved word.

5. Some (not a few) English Preservationists believe that with the writing of the King James Version, preservation was perfected. This point also is essential to understanding the English-only position.

Original Language Preservationists (OLPs)

  1. The OLPs believe that God preserved jots and tittles (Mt 5:18), and that not one has passed. Thus, God has perfectly preserved His Word.
  2. Therefore, the OLPs believe that the Word of God is perfectly preserved in the Textus Receptus for the NT, and in the Masoretic Hebrew for the OT.
  • The OLPs believe that God canonized words through the faithful copying of His people, and that through those words, we have the 66 books of the Bible, which are also canonized.
  • Some will object that among the various copies of the TR, there are numbers of textual variants. And this is true. In fact, there is about 93% agreement amongst the existent copies of the TR. (Note: this statement is factually incorrect. See footnote below).[2]
  • Those of the CT/eclectic position will argue that because there is about 7% disagreement[3] amongst the copies, therefore we should all study the texts scientifically to determine the best reading. Thus, they rely on forensics and science to render the correct reading.
  • The Original Language Preservationists believe that this is an entirely faithless approach, and in addition, that this is disobedient to Scripture.

3. That brings up the third main fundamental of the OLP. The OLP believes that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim 3:15), and thus that the local churches throughout NT history have received the Word of God as it is, and have accepted it.

  • Put another way, the local churches (what we refer to as The Church) did not determine what the Word of God is, but rather they gave important testimony to what the Word of God is. They did not set out to scientifically prove, based on evidence, what the best word was. Rather, they received and accepted the words as kept by the churches.
  • In other words, throughout New Testament history, the accepted readings were used. That is, up until the last 150 years or so.
  • Again, this was accomplished through the faithful copying of believers throughout the ages.
  • The copies that have survived and have seen widespread usage are the copies that we accept to be the preserved Word of God.

4.  For the Original Language Preservationists, this is where the King James Version enters the scene, and explains why we are King James Only.

When the KJV was written, the English-speaking world had two English Bibles available: the Geneva Bible and the Bishop’s Bible. The English-speaking world was deeply divided between these two Bibles, and the KJV effectively settled the dispute.[4] As evidence, the Geneva and the Bishops Bible are museum pieces today.[5] You normally won’t order one from a Christian bookstore or catalogue. But the King James Version is the most widely distributed Bible in the History of the World. Truly, the churches settled on this Bible. It is the Church Bible.

In 1894,[6] Scrivener assembled the Textus Receptus used by the King James Version translators into one distinct edition. So, we have the Bible which English-speaking churches have held to for almost 400 years, and we have the underlying Greek and Hebrew editions. We can be sure then that we have the perfectly and Providentially preserved Word of God in the Masoretic Hebrew for the Old Testament, and in Scrivener’s TR for the New Testament.

Reconciling the two positions

Now, when we put the two positions (English Preservation/Original Language Preservation) side-by-side on the ole table, we see clearly that there is a difference between the two. Both accept by faith that God has perfectly preserved His Word. On that we can agree. Both agree that the King James Bible was Providentially given to the churches. We can agree on that as well.

Since I believe firmly in the Sovereignty and Providence of God, I also can loosely agree with the English-only assertion that God wrote the King James Bible. I can agree in this sense and only in this sense: I believe that God was involved in the writing, and that God was guiding these men to choose this word and not that one.

However, I do not believe that God was involved in the writing of the KJV in the same sense that God was involved in the writing of, say, the book of Romans, or of the Psalms, or of Ruth. Did God write the King James Bible? The King James is not inspired in the same sense as Hebrews and James are inspired. The English words are not God-breathed. If I were to make a comparison, I would have to say that God wrote the KJV in the same sense that God wrote the U.S. Constitution. The Providence of God was clearly involved in both, and we see his hand in each. But the U.S. Constitution is not God-breathed, nor does it have the same life in it as the inspired words of Scripture.[7]

I want to be careful here, because I know that this will offend some. I’ll do my best to be void of offense, if the reader will give his best effort to understand what I am arguing here. The words that God-breathed were Greek and Hebrew words. There was no need for God to re-breath those words in English. Nor do I believe that the English words were divinely inspired. Otherwise, God would have given the words in English to begin with.

