Abraham Lincoln and the KJV

Everyone who has read any of the great speeches of Abraham Lincoln knows what an articulate, eloquent and inspiring speaker he was. We've heard the stories of how he agonized over just the right words to explain to the citizens of America the truly epic struggle in which they were involved and the righteousness of their cause.


People being the way they are, I imagine that, at some point in time, future historians will come up with the genius idea that Lincoln's way of speaking is just too old fashioned and contemporary American students just struggle too much with his antiquated and archaic mode of speech. They would contend that it's maybe less about his exact words than his ideas.


That's when you can expect to see history books with revised and edited Lincoln speeches using simpler, less complex and, honestly, dumbed-down language. You know, so as to make reading his thoughts less work and so his words are, allegedly, more easily read. And, though there is loss, they will claim it will be more understandable for those who, frankly, are unwilling to do the work involved in comprehending what this great man was trying to say to us.


Will they argue that their version of his speeches are just as accurate?  Will they question who in their world can understand such antiquated language? Will they suppose so few in their day can grasp the nineteenth century dialect that it has to be brought to a more current vernacular? Will they claim they are not less concerned with precision than readability?

Will the thought ever occur to them that If you change a man's words, you change his ideas? Would they ever wonder if rewording his speeches would detract from his oratorical nobility? Would they be bold and brassy enough to actually think they can improve his wording? His phraseology? His style? Would they presume the average student will ever understand the man's thinking better by merely simplifying the way he wrote?

Will they ever consider the undeniable truth that Mr. Lincoln's words cannot be simplified, they can only be changed? And, being changed, will lose the precision, eloquence and inspiration for which he has been lionized for one hundred and sixty years? Would it ever occur to them that you can't make his words simpler, you can only make them less accurate?

Would they realize that trying to "simplify" the beautiful words he once delivered to a war torn nation would only diminish, weaken and make them less impactful?

Would they claim it's more about readability than accuracy?

Would they ever understand the cost?

I've been recently contemplating this potentiality and it puts me to mind of arguments, er, discussions I've had with a lot of people concerning English Biblical translations. Which is best? Is new better? The old?

Being the KJV man that I am, I feel very comfortable with the king's English and when I struggle, I consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Along with other study helps to which I have access. Then, just for good measure, I pray.

Now, I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up in America and in the South. (When there actually was a "South.") We have traditionally been so predominately KJV readers that we still retain much of the vernacular from the Bible. (Supper, carry, yonder, etc.) Most, at least those who know the old ways, are glad to have been blessed with so inestimable a gift.

The past century or more, specifically the past few decades, some of the more modern translations have taken hold in our formerly genteel society. (Not affected in a small manner by the large numbers of Yankees and foreigners moving into our neighborhoods.) Modern wanna-be scholars won't admit that they believe trading a little accuracy for "readability" is perfectly acceptable. They say theirs is as good as ours.

Is it?

I've had at least one liberal college professor, who didn't use the KJV, tell our class that, in the English language, it is the most accurate. I recall another liberal non-KJV preacher saying the same thing.

So what am I to conclude from these statements? No, this doesn't prove anything, but it only makes the point that they didn't have any prejudice toward the KJV. So, there was no reason for them to be dishonest or slanted in their opinion.

Now, some might be willing to use another translation because they think they'll be able to understand it better.  (Ya know, to avoid all those thee's and thou's,) Could they then simply read whatever version they choose as is? Would they need a dictionary? An encyclopedia? More study-helps? Maybe prayer and fasting? Just how simple would they expect the translators to make it for them?

I'm amused by those who criticize the alleged difficulty of King James English as if they have any command of modern English. Most can barely put two words together and don't know the difference between a subject and a predicate. Can anyone help them with their obvious willful ignorance? Rarely.

Okay, it has been a long time since I have claimed that the KJV is the only Bible or that it should be anyone's exclusive Bible. Most of the other translations have their uses, but should really be treated only as opinion. The KJV has proven over four centuries that it's reliable and trustworthy and is a useful tool for leading lost souls to a saving knowledge of Christ and making them into disciples.

Is it always easily understood? Even by those who were raised with it? Do you often need a dictionary? An encyclopedia? Other study-helps? Prayer and fasting?

Yes, Praise God!


Acts 8:30 KJV
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:31 KJV
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Prodigal Christ

Was Christ the Prodigal Son?

Yeah, I know. It's kind of maybe an insane thought! Yet, it came to me recently and I'm chewing it over even now.

I am fond of saying: For a man who said He didn't talk about Himself, Jesus certainly talked a lot about Himself.

I have often told people that the Bible is about Jesus from beginning to end. Sometimes, He is, perhaps, hidden in places where we have to really look to find Him. He often would steal away, hiding himself, so to speak. Then, his disciples, or, perhaps, wanna-be disciples, would come looking for Him. He usually wanted to be alone with His Father, but, for purposes of my allegory, I'll boil it down to the fact that He was hiding. (He had been away praying when He came walking on the water to them.)

Jesus often hid Himself in His parables. He was trying to help his disciples understand Him in a way that they could comprehend. Often, to have merely said what He meant seemed to confuse them. I have no doubt that they remembered His words years later and little light-bulb, or, I suppose for the first century, an oil lamp would light over their heads and they would say with great excitement, "Oh, yeah! That's what He meant!" (They didn't understand when He told them, "Destroy this temple,"  and in three days He would raise it up.)

Christ gave us the very famous story of the Prodigal Son. This story has inspired innumerable books, sermons and even, since the film age, several movies over the years. Many have described it as a homily on jealousy, slothfulness, wastefulness, ingratitude and a myriad of other vices. Those a little closer to the truth have spoke of its depiction of the re-grafting of the wayward Gentile into the Divine Branch from which most of back-sliding Israel was cut off.

Still, as I said, I was wondering if there isn't more. If the story being told was much closer to our Lord than He could comfortably express. Was this another one of His stories that said more about Him than His followers could, at that time, receive?

Perhaps, you've never done this, but on several occasions, I've told a story about myself without divulging to the listener that my tale was about me. I would refer to someone I knew or know or heard about and not let the truth out that I was the protagonist of the narrative.

Why would I do such a thing? To say it's a privacy matter would not quite address the question fully. Well, in many respects, I didn't want the story to be about me. I thought that it would take away from the moral and/or spiritual lesson I wanted to convey. Maybe, if it was a good thing, I didn't want to brag. Perhaps it was modesty? Maybe I didn't want to admit that I was the one because it was a story about someone, me, doing something awful.  Sometimes, I was merely changing the names to protect the guilty. Maybe I feared I could never look them in the eye again if the truth were known.

How many times did our Lord heal or raise someone and tell them and their families, "Don't tell anybody it was me." Was it modesty? Maybe. Was He trying to be unpretentious? Was He trying to not be the center of attention. For Him, that was impossible. (He likely just wanted to keep the focus on His Father.)

Some of us have no ability to hide. My dad once accused me of trying to hide in the large church I was then attending. I only asked him if he thought I was the type of person who could hide anywhere. He knowingly smiled.

I can only think that, yes, He understood that His people just were not ready at that point to comprehend...Him! Years later, after much experience, study, prayer and fasting, it might've started to finally make sense. Like I hope it does with me.

Anyway, back to my question: Was Christ the Prodigal Son?

I've learned many valuable lessons from my brother Joe's sermons. One of my favorite things he's helped me with is understanding Biblical analogies.

For years I struggled with many Scripture passages. (Still do.) I knew what I was reading was meant to be a metaphor for something spiritual and I could see how things were similar in one way, but would leave off and be drastically different before the passage ended. Something would be similar, but then dissimilar. I was confused!

I don't recall him using the word, but he taught me that all metaphors, analogies and parables are more parallels than anything. Yes, they are reflections and share so many similarities, but these earthly things can never touch the Heavenly. Secular visions always fall short of the Glory of God.

Calling Christ the Prodigal is the same way. So much is there that is the same, but so much is different because the two sons were different. Still, the parallels are inescapable!

Let us compare:

Noah Webster defined "prodigal," among others, this way:

2. Profuse; lavish; expended to excess or without necessity; as prodigal expenses.
3. Very liberal; profuse. Nature is prodigal of her bounties.

The word "prodigal," strictly speaking, is not locked into a negative connotation. One might be described as prodigious and all would consider that complementary. One might be called a prodigy and that is certainly a good thing to be. The idea here is wrapped around abundance.

The Bible never calls the son "prodigal." That is a title bestowed upon him by scholars throughout the centuries. I do not say it is wrong. Only that the depth of the title hasn't fully been explored.

So, here is a brother; the younger of two. He goes to his father and tells him, "Give me what's mine!"

His inheritance would've been something he received after his father's passing. For whatever reason, though, the father acquiesced and gave to him early what should've come later.

Interestingly, the Scriptures say, "he divided unto them." Was this a legal thing? Was the dividing of the inheritance required to be divided to both to be divided early? Did the older brother see what his baby brother was doing and spring the demand that he too should receive his portion? Did he fear the old man, who had just given in to his brother, would, perhaps, not have his to give later? Did he doubt his father? Did he misjudge his father?

So many questions! But I digress.

After this, the young man took all he had, left for a foreign land, blew it on his friends, found himself living among the swine and had little more to eat than they. We all know the story.

Then, he "came to himself." One of my favorite phrases in the Bible!

He returned home, humiliated, humble, only wanting to serve.

He repented!

He had learned obedience. Albeit, the hard way. (Seems that's the only way we humans learn.)

His father's reaction was more than he could've hoped for. Not only was he welcomed back as a son, rather than a servant, but as a favored son.

He was dead; now he was alive.

I suppose I should say a few words about the older brother. Yes, it seems he too got what was coming to him a little earlier than he should've. (Thanks to his little brother.) He was a busy man. Seems he was always busy. Busy, busy, dreadfully busy! He heard noise and, not wanting to have his hard work interrupted, sent someone to enquire.

The response about the return of his useless brother only made his blood hot. He wouldn't even go to personally investigate.

His father, being the father that he was, made a special effort to invite his older son to come join them. Stubborn pride and inertia kept the man outside. His anger made him he miss out on a really great feast.

All he could manage was to complain and, frankly, lie about how his father had treated him. His father's gentle reminder what he owned was his already along with his cajoling entreaty to join the festivities fell only on unyielding ears.

Yeah, we've heard the story so, so many times! Like a host of others, we grown numb to it. We accept what we're fed, too often husks, and never come to ourselves.

Christ left Glory with all that He had. He became God in the flesh.

He traveled to a foreign land where He lived among strangers. We who knew not God.

He gave everything He had to them. His time, His love and, ultimately, His life.

When he needed them most, they abandoned Him. The crowds who cheered him ultimately, it seems, called for His crucifixion. His disciples all abandoned Him with at least one denying knowing Him.

He found Himself hungry, destitute and bereft. He was always hungry, always poor and even His friends couldn't understand Him and were easily distracted by their own concerns.

He despised the shame He endured, but, ultimately, realized it was the result of His own choices. He didn't want to suffer the cross, but knew if he had chosen otherwise, we would all be condemned to Hell.

Yes, He had been eating with pigs. He hung out with the dregs of society. Worst of all? Occasionally religious people.

He lived as a pig. He not only lived with us, but was one of us. Enduring the same mire and muck that we do. (Both literally and spiritually.)

Yes, He was "no more worthy" to called a Son, but He trusted in His Father.

He Who knew no sin had become one of the sinners. Even more so, He became sin itself!

2 Corinthians 5:21

The sins that He took upon Himself were real! His suffering was real. His separation from His father was real. Being forsaken by His Father was as real as it gets! He became the thing that God hates most. Sin!

How could a sinner be a son? He cannot! The sin must be dealt with and there is only one way to deal with sin. Kill it!

Ultimately, He knew Who His father was and only desired to offer Himself up to His service. He cried for His Father from the Cross. All He wanted to do was please Him. He didn't come as a king; He came as a servant.

Though He knew the journey would be long and tough, He also knew it was the only way Home. He walked that long, lonely road to Golgotha. Though He had surely walked hundreds of miles in His ministry, this was the longest trip He had ever made in His life. He didn't want to make the journey, but He knew, after the cross, He could go Home.

His Father was looking, watching down the road, from Heaven, for the arrival of His Son. He didn't waste a single moment in welcoming Him. At the first twinkