Apprising Ministries continues coverage of bromance ER2 where today Todd Friel of Wretched Radio astutely observes we may be seeing a new coalition of contemporary “Evangelephants” emerging.

Frankly, I think ER2 was a scripted Theodrama designed to look like it’s going to be cutting edge; it isn’t. I’m someone who formerly adhered to Word Faith theology early in my Christian walk; and I’ve also personally interacted withT.D. Jakes as you can see in T.D. Jakes Says Ken Silva Is Being Obnoxious.

For now I happen to be a Southern Baptist pastor, as far back as 2006 in But Southern Baptists Say Ok To “Bishop” T.D.Jakes, I’ve been concerned about the heretical Word Faith mogul as he came in to preach at the SBC megachurch of Ed Young. Jr.

In fact, at this same conference former two-time SBC president Dr. Ed Young also shared the platform as well. So, as you might imagine, when the announcement that T.D. Jakes was to be part of ER2 it would naturally catch my attention.

When I investigated further the fetid fruit of ER1 it became pretty clear to me that what was going to happen at ER2 would be a bromance with T.D. Jakes in order to move modalism out of the way so they can bring Jakes into the mainstream of contemporary evangelicalism.

God be praised, I’m afraid I was correct. Tom Chantry provides a transcript of what went on with T.D. Jakes in The Elephant Room II, Session 4 Transcript. For now, I’ll leave you to make up your own mind based upon the evidence.

Here I’ll just share a quick comment from him, which is all too true:

Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology. Don’t be fooled by the panel members who insist that he affirmed the Trinity. What he did was say, “I’m Trinitarian so long as I am free to express it in Sabelian terms.” He repeatedly insisted that Oneness folks and Trinitarian folks are all saying the same thing.

He dismissed the question as secondary – not worth division among the people of Christ, among whom he clearly counts the Oneness churches. Once he has deconstructed the very idea of systematic theology, he can affirm anything. So yes, he answered “absolutely” or “yes” to each and every one of Driscoll’s questions, but what does that mean? Not much. (Online source)

This is precisely what went on in the postmodern obfuscation. Now I’m going to point your attention to the following salient mini-commentary on ER2 today by Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries via Twitter. He’s one of the few men of God out there with some spiritual backbone.

As such, I’m pleased to bring his tweets together for the edification of the church visible. Sadly, Dr. White is right as he begins:

(Online source)

Next Dr. White hits the target dead on as he tweets:

(Online source)

There was no push-back in ER2; in fact, if I was a lawyer I would have raised the objection of leading the witness. Dr. White goes on to state a cold, hard, fact:

(Online source)

Dr. White then drops the hammer with this tweet:

(Online source)

The Oneness Pentecostal/modalist could not answer yes, in good conscience, to this well-defined question. I could not agree more with the following tweet from Dr. James White concerning the basic message sent in this ER2:

(Online source)

Dr. White then shifted and his question questions directly to T.D. Jakes. First, he tweeted:

(Online source)

Finally, Dr. James White applies the coup de grace to modalistic/Oneness Pentecostalism as he asks Word Faith prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes:

(Online source)

We won’t be holding our breath for Jakes to repsond; he really doesn’t handle faithful Christians very well…

See also:

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

ELEPHANT ROOM 2: MAY WE NOW REGARD T.D. JAKES AS TRINITARIAN AND ORTHODOX?

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: T.D. JAKES AND PAULA WHITE

King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not “corrupt” but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.

Baptist writer William P. Grady, in a chapter titled the “Synagogue of Satan,” writes, “The average Christ-ian is unaware that the manuscripts from which the modern ‘Bibles’ have been translated are Egyptian in origin; more specifically, Alexandrian. This lack of understanding is exacerbated by little or no knowledge of Egypt’s heretical climate at that time. When these factors are appreciated, the weakness and hypocrisy behind the modern revision movement becomes more readily apparent.”¹

The claim that modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) are based upon “corrupt” editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts is a common argument of King James Only advocates. Believers who encounter the claims of individuals such as Peter Ruckman,² Samuel Gipp,³ Gail Riplinger,⁴ or D. A. Waite⁵ will often hear that while the King James Version (KJV) is based upon “God honoring manuscripts,” the modern translations are based upon only a handful of heretical, corrupt manuscripts.⁶ They allege that these manuscripts can be linked to every kind of heretical belief, even when those beliefs are contradictory to one another. One will find KJV Only advocates⁷ linking these manuscripts to Arianism, Gnosticism, liberalism, and Roman Catholicism. These manuscripts allegedly deny salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of Christ, and the existence of hell, and affirm any number of other heresies and errors. Therefore, since nearly all modern translations⁸ are based upon these “corrupt” manuscripts, the translations are also corrupt and should be rejected by all “Bible believers.”

The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position,⁹ the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight.

Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the “old ways” — the “traditions” of the “good ol’ days” when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term “modern,” for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was “good” about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church.

Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Over the course of his lifetime four more editions would come out, each differing in various ways from the other. It was this Greek text that influenced the life of Martin Luther.¹⁰ Indeed, all of the Reformers¹¹ used this text — a point KJV Only advocates often make. We should point out, however, that their choice of the text was not due to anything other than availability. Erasmus’s text was widely published and relatively inexpensive, and hence was easily obtainable. Textual studies had not yet advanced to the point of even being able to identify different kinds of text types in the underlying Greek manuscripts. Therefore, to attempt to enlist the Reformers as advocates of one particular text type over another is to embroil them in a debate that was not theirs.

Robert Estienne, better known by his Latin name, Stephanus, continued Erasmus’s work. Theodore Beza, who succeeded Calvin in Geneva, used Estienne’s work. Beza was particularly interested in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, even collecting a few of the more important manuscripts himself. He produced a number of editions of the Greek New Testament.