Along with that, I disagree with the notion that when the King James Bible was written, preservation moved from Greek / Hebrew to English. God promised to preserve jots and tittles (Mt 5:18), not commas and semi-colons (or, perhaps more accurately, not dotted i’s and crossed t’s). Nor is there one verse in all of Scripture that ever indicates that God would preserve the Bible in any language other than the language in which God gave the Bible.

In addition, I disagree with the notion that any further editions of the 1611 would be “changing the Bible” or “re-writing the Bible.” Preservation did not begin in 1611, nor did it reach its final destination that year. Since the closing of the canon, God has been providentially preserving His Word, and God’s Word is preserved. Translations neither add to nor detract from the perfection of Providence.

If God has preserved His Word, then God’s Word is preserved. Translations cannot change that. The issue of Modern Translations is not that it undermines the preservation of God’s Word. It cannot do that. It might undermine our understanding of preservation, but it cannot undo what God has done. Preservation is preservation, and translations are just that. Translations.

I was truly amazed at some of the accusations that were hurled around a few months ago.[8] I have never said that I wanted to “re-write the Bible.” I have never said that I wanted to “change the Bible.” I was not saying that before, and I am not saying that now. I have never called for a new version. I don’t think we should try to get a new version.

When Wycliffe wrote his translation in 1380, he was neither “re-writing” nor “changing” the Bible. He was writing a translation. When Tyndale wrote his in 1525/1530, he was not “re-writing” the Bible. He was not “changing” the Bible. He was writing a translation. In 1611, when the King James Bible was written, these men were not “changing” or “re-writing” the Bible. And when the next edition of the King James Bible was written, the Bible was not changed. To say that I ever argued for “re-writing” or “changing” is a gross slander, and those who perpetrated this lie should be rebuked before all.

[1] Perhaps “double” inspiration would be a better word here.

[2] In the original publishing of this article, I misspoke on this point. I was helpfully corrected by Thomas Ross, who graciously commented, “I believe that the 93% agreement among the editions of the TR was a slip of the pen; I believe Pastor Mallinak meant that the 93% was the figure for the agreement between the CT and the TR. The differences between editions of the TR is much, much, much smaller; probably c.99.5% or more. The differences between the Scrivener TR and the 1598 Beza is listed in the back of the edition made by Bible for Today (the leatherbound one, anyway). They are very minimal. In those instances, we should go with the text accepted by the churches, namely, th eone behind the KJV, the Scrivener TR.”

[3] Again, this is incorrect.

[4] This description is simplistic at best. First, the Geneva was hands down the Bible of choice in that day. The crown rejected the Geneva Bible because some of the notes were considered hostile to the crown. Thus, the king required the Bishop’s Bible to be read in worship services. But it has been noted that even among the Anglican Bishops, the Geneva Bible enjoyed widespread use. The crown rejected the Geneva Bible.

[5] While this is true, it should be noted that the Geneva Bible continued to be the most popular version of the Bible for 50 years after the KJV was published, until it became difficult to purchase.

[6] Scrivener published his TR edition in 1881. It was re-published after his death in 1894

[7] By no means would I argue that the King James Version is comparable to the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

[8] In response to my plea for an update, linked above. Please note that I have significant disagreements with what I wrote then, especially with the tone of the original article. I have (and will) continue to attempt to correct some of those things. But it is part of this very lengthy conversation that has spanned nearly two decades now, so I will not delete it.

Raising a Godly Seed, part 2

On By Dave MallinakIn Family, Marriage

Most Christian parents believe two things about their duty as parents: first, that they ought to discipline and correct their children (i.e., spanking); second, that they ought to teach and train them. And I agree that these two things are vital to a parent’s duty. But if you limit your parenting to spanking and family devotions, you have missed the most crucial element of parenting God’s children.

God intends for parents to pass along to their children the culture of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Spanking and having devotions are good and right and Biblical, but not enough. I have witnessed many families who were absolutely and unwaveringly committed to these two things, and today, their children want nothing to do with them. If you do these things but do not intentionally establish a culture of the Lord in your home, you have not done your duty as a parent.

Sadly, we rarely discuss what it means to build a culture of the Lord, especially in our circles. Parents are far more likely to hear teaching and preaching on discipline and correction than any other element of parenting. Teaching and training sometimes take a backseat to the topic of correction. But teaching on the culture of the home is nearly non-existent, and it shows.

Continue reading “Raising a Godly Seed, part 2” →

Raising a Godly Seed, part 1

On By Dave MallinakIn Family, Marriage

And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. (Malachi 2:15)

Not long before Malachi delivered his prophetic message, Ezra rebuked the people for intermarrying with pagans (Ezra 9-10). Malachi points out the same thing.

Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. (Malachi 2:11)

But they committed a far greater sin than intermarriage with pagan idolaters. Malachi points it out in verse 16: “For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away.” The eligible bachelors of Israel had their eye on the Philistine women, which was a problem. However, according to Malachi, the married men of Israel were divorcing their wives and marrying these pagan women. That was wicked. And then, they went right on worshipping at the temple as if they had done nothing wrong. Which explains why God charged them with profaning His covenant. “Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” (v. 10)

When God charged them with treachery (vv. 11 and 14), He wasn’t being petty or overly scrupulous. When the men of Israel betrayed their wives, they betrayed their covenant with God.

We can gather a few important points about marriage from Malachi’s prophetic word. First, marriage is a covenant, not a contract. A contract is between two people – a two-way relationship. However, a covenant is a three-way relationship of responsibilities and privileges that involves God as a witness to whom the couple is permanently accountable.[1]

Second, God hates “putting away” (divorce). He especially hates what it does to women and children. Malachi describes the tears of the betrayed wives as they weep at the altar, covering the altar with their tears.

And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. (Malachi 2:13)

The prophet describes these actions in terms violence.

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (Malachi 2:16)

And in the verse before this, the Lord protests: “And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit” (Malachi 2:15). That is, “Yet had he the life-giving spirit, the creative power.” James Smith explains, “The point is that God could have made several wives for Adam.”[2] God blessed us when He made one woman for one man, and Malachi gives God’s reason for limiting a man to one wife: “that he might seek a godly seed” (v. 15).

Our culture’s disregard for marriage has been nothing but destructive to our children. This passage explains why. God designed marriage between one man and one woman for this purpose, “that he might seek a godly seed.” A man can join in the political battles over marriage, speak out against homosexual marriage, oppose the modern shack-up world of casual sex, and still miss the point of marriage. A godly marriage isn’t achieved when we have a marriage certificate that is properly certified. The point of marriage is to raise up a godly seed, as Malachi declares.

God intended for man to rule in our world by marrying a wife and having children who would help spread God’s dominion throughout the world. Husbands were made to rule, and wives were created to support them in this calling. God calls a husband and wife to build their children into profitable image-bearers and kingdom-builders. A husband and wife should set this as a primary goal in their marriage. God wants His people to aim for this, and those who worship the Lord seek, above all else, to give God what He wants.

With that in mind, let me give a few helps for parents in this mission.

First, Remember Who Builds the House

Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1)

We cannot expect to raise a godly seed on our own skill or ability. Ultimately, the work of building a home and raising up a godly seed is God’s work. He calls you – I should say privileges you – to join Him in it. But as we build good homes for our children, we must remember that this is God’s work. We rely on God, not on ourselves, our skills, our tenacity, our integrity, or any other quality we think will make us better parents than others. We stand on God’s promises, not on our performance. Don’t put confidence in your work; trust your work to God.

Trusting the Lord means we must lift our parenting before the Lord in regular prayer. We must do our work for the Lord and not for ourselves. Parents must avoid living out their dreams and unfulfilled desires – athletically, academically, or relationally – through their children. Nothing will destroy a home faster than doing it for yourself. Whatever we make into an idol will be destroyed. Our performance quickly becomes an idol when a child overperforms (causing parents to grow conceited) or underperforms (causing parents to resent).

Lift up your children before the Lord. Pray for them regularly, faithfully, and publicly. No, I don’t mean in front of the church. But in your family prayers, around the dinner table, at night before bed, make sure your children hear you lifting them up before the Lord. Pray for the things they struggle with (don’t embarrass them). Pray for the significant events coming in their life. Thank the Lord for them regularly and out loud so they can hear you.

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Several years ago, our family started a praise and thanksgiving time on Saturday evenings after dinner. We sing a hymn – I usually read a history of the hymn before we sing it – and then praise the Lord for something. Our rule for that time has been, no prayer, only thanksgiving. It is a discipline, but we thought it was a necessary discipline. In the early years, we would review the week and give thanks for everything we did that week. Some weeks, we had much to thank the Lord for. For some weeks, we struggled to remember what happened. And sometimes, we had dealt with tragedies during the week. We thanked the Lord for those as well.

After about 7-8 years of this custom, we started a rotation of things to thank the Lord for. Once a month, we thank the Lord for recent events. And once a month, we assign everyone a sibling or parent and have them give thanks for that family member. What a great spiritual exercise – teaching them to be thankful for each other! I want my kids to hear their names coming from my lips, and not only when they are in trouble. I want them to hear each other giving thanks for them. I am thankful that God gave them to us, and I want them to know that.

Second, Establish a Culture of the Lord

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

God makes a father responsible not only for the behavior of his children but especially for the culture of his home. The same Greek word rendered “bring them up” appears in Ephesians 5:29 regarding a husband’s love for his wife.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (Ephesians 5:28-29)

In that verse, the word means “to provide food and to feed.” In Ephesians 6:4, the word means “to nourish up to maturity.” It encompasses the entire work of raising children – feeding their bodies, feeding their minds, feeding their souls, and nurturing them into mature adulthood. A father is responsible for everything that feeds into their children’s lives, hearts, minds, and souls. He doesn’t always have to do the feeding, but he is always responsible for the things that nourish them. That includes movies, music, reels, websites, Instagrams, video games, books, stories, people, food, academics, preaching, and every other influence.

Parents, especially fathers, are told to “nourish them up” in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The word “nurture” comes from the Greek word paideia, which Thayer defines as “the whole training and education of children which relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose, now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment.”[3]

The word covers a lot of ground. It includes instruction and discipline, correction and punishment. To the Greek mind, paideia referred to the education and enculturation of the child, all the education necessary to raise up a good citizen of Greece. A Greek child was considered educated when cultural traditions were passed down so that the child was prepared to take his place in the culture. Education meant he was encultured.

Paul takes this Greek ideal and applies it to the Christian home. Rather than train them in the ways of Greek culture (something Paul doesn’t discuss here), parents are commanded to nourish their children in the culture of the Lord. They are your children, yet in a larger sense, they belong to God. He has entrusted us with raising them for Him. How does the King want His children raised?

Any king wants the traditions and customs of his cultural heritage passed down to his children, who will someday have charge of the kingdom. In a future installment, we will consider the elements of a culture to show what a Christian culture is and urge parents to build one for their children. In the meantime, may God bless you as you build and bless your family.

[1] Hugenberger, G. P. (1994). Malachi. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 886). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

[2] Smith, J. E. (1994). The Minor Prophets (p. 639). Joplin, MO: College Press.

[3]Wuest, Kenneth S.: Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1997, c1984, S. Eph 6:4

Continue reading “Raising a Godly Seed, part 1” →

A Christ-Honoring Marriage, part 2

On By Dave MallinakIn Family, Marriage

Recently, a handful of preachers have pointed out our generations-old custom of hammering the men from the pulpit while giving the ladies a pass. Nancy Pearcey has done tremendous work explaining the history of this hostility towards masculinity. If you haven’t read Total Truth, I highly recommend it.

To give the cliff notes version of her history (a small part of this great book), the Industrial Revolution pulled men out of their homes and away from their families for most of the day, leaving mothers home to raise the kids. Pastors soon realized that mothers were overburdened with housekeeping and child-rearing and began directing their sermons at the wives to provide spiritual encouragement. The combination of a growing detachment on the part of husbands and fathers and an increasingly woman-focused pulpit ministry caused men to resent what they were hearing at church. Eventually, the men checked out altogether. Pastors gratuitously targeted these detached men as they catered to the women.

Thus, we have developed a 150-year habit of hammering the men annually on Father’s Day while gushing over the Moms on Mother’s Day. I’ve done it for most of my pastoral ministry (to my great shame). But I no longer believe this is Biblical. A Biblical pastor evenly hands out the rebukes and encouragements, not based on sentiment, cultural angst, or the congregation’s felt needs, but on the text’s meaning.

Continue reading “A Christ-Honoring Marriage, part 2” →

A Christ-Honoring Marriage, part 1

On By Dave MallinakIn Family, Marriage

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:32)

This might be one of the more unpopular passages in Scripture. No doubt it was unpopular on the day it was written, though for very different reasons. Our generation thinks it treats women as subservient. Paul’s generation might have objected that it treated women as if they mattered. In our day, the notion that a woman should submit to her husband is repulsive. In Paul’s day, the thought that a husband should love his wife was revolting.

The Greeks set up temples where brothels formed the central part of worship. Paul taught that women were to be loved and cherished and that husbands were to be devoted and faithful. No doubt, the Greek mind found such instruction abominable. Paul insults our generation by teaching that women are to submit to their husbands and respect them. In fact, the 33rd verse uses the word “reverence.” But in Paul’s generation and ours, the world and the culture line up on the wrong side of the issue.

Besides its unpopularity, Ephesians 5 might be one of the most disregarded passages in Scripture, a fact that is on display in the all-too-common train wreck of the modern family. Speaking of which, Americans binge-watched the very popular TV show with that name for a little over a decade. The kind of “families” that provided the backdrop for this mockumentary depicted many families of our day, the full spectrum of committed, blended, non-traditional, perverse, broken, and dysfunctional.

Continue reading “A Christ-Honoring Marriage, part 1” →

What are Families For? (part 2)

On By Dave MallinakIn Family, Gospel Conversations, Marriage

God has a two-fold task for families: have children and rule the world. God blessed families with this task, as Genesis 1:28 reminds us:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God repeated this blessing quite often in the Old Testament. After the Flood, God repeated it to Noah and his seed.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (Genesis 9:1, 7)

When Isaac blessed Jacob, he rehearsed this blessing.

And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; (Genesis 28:3)

When God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, he reiterated this blessing.

And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; (Genesis 35:11)

Having children is central to this blessing, but not for sentimental reasons only. The blessing of children was also God’s plan for subduing the earth. After the Fall, God raised a godly seed with which He intended to fill the whole earth. Through that godly seed, God meant to bring the world into captivity to Himself. We see the potential on a small scale during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt. Take note of this curious statement about Israel’s sojourning in Egypt:

Continue reading “What are Families For? (part 2)” →

What Are Families For? (part 1)

On By Dave MallinakIn Family, Marriage

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28)

Why do we have families? The unbelieving world answers the question naturalistically. They claim that the family is a social construct – some say an archaic social construct. Children need nurture, care, and support, much like primates, and the family can provide that.

But then, so can the government. Some argue that the government would do better at it. Certified experts raising children would avoid the abuse and neglect that often comes at the hands of parents. The world, in rebellion against God, has decided that the nuclear family – one father, one mother raising children together – is no longer needed. Humanity evolves, and evolution adds malleability, so a family could consist of two fathers or two mothers. Science works tirelessly to enable two hens and no rooster to hatch chicks.

The conservative response to gay mirage has been entirely inadequate. Many have countered the secularist utopia by arguing that “every child deserves a father and a mother.” We feel safe arguing this way against a hostile world. But this sort of answer is unsatisfactory at the acceptable end and at the unacceptable, entirely deceptive. Any answer that ignores Jesus or that marginalizes Him is self-defeating. Either God made the world, or He didn’t. Either God’s Word governs our world, or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground, no fence to straddle on this question. 

God created the family; man did not. So, when we try to define the purpose of the family, we must look to God’s Word for the answer. We cannot understand something as essential as the family apart from God’s design purpose. The Bible’s first book gives us the family’s genesis and describes God’s design purpose.

Our cultural dysfunction comes from a wrong view of the family. When we define our purpose in light of God’s Word and seek to center our family on God’s purpose, we will bring all things back into alignment under God’s authority. In pursuing this worthy goal, I want to show you God’s purpose for the family and how this goal can be accomplished.

God’s purpose for the family

Immediately after God created man, He created the family. God didn’t give Adam time to enjoy his “bachelor years” first. When God made Adam, He said, “It is not good that the man should be alone.” And when God pointed out what was not good, He immediately created the solution.

God made Eve out of Adam, woman out of man. But God did not make Adam alone over here, and Eve alone over there, and then watch to see how long it would take for them to notice each other. He didn’t build a movie theater and an ice cream shop and say, “Have fun dating.” When God made Eve, He brought her to the man and made them husband and wife.

Continue reading “What Are Families For? (part 1)” →

Be a Dad This Christmas

On By Dave MallinakIn Merry Christmas

This article originally appeared as Reason #22: Because Jesus answers our father-hunger in Join the Triumph of the Skies! 31 Reasons to Celebrate Christmas (yes, it is still available on Amazon; no, it won’t arrive in time for Christmas of 2024 – no Christmas miracles, unless you order it on Kindle)

And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Galatians 5:24)

If fatherlessness is the hallmark of our time, Christmas is the magnifying glass. In a subtle way, some of our most popular Christmas movies have featured this painful reality. Miracle on 34th Street, Rudolph, and in a sneaky way, Home Alone come immediately to mind. Father hunger also contributes to the popularity of Hallmark movies and has shaped our cultural view of this holiday season.

Would it surprise you to learn that the birth of Jesus answers this deep longing for a father’s love?

Continue reading “Be a Dad This Christmas” →

Why the Shepherds?

On By Dave MallinakIn Merry Christmas, Personal

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:8-11)

Think of the joy of a new-born baby.  The parents can’t wait to show their new baby to the world.  Typically, we announce the good news to our closest friends and immediate family first.  Then, we pass the word around the church. Next, phone calls and text messages spread the message.  These days, a Facebook announcement is sure to follow, with plenty of pictures.  Parents want their family and friends to know they have a new child. 

So, we may find it curious that when God announced the birth of His Son, He didn’t tell it first to the chief priests or Pharisees.  We suspect that the religious authorities in Israel may have expected to be first in line for the newsflash.  After all, wouldn’t God want them to know?  Were they not the foremost authorities in all things related to the Messiah?  Herod acknowledged their expertise.  The magi put Jerusalem in an uproar with their question, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?”  Herod knew who to ask.  He sent for the doctors of the law. 

Continue reading “Why the Shepherds?” →