All of these editions — the five of Erasmus, Stephanus’s text (primarily his 1550 edition), and Beza’s editions — were available to the King James translators while they labored between 1604 and 1611. Since these editions differed at various points,¹² the translators also played the role of textual critics, weighing the various readings and making decisions as it seemed best to them, just as modern editors and translators do. It is important to note that the resultant King James New Testament text did not exist in that exact form prior to 1611. That is, there is no family of manuscripts, or even a single manuscript, that reads exactly as the King James New Testament. The translators used an “eclectic” methodology, recognizing that no single manuscript should be elevated to the status of the “standard,” but that each manuscript contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of texts.

A few decades after the publication of the KJV, an advertisement appeared for the printed edition of the Greek New Testament that claimed, as advertisements are prone to do, that it represented the “text received by all.” In Latin this phrase boiled down to the textus receptus, and hence an advertising blurb became associated with the Greek texts of the Erasmus–Stephanus– Beza line so that today one will find the phrase used to describe the text from which the KJV was translated.¹³ It is important to note, however, that the Textus Receptus (TR) normally used by KJV Only advocates did not exist in 1611. That is, the TR used today is normally the one created by Scrivener in 1894, which took as its basis the English translation of the KJV, giving the reader the Greek textual choices made by the KJV translators.

The TR was the “standard” text for more than 200 years in most of Europe. While more manuscripts came to light during this time, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that a serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR was mounted through the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Westcott and Hort recognized the existence of text types or “text families” in the growing number of manuscripts available to scholars, and they asserted that the most common form of the NT text, found predominately in later manuscripts, was the result of an earlier revision. This meant that the TR, in their view, represented a later, secondary form of the text. The earlier, more primitive (and hence more pure) form of the text was to be found in those manuscripts that predated this revision.

The TR text generally represents the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The Byzantine text type is by far the majority text type and is to be found in the vast majority of later NT manuscripts. The other text types include the Western, the Caesarean, and the most important, the Alexandrian. The names indicate that these text types are related to geographical areas, though it should not be assumed that all Alexandrian manuscripts come from Alexandria, nor all Byzantine manuscripts from Byzantium.

Modern Greek texts, such as the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies 4th edition, which underlie modern English translations and are used most often in college and seminary-level Greek classes, are based not upon just a few texts, but upon all Greek manuscripts. Unlike the TR, which was derived from only one stream of the large Byzantine family of texts, the modern texts draw from the entire range of Greek texts. The modern Greek texts also provide extensive textual notes indicating what readings are to be found in which manuscripts. This is important for the person who wants to check the choices made by editors and translators, as well as for the person concerned about alleged “secrecy” on the part of modern textual scholars. Modern Greek texts are open in allowing the reader to examine all the relevant manuscript readings, leading to honesty and accountability.

HOW READINGS ARE DETERMINED

When manuscripts differ from each other, one needs a methodology to determine which reading to include in the Greek text and in any translation derived from that Greek text. Given the fact that no two handwritten Greek manuscripts read exactly the same, everyone who engages in creating printed editions of the Greek text or translations into modern languages must struggle with textual diversity. Erasmus did so, the KJV translators did so, and modern scholars engage in the same task. The King James Version is just as much a result of this process of study and examination as any modern text, and those who assert it is somehow above such “human” activities are simply ignoring the facts of history. If KJV Only advocates wish to say that all the decisions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators were perfect, they need to explain why. Simply assuming this won’t do.

Most of the textual differences that have attracted charges of “corruption” by KJV Only advocates come from the fact that modern textual scholars believe that certain text types carry more weight in determining a reading than others. That is, rather than simply counting manuscripts to see which reading has more manuscripts on its side, scholars recognize that other factors must be considered. Most agree that the Byzantine text type, as a whole, is a later form of the text, while the Alexandrian text type generally represents an earlier form. Since the TR, and therefore the KJV, represents a Byzantine form, modern texts will differ at places from the KJV where scholars determine that the KJV’s reading comes from a later, rather than earlier, time.

Modern Greek texts do not simply reproduce the entire Alexandrian text type. Instead, each variant is examined as a single unit, with both external considerations (e.g., which manuscripts contain which readings) and internal considerations (e.g., context, determining which reading is most difficult, etc.) being used to determine which reading will be placed in the main text. It is important to note, however, that those readings not chosen are still included in the textual apparatus at the bottom of the page, and at times modern translation committees will choose one of these variants as their main reading, feeling free to disagree with the editors of the Greek text they are relying upon.

WHAT IS “CORRUPT”?

The charge of “corrupt manuscripts,” while often made, is far less often defined. What does the term mean? Textual critics use the term to refer to any variation from the original text. Hence, spelling the name of the pool in John 5:2 Bethzatha rather than Bethesda would be called a “corruption” of the text, though such a difference is hardly relevant to the meaning of the text. This is why textual scholar Bruce Metzger can title a work on the subject, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 

KJV Only advocates, however, do not use the term in this way. Most often they use it to communicate the idea of specific, purposeful, doctrinal corruption or perversion. Any variation from the chosen standard (the KJV) is considered a “corruption.” And there are many such variations. But does this make modern texts “corrupt”? Certainly not. In point of fact, if we make the most primitive form of the NT text the standard, the Byzantine text type (and hence the KJV itself) shows evidence of having the largest number of scribal errors, additions, and expansions, and hence would be, in the most accurate use of the term, the most “corrupt” form of text. It all depends on what one defines as the “chosen standard,” for the standard determines which texts end up labeled “corrupt.”

Textual variations exist. This is a fact everyone must deal with, including every KJV Only advocate who wishes to be honest with history and with himself or herself. But why are there variations? And does the presence of variations make a manuscript “corrupt”?

One of the most important advances in our knowledge of the Greek manuscripts since the days of King James comes from the area of scribal habits. We are able to recognize much more clearly now what kinds of errors people are liable to make when they are hand-copying a manuscript. The largest portion of textual variants in the NT comes from simple scribal errors, not from purposeful “corruption” of the text for theological reasons. For example, even modern writers will engage in the error of homoeoteleuton — that is, “similar endings.” When copying a sentence, people often skip a word or phrase due to a similar ending appearing later in the line or on the next line. It is obvious that this took place in James 4:12a in the later Byzantine manuscripts. While the earlier texts read, “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, ” the majority of texts simply have, “There is only one Lawgiver,” the term “and Judge” being deleted. The Greek term for lawgiver is nomothetes, and the word for judge is krites. Notice that both terms end in the same three-letter cluster, tes. A scribe, having written the first term and returning his eyes to his original text, simply caught the second appearance of the letter cluster and mistook it for the first. Not realizing this oversight, the scribe continued on, thereby inadvertently deleting the term “judge.”

The same type of error is found at 1 John 3:1, where modern translations (based on the earliest texts) read, “. . .that we might be called the children of God, and we are!” The later texts (on which the KJV is based) have simply, “that we might be called the children of God.” Similar endings are again found in the Greek, the letter cluster men this time causing the problem. A scribe simply skipped the small phrase “and we are,” and this reading became the reading of the majority of Greek texts.

We can identify many more examples of simple scribal error in the texts of the NT. The important thing to note is that such errors do not require one to believe in any grand conspiracy theories, nor must one search for some “hidden meaning” behind the variant itself. The Byzantine scribes who did not have the reference to God as judge were not denying that He is just that, nor were they denying 1 John’s statement that we are the children of God right now by faith in Christ. Yet KJV Only materials are filled with this kind of reverse argumentation.¹⁴

Another kind of “corruption” of the NT text was purposeful. (Yes, there are purposeful corruptions in NT manuscripts.) Almost always these changes are toward what would be called “orthodoxy,” not away from it. Most often these corruptions come from scribes who were attempting to “help out” the biblical text. Over and over again, for example, one will find scribes trying to harmonize the parallel accounts of events in the Gospels. There was a desire to make Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the same thing in the same words.

A quick glance at a parallel Greek text of the Gospels¹⁵ provides multiple examples on almost every page. One such example will suffice. In Luke 9:23 Luke recorded the Lord saying that the disciple must take up his cross daily and follow Him. Since Matthew and Mark did not include the term “daily,” a large portion of later manuscripts “harmonized” the passage by deleting the phrase from Luke.

Should someone ask, “But how do you know someone didn’t add it to Luke?” we must first point out that the reading is found in the most ancient manuscripts of Luke. Furthermore, why would a scribe try to make Luke different than Matthew or Mark? The tendency we find in the texts is to make things the same, not different. Those who have spent time in the text of the NT know the truth of this rule of thumb: “The original reading is most likely the one that best explains how the others arose.” If one can easily determine how a particular reading could give rise to the others, that reading gets the weight of the internal evidence on its side. One can then factor in the manuscript evidence so that a final decision can be made.¹⁶

The same thing happens in the Pauline Epistles that bear similarity to one another, such as Ephesians and Colossians. One of the most famous instances of harmonization is found at Colossians 1:14. KJV Only advocates refer to this passage with great frequency. In a recent Bible Answer Man broadcast a caller attacked the NIV for “taking out the blood at Colossians 1:14.” In Salt Lake City I encountered a KJV Only advocate who was passing out tracts outside the Mormon temple and who referred to the NIV as the “bloodless Bible,” again citing this passage. When one compares the KJV with modern translations at this point, it certainly seems like there is a problem.

Where is the phrase “through his blood”? Here we have another example of how parallel passages can cause scribes to “harmonize.” Note the source of the phrase in the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7:

The phrase “through his blood” in Ephesians 1:7 is found immediately after “in whom we have redemption.” Hence, later scribes, possibly inadvertently, inserted the phrase in Colossians as well. In point of fact, the KJV’s reading at Colossians 1:14 is the minority reading based upon only a few comparatively late manuscripts. It should be emphasized that all the modern translations contain the phrase at Ephesians 1:7. Why? Because they are seeking solely to translate the Greek text, and the Greek text — the best Greek text no matter how one slices it — has this reading. There is no conspiracy, no cut-and-snip methodology occurring in these reputable translations.

ALLEGED DOCTRINAL “CORRUPTIONS”

Are modern translations “doctrinally corrupt”? Some are. The New World Translation published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is certainly corrupt doctrinally and textually as well.¹⁷ Some translations give evidence of rank liberalism or a less-than-orthodox view of Scripture. But the reputable, scholarly translations used regularly by believers such as the NASB and the NIV are most certainly not doctrinally corrupt.

The textual variant at John 6:47 helps us demonstrate that the broad spectrum of passages most often cited by KJV Only advocates do not, upon close examination, support their charges of doctrinal corruption. Dr. D. A. Waite of The Bible for Today alleges just such corruption in his book Defending the King James Bible. He alleges a “SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION” (emphasis in original)¹⁸ in modern texts at John 6:47. Note the comparison:

Modern translations do not contain the phrase “on me” at this verse, causing Dr. Waite to comment, “To make salvation only a matter of ‘believing’ rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse, ‘believing on Me,’ is truly ‘ANOTHER GOSPEL’! If you were trying to lead someone to Christ with the NIV or NASV, using this verse, they could ‘believe’ in anything and still have ‘everlasting life’ — whether in Santa Claus, in the Easter Bunny, in the Tooth Fairy, in Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, or in any of the false world religions!” (emphasis in original).¹⁹

Accusations of preaching “another gospel” are quite strong. But does the accusation have merit? Not at all. The NASB and NIV are brimming with the phrase “believe in me.” Just a few verses before John 6:47 (in v. 35), the NASB reads, “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst’” (emphasis added). And in the immediate context of John 6, v.40 reads, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (emphasis added). Other places in John where the phrase appears in modern translations include John 7:38, 11:25-26, 12:44, and 46. If the modern translations are trying to preach “another gospel,” why do they include all these references that contradict this “other gospel”? What’s more, how do they explain the many places where the KJV has the simple phrase “believe,” such as at Mark 9:23 and Romans 1:16 and 10:4? Is the KJV guilty of teaching “another gospel” because it does not have the specific phrase “in Him” or “in Christ” at these places? Of course not.

As we have seen all along, the modern translations are simply translating the text before them, and in this case the phrase “in me” is not found in the most ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Later scribes most probably inadvertently harmonized the phrase “believe” with the more common “believe in me,” resulting in the KJV reading. There is no perversion here. Instead, this is one of literally hundreds of examples that could be presented from the text of the Gospels that show the tendency of scribes to utilize the most common way of saying things, often resulting in this kind of harmonization. Anyone who thinks that the lack of the term “in me” at John 6:47 somehow alters the gospel itself has an extremely strained view of how one determines the gospel message from the text of Scripture.

A little patience and a little study will reward the diligent student with answers to all of those passages cited by KJV Only advocates regarding alleged doctrinal “corruption.” In each case the reputable modern translations will be cleared of the charge.

Many other examples could be examined that confirm that modern translations such as the NASB and NIV, far from being corrupt, are in fact the best examples of faithful English translations of the best Greek texts we have available to us. The Christian who studies, memorizes, and obeys the Scriptures as he or she finds them in modern English translations can be confident in the text he or she uses. While the KJV remains to this day a venerable translation, those who attempt to make it the standard to the detriment of more readable (and in many instances more accurate) modern versions are in serious error.

James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University, and the director of ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Bethany House) and Letters to a Mormon Elder (Bethany House).

NOTES

¹William P. Grady, Final Authority (Schererville, IN: Grady Publications, 1993), 73.
²See The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press, 1990).
³See The Answer Book (Shelbyville, TN: Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989).
⁴See New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls, OH: A. V. Publications, 1993).
⁵See Defending the King James Bible (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1992).
⁶In this article we focus primarily upon the New Testament text, as the majority of allegations of “corruption” are aimed at Greek New Testament manuscripts rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
⁷It is vital to note that we use the term “KJV Only” to represent only those who believe the KJV alone is the God-honoring English translation today. There are many differences among those who attack modern translations. Men such as Samuel Gipp (a student of Peter Ruckman) attack those who defend the Greek text (known as the Textus Receptus, or “TR”) that underlies the KJV rather than the KJV text itself. In answering the question, “What is the difference between a ‘Textus Receptus Man’ and a ‘King James Man?’” he writes, “A ‘TR Man’ gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt” (The Answer Book, 78). In the same way, those who defend the TR attack those who go so far as to invest the KJV translation with “divine preservation” or even the status of “advanced revelation.” Dr. Theodore Letis has identified the position many of the more radical KJV Only advocates have as “cultic” in these words: “Anyone who ascribes the inspired characteristics of the Hebrew Bible or the greek N.T. to an English Bible and anathematizes everyone who does not agree with them is a cult. These tend to be…highly separatistic and unlearned Baptists.” (Internet post from the “Theonomy-L” mailing list, dated Friday, June 16, 1995.)
⁸The New King James Version (NKJV) is based upon the same texts used in the translation of the original 1611 KJV. Despite this fact, KJV Only advocates attack the NKJV with as much fervor as they do the NASB and the NIV.
⁹It is important to differentiate the KJV Only position and the related “TR Only” position (which asserts the superiority of the specific Greek text used by the KJV translators) from the “Majority Text” theory proposed and defended by men like Zane Hodges, Art Farstad, and Maurice Robinson. The Majority Text theory, while commanding a rather small minority of scholarly support, is far removed from the position taken by people such as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger.
¹⁰It was from this text, for example, that Luther recognized the vast difference between the Latin Vulgate’s “do penance” and the Greek’s “repent.”
¹¹This is not to say that none of them made corrections or changes to the text. Calvin, for example, disagreed with Erasmus’s text in a number of places.
¹²For examples, see pp. 63-70 in this author’s work, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995).
¹³There are actually as many as 100 different texti recepti, so to speak, each one differing in small matters from the others.
¹⁴An excellent example is provided by Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions. The cover of her book claims, “The Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind the new versions are examined, revealing their occult origins, contents, and yet unreleased material — a blueprint for the Antichrist’s One World Religion and government….Documented are the thousands of words, verses, and doctrines by which new versions will prepare the apostate churches of these last days to accept the religion of Antichrist — even his mark, image, and Lucifer worship.” Riplinger claims that “all new versions, based on a tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts, make the fatefully frightening addition of three words in Revelation 14:1″ (p. 99). A comparison of the KJV with modern texts indicates that the KJV is missing the emphasized words: “The Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” Riplinger writes of this alleged addition, “Will the unwary, reading Revelation 14:1 in a recent version, be persuaded that the bible sanctions and encourages the taking of ‘his name’ on their forehead before they receive his Father’s name?” (p. 100). A familiarity with the critical apparatus of a Greek text would have saved Riplinger from concern about such conspiracies, for in point of fact it is only a “tiny percentage” of all Greek manuscripts that do not contain the phrase. It fell out in a small number of manuscripts due to the repetition of the Greek phrase to onoma and the Greek term autou. Again, there is no need to look for “conspiracies” when a normal scribal error of sight is a far more logical and rational explanation.
¹⁵Kurt Aland has provided such a tremendously helpful tool, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985).
¹⁶I hasten to remind the reader that Erasmus and the KJV translators used similar reasoning. Hence, the KJV’s readings were arrived at in the same way. For example, in citing a textual variant at Matthew 20:22, Erasmus correctly noted that the phrase in question was most probably borrowed from Mark 10:38, even though retaining it in his text. Modern textual critics agree, and have placed the reading in footnotes.
¹⁷I note only in passing the fact that the NWT, though ostensibly following the 1881 W&H text, deliberately deletes the word “me” at John 14:14, despite its presence in the W&H text, so as to avoid having another reference of prayer to Christ. This is blatantly obvious “textual criticism on the basis of theology.”
¹⁸Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 158.
¹⁹Ibid.

 J O H N – B U N Y A N’ s Dying Sayings 

Published in Offor’s 1861 edition of “Bunyan’s Works.”

A collection of aphorisms gathered and classified under headings.
They are his thoughts, whether uttered in his last illness, or expressed earlier in life.

OF SIN.

• Sin is the great block and bar to our happiness, the Procurer of all miseries to man, both here and hereafter. Take away sin, and nothing can hurt us; for death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, is the wages of it.
• Sin, and man for sin, is the object of the wrath of God. How dreadful, therefore, must his case be who continues in sin! For who can bear or grapple with the wrath of God?
• No sin against God can be little, because it is against the great God of heaven and earth; but if the sinner can find out a little god, it may be easy to find out little sins.
• Sin turns all God’s grace into wantonness; it is the dare of his justice, the rape of his mercy, the jeer of his patience, the slight of his power, and the contempt of his love.
• Take heed of giving thyself liberty of committing one sin, for that will lead thee to another; till, by an ill custom, it become natural.
• To begin a sin, is to lay a foundation for a continuance; this continuance is the mother of custom, and impudence at last the issue.
• The death of Christ giveth us the best discovery of ourselves, in what condition we were, in that nothing could help us but that; and the most clear discovery of the dreadful nature of our sins. For if sin be so dreadful a thing as to wring the heart of the Son of God, how shall a poor wretched sinner be able to bear it?

OF AFFLICTION.

• Nothing can render affliction so insupportable as the load of sin; would you, therefore, be fitted for afflictions, be sure to get the burden of your sins laid aside, and then what afflictions soever you may meet with will be very easy to you.
• If thou canst hear and bear the rod of affliction which God shall lay upon thee, remember this lesson–thou art beaten that thou mayest be better.
• The Lord useth his flail of tribulation to separate the chaff from the wheat.
• The school of the cross is the school of light; it discovers the world’s vanity, baseness, and wickedness, and lets us see more of God’s mind. Out of dark affliction comes a spiritual light.
• In times of affliction we commonly meet with the sweetest experiences of the love of God.
• Did we heartily renounce the pleasures of this world, we should be very little troubled for our afflictions; that which renders an afflicted state so insupportable to many, is because they are too much addicted to the pleasures of this life, and so cannot endure that which makes a separation between them.

OF REPENTANCE AND COMING TO CHRIST.

• The end of affliction is the discovery of sin, and of that to bring us to a Saviour. Let us therefore. with the prodigal, return unto him, and we shall find ease and rest.
• A repenting penitent, though formerly as bad as the worst of men, may, by grace, become as good as the best.
• To be truly sensible of sin is to sorrow for displeasing of God; to be afflicted that he is displeased by us more than that he is displeased with us.
• Your intentions to repentance, and the neglect of that soul-saving duty, will rise up in judgment against you.
• Repentance carries with it a divine rhetoric, and persuades Christ to forgive multitudes of sins committed against him.
• Say not with thyself, Tomorrow I will repent; for it is thy duty to do it daily.
• The gospel of grace and salvation is above all doctrines the most dangerous, if it be received in word only by graceless men–if it be not attended with a sensible need of a Saviour, and bring them to him. For such men as have only the notion of it, are of all men most miserable–for by reason of their knowing more than heathens, this only shall be their final portion, that they shall have greater stripes.

OF PRAYER.

• Before you enter into prayer, ask thy soul these questions–1. To what end, O my soul, art thou retired into this place? Art thou not come to discourse the Lord in prayer? Is he present; will he hear thee? Is he merciful; will he help thee? Is thy business slight; is it not concerning the welfare of thy soul? What words wilt thou use to move him to compassion?
• To make thy preparation complete, consider that thou art but dust and ashes, and he the great God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that clothes himself with light as with a garment; that thou art a vile sinner, he a holy God; that thou art but a poor crawling worm, he the omnipotent Creator.
• In all your prayers forget not to thank the Lord for his mercies.
• When thou prayest, rather let thy heart be without words, than thy words without a heart.
• Prayer will make a man cease from sin, or sin will entice a man to cease from prayer.
• The spirit of prayer is more precious than treasures of gold and silver.
• Pray often, for prayer is a shield to the soul, a sacrifice to God. and a scourge for Satan.

OF THE LORD’S DAY, SERMONS, AND WEEK DAYS.

• Have a special care to sanctify the Lord’s day; for as thou keepest it, so it will be with thee all the week long.
• Make the Lord s day the market for thy soul; let the whole day be spent in prayer, repetitions, or meditations; lay aside the affairs of the other part of the week; let thy sermon thou hast heard be converted into prayer. Shall God allow thee six days, and wilt thou not afford him one?
• In the church be careful to serve God, for thou art in his eyes, and not in man’s.
• Thou mayest hear sermons often, and do well in practising what thou hearest; but thou must not expect to be told thee in a pulpit all that thou oughtest to do, but be studious in searching the scriptures, and reading good books. What thou hearest may be forgotten, but what thou readest may better be retained.
• Forsake not the public worship of God, lest God forsake thee, not only in public, but in private.
• In the week days, when thou risest in the morning, consider–1. Thou must die. 2. Thou mayest die that minute. 3. What will become of thy soul. Pray often. At night consider–1. What sins thou hast committed. 2. How often thou hast prayed. 3. What hath thy mind been bent upon. 4. What hath been thy dealing. 5. What thy conversation. 6. If thou callest to mind the errors of the day, sleep not without a confession to God, and a hope of pardon. Thus every morning and evening make up thy accounts with Almighty God, and thy reckoning will be the less at last.
• What folly can be greater than to labour for the meat that perisheth, and neglect the food of eternal life?
• God or the world must be neglected at parting time, for then is the time of trial.
• To seek yourself in this world is to be lost; and to be humble is to be exalted.
• The epicure that delighteth in the dainties of this world, little thinketh that those very creatures will one day witness against him.

OF SUFFERING.

• It is not every suffering that makes a martyr, but suffering for the word of God after a right manner; that is, not only for righteousness, but for righteousness’ sake; not only for truth, but out of love to truth; not only for God’s word, but according to it; to wit, in that holy, humble, meek manner, as the word of God requireth.
• It is a rare thing to suffer aright, and to have my spirit in suffering bent only against God’s enemy, sin; sin in doctrine, sin in worship, sin in life, and sin in conversation.
• The devil nor men of the world can kill thy righteousness or, love to it, but by thy own hand; or separate that and thee asunder without thy own act. Nor will he that doth indeed suffer for the sake of it, or out of love he bears thereto, be tempted to exchange it for the good will of all the world.
• I have often thought that the best of Christians are found in the worst of times. And I have thought again that one reason why we are no better, is because God purges us no more. Noah and Lot–who so holy as they in the time of their afflictions? And yet who so idle as they in the time of their prosperity?

OF THE LOVE OF THE WORLD.

• Nothing more hinders a soul from coming to Christ, than a vain love of the world; and until a soul is freed from it, it can never have a true love for God.
• What are the honours and riches of this world, when compared to the glories of a crown of life?
• Love not the world; for it [the love of the world] is a moth in a Christian’s life.
• To-despise the world is the way to enjoy heaven; and blessed are they who delight to converse with God by prayer.

OF DEATH AND JUDGMENT.

• As the devil labours by all means to keep out other things that are good, so to keep out of the heart as much as in him lies, the thoughts of passing from this life into another world; for he knows if he can but keep them from the serious thoughts of death, he shall the more easily keep them in their sins.
• Nothing will make us more earnest in working out the work of our salvation, than a frequent meditation of mortality; nothing hath greater influence for the taking off our hearts from vanities, and for the begetting in us desires after holiness.
• O sinner, what a condition wilt thou fall into when thou departest this world! If thou depart unconverted, thou hadst better have been smothered the first hour thou wast born; thou hadst better have been plucked one limb from another; thou hadst better have been made a dog, a toad, a serpent, if thou die unconverted, and this thou wilt find true if thou repent not.
• A man would be counted a fool to slight a judge, before whom he is to have a trial of his whole estate. The trial we have before God is of other-guise importance, it concerns our eternal happiness or misery; and yet dare we affront him?
• The only way for us to escape that terrible judgment, is to be often passing a sentence of condemnation upon ourselves here.
• When the sound of the trumpet shall be heard which shall summon the dead to appear before the tribunal of God, the righteous shall hasten out of their graves with joy to meet their Redeemer in the clouds; others shall call to the hills and mountains to fall upon them, to cover them from the sight of their Judge: let us therefore in time be posing ourselves which of the two we shall be.

OF THE JOYS OF HEAVEN.

• There is no good in this life but what is mingled with some evil; honours perplex, riches disquiet, and pleasures ruin health. But in heaven we shall find blessings in their purity, without any ingredient to embitter, with everything to sweeten them.
• O! who is able to conceive the inexpressible, inconceivable joys that are there? None but they who have tasted of them. Lord, help us to put such a value upon them here, that in order to prepare ourselves for them, we may be willing to forego the loss of all those deluding pleasures here.
• How will the heavens echo of joy, when the bride, the Lamb’s wife, shall come to dwell with her husband for ever!
• Christ is the desire of nations, the joy of angels, the delight of the Father; what solace then must that soul be filled with that hath the possession of him to all eternity?
• O! what acclamations of joy will there be when all the children of God shall meet together, without fear of being disturbed by the antichristian and Cainish brood!
• Is there not a time coming when the godly may ask the wicked what profit they have in their pleasure? what comfort in their greatness? and what knit in all their labour?
• If you would be better satisfied what the beatifical vision means, my request is that you would live holily, and go and see.

OF THE TORMENTS OF HELL.

• Heaven and salvation are not surely more promised to the godly, than hell and damnation is threatened to and executed on the wicked.
• When once a man is damned, he may bid adieu to all pleasures.
• O! who knows the power of God’s wrath.? none but damned ones.
• Sinners’ company are the devil and his angels, tormented in everlasting fire with a curse.
• Hell would be a kind of paradise if it were no worse than the worst of this world.
• As different as grief is from joy, as torment from, rest, as terror from peace; so different is the state of sinners from that of saints in the world to come.

Eye of a Needle

     “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (See also Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25.)

There is believed to be here a reference to a proverbial form of expression common in the Jewish schools, when one desired to express the idea of great difficulty or of impossibility. Lightfoot gives several quotations from the rabbis, where the difficulty is represented by the image of an elephant going through the eye of a needle.

Some writers, however, think that there is an allusion in our text-verse, not only to a proverbial form of speech, but also to a fact. They refer to the low, narrow entrance to houses in ancient times, and to the difficulty a camel would experience in entering, though even a camel might enter if his load were removed and he kneeled down, which may be considered a hint to rich men who would enter the kingdom of heaven.

Rev. J.G. Wood writes in Bible Animals, “In Oriental [ed. note: this term was used widely in years past to describe most of the Asian continent, now commonly referred to as the Middle East] cities there are in the large gates small and very low apertures, called metaphorically, ‘needles-eyes.’ These entrances are too narrow for a camel to pass through them in an ordinary manner, or even if loaded. When a laden camel has to pass through one of these entrances it kneels down, its load is removed, and then it shuffles through on its knees. A traveler to Cairo, Lady Duff Gordon, wrote to me saying, ‘Yesterday I saw a camel go through the eye of a needle, namely, the low-arched door of an enclosure. He must kneel, and bow his head to creep through; and thus the rich man must humble himself.’ ”

It has been said that the purpose of the “eye of the needle” gate was so that merchandise could not be brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, although the pack animals and the merchants could come in for protection, but only through this restrictive gate.

Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. (1998). Manners & customs of the Bible (Rev. ed.].) (447). North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

Skin bottles

“Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Ancient skin bottles

The use of bottles made from the skins of animals is very ancient. Water or wine bottles were frequently made from animal skins (Joshua 9:4, 13; Judges 4:19; 1 Samuel 1:24; 10:3; 2 Samuel 16:1; Nehemiah 5:18; Job 32:19; Psalms 119:83; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37). Such leather vessels are still popular among the Bedouin for their durability, portability, and accessibility since they are mostly pastoral nomads and animal herding is their main occupation.

The skins of goats were commonly taken for this purpose, and were usually fashioned to retain the figure of the animal. In preparing the bottle, the head and feet of the animal were cut off and the skin stripped whole from the body. The neck of the animal often made the neck of the bottle; in other cases one of the forelegs was used as an aperture through which the liquid was poured out. The thighs served as the handles, and by attaching straps to them the bottle could be fastened to the saddle or slung over the shoulder of the traveler. For a large party, and for long journeys across the desert, the skins of camels or of oxen were used. Two of these, when filled with water, made a good load for a camel. They were coated with grease to prevent leakage and evaporation.

Woman giving drink to a child from a skin bottle

The “bottle” that Hagar carried into the wilderness, and from which she gave Ishmael drink, was probably a kidskin. (Genesis 21:14.) A similar scene is represented in the engraving shown here from an ancient Assyrian sculpture. Skin bottles were also used for milk (Judges 4:19) and for wine (1 Samuel 16:20).

In our text-verse and its parallels, allusion is made to this use of skins. When the skin is green, it stretches with the fermentation of the liquid and retains its integrity. But when it becomes old and dry, the fermentation of the new wine soon causes the skin to burst. This expression is still used today to mean that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to put new things into old ways.

Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. (1998). Manners & customs of the Bible (Rev. ed.].) (425–427). North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

The question that comes up many times in church meetings is how to grow the church. Hours upon hours are poured into brainstorming ways to reach the lost and ways to effectively draw people into the church. In today’s culture, the church finds itself always competing with the world’s attention grabbers! In this never ending competition, the upper hand seems to always go to the world. I’m not sure if it’s good intentions or desperation which leads many in the church to seek out better ways to lure people in to hear the Gospel. Some churches use high profile speakers to head line a church event, some use self-help topics designed to be series that target the ills of society as an outreach by inviting people to come in for help and advice, and some use books other than the Bible to inspire it’s people on various subjects as how to be a better father/mother, how to live a successful Christian life, how to lead and be lead, some even go as far to promote a life change gospel that promises to make all your problems better, etc. in hopes to compete with the world around them. In all of these new culture driven events and programs where is the art of Biblical discipleship? If the church follows modern culture, the church will grow and grow quickly. I must ask the question, “Does church growth indicate how God is blessing our ministries?” Another question I must ask, “The people being drawn in by the new church outreach programs, are they being drawn in because of someone witnessing the true Gospel to them, or where they invited to hear about a self-help topic, to experience the music service and worship, or someone to make them laugh? Is the emphasis being put on the Gospel first and foremost or is the emphasis put on the outreach program with the Gospel being down on the list?” Are new converts being disciple Biblically or are they being lead to believe that church work is discipleship?

Matt 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

First of all, we need to clearly define the church. The simple answer is the church is the body of believers. To be a member of the church you must be born again by the power of the Jesus Christ. The church and the preaching is for the building up of the body of Christ, therefore the church is not solely a place for those without Christ.  A big part of preaching is the Gospel and I do not dispute that fact, but the church must be used to preach on the spiritual things of God that the natural man( a person without Christ) cannot understand(1 Corinthians 2:13-15). The church needs to prepare the body of believers and teach them how to be Christ followers

The next thing we need to focus on as the body of Christ, is what did the Bible say about bringing people to the church? Should we invite our friends and family to church with us? Should be use Gospel tracks? Should we invite strangers to church? Should we witness to people when we are outside of our church? The answer to all of the above questions is “YES”. I’m afraid that many who want to spread the Gospel have not been truly taught how to be a disciple.

Here is my simply outline for church growth:

• Grow the body of believers with the preaching of the whole council of God.
• Encourage the body of believers in God’s grace and patiently teach them the doctrines of the faith.
• Enable the body of believers with the Gospel by teaching them how to witness and live Godly lives that reflect the power of God in this lost world.
• Take time with each person by addressing their questions and concerns.
• Lead them by example.

In the above examples, I’m giving an outline to make disciples out of people to teach them how to “cast their nets” and spread the Gospel(Matthew 4:19).

What is the fading art of discipleship? What do I mean when I make this statement

When we build up the body of Christ by empowering them with the Word of God, then the power of the Gospel is truly seen when they go out into the world to witness the good news of Jesus Christ. When we rely upon the Gospel and truly disciple our fellow believers, then the Holy Spirit will use the Gospel to convict and draw people to our church. This method was used in the Bible and it is the only method that works because it is by the preaching of the Gospel that mankind is saved.

I fear that too many times we worry about how we can bring people to Christ when the answer is in the Bible that we are holding in our hands. I think instead of brainstorming about how to use relevance/culture to draw people into the church, we should focus more on teaching the children of God about our Christian culture. I think we should drop all the book studies etc. and dig deep into the Bible. I believe if we simply follow the Bible’s instructions then we will see true growth as Christians mature. We will witness the power of the Gospel as it reveals itself in their lives as they grow in Christ. I know that life changes  happen and these types of changes can be seen in almost every religion, but the difference is only the Gospel can truly change the heart of mankind. It is the power of God that we are a new creation and are born again. It’s by the preaching and spreading of the Gospel that the real only lasting power of life change happens and that is through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Let’s get back to discipleship first and focus on building up the church using only the Word of God. I would love to hear more about door to door witnessing  from the true church instead of 95% of the time when a missionary knocks on my door it is a Mormon or Jehovah Witness. As we ponder and brainstorm how to reach modern people with culture/relevance, cults like the Mormons and Jehovah Witness are tearing the streets up using an example laid out in the Word of God. These cultist know their doctrines and why, they are very good at what they do. How well do you know your faith, your doctrines, and can you back them up with the Scriptures when questioned? I don’t know about you, but it seems the Mormons and Jehovah Witness cults have one up on us in the department of discipleship. We have the truth and we need to put that truth into full practice.

Want to see real change? Then build up disciples and feed them only on the Word of God. Teach them to study, to pray, to be mindful of the Holy Spirit, lead by example, and do all in your power to help them when they are in need. In America and around the world, we need disciples who will take the Gospel out to the  highways and hedges compelling mankind to repent by spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If we promote volunteering for the church as discipleship, then we are putting the carriage in front of the horse. Discipleship is simply setting under a godly elder who nurtures us as we are taught the deeper truths of our faith. Basically we are taught how to use the armor of God and how to correctly wield the sword of the Lord which is the Word of the Most High.

I pastor friend once told me, “If you bring them in on entertainment, then you’ve got to keep them entertained. If you bring them in on the Gospel, then all you need to do is feed them with it.”

GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN

Stanzas by John W. Work, 1871–1925

You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, “Here is your God!” (Isaiah 40:9)

For many people, another Christmas season is merely a rerun of the trivial and the sentimental. But for the devoted Christian, Christmas is much more than a once a year celebration. It is a fresh awareness that a Deliverer was sent from the ivory palaces of heaven to become personally involved in the redemption and affairs of the human race. The impact of this realization becomes a strong motivation to share the good news with needy and desperate people who need to know that there is an Emmanuel available who can meet their every need. Men everywhere must hear these glad tidings if they are to benefit from them. With absolute clarity they must hear the message, “Here is your God!”

Negro spirituals had their roots in the late 18th and early 19th century camp meetings throughout the South as well as in the active evangelical ministry carried on among the black people during this time. However, few of their traditional songs were collected or published prior to about 1840. The stanzas for “Go Tell It on the Mountain” were written by John W. Work, Jr. He and his brother, Frederick J. Work, were early leaders in arranging and promoting the cause of Negro spirituals. Today’s song was first published in Folk Songs of the American Negro in 1907. These traditional spirituals have since become an important part of the American folk and sacred music heritage and are greatly appreciated and enjoyed by all of God’s people.

While shepherds kept their watching o’er silent flocks by night, behold, throughout the heavens there shone a holy light.

The shepherds feared and trembled when lo! above the earth rang out the angel chorus that hailed our Savior’s birth.

Down in a lowly manger the humble Christ was born, and God sent us salvation that blessed Christmas morn.

Refrain: Go tell it on the mountain, over the hills and ev’rywhere—go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ is born!

For Today: Isaiah 42:11, 12; Luke 14:23; Romans 12:11; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 2:10

Reflect on this: How have I grown spiritually throughout this Christmas season? What new insights have I gained regarding this message? How can I share my faith in the living Christ more effectively in the days ahead? Use this musical reminder to help—

Osbeck, K. W. (1990). Amazing grace : 366 inspiring hymn stories for daily devotions (385–386). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications.

The New Jerusalem

10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
11 having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.
12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 The one who spoke with me had a gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall.
16 The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal.
17 And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements.
18 The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass.
19 The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald;
20 the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.
22 I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.
25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed;
26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;
27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Re 21:10–27). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Jesus washed the feet of His disciples

 Where the soil is dry and dusty and sandals or similar footwear is worn, frequent washing of the feet is not only a luxury, but a necessity for comfort and health. It is, also, extremely refreshing, as anyone knows who has bathed their feet in cool water when they’re dusty and hot. Under such circumstances, it’s great hospitality and consideration to see that the feet of guests are washed with cool water. Just as important as feeding them when they’re hungry, or giving them a place to rest when they’re tired. Not to do so would be discourteous and even insulting.

In Genesis 24:32, it tells how Rebekah’s family gave Abraham’s servant and the men who were with him water to wash their feet, “So the man went to the house, and the camels were unloaded. Straw and fodder were brought for the camels, and water for him and his men to wash their feet.” In Genesis 43:24 it tells how Joseph’s servant gave water to Joseph’s brothers, “The steward took the men into Joseph’s house, gave them water to wash their feet and provided fodder for their donkeys.”

It is this courtesy of providing water for washing that Jesus refers to when He mildly reproves Simon the Pharisee, at whose house He was a guest, for not giving Him water to wash his feet: “Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair” (Luke 7:44).

When the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy about the qualifications necessary for a widow be provided for by the Church, he listed foot washing among them: “… and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds” (1 Timothy 5:10). All of these were signs that the person had committed her life to serving others. If she had done this, then it was the responsibility of the Church to provide for her.

These signs of a servant give force to the beautiful symbolic action of our Lord, Who washed the feet of His disciples, so that His disciples might see how they were to act toward each other after He was gone. No one was to be master or lord it over another, each was to be a servant of the other. (John 13:4–15)

Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. (1998). Manners & customs of the Bible (Rev. ed.].) (25–26). North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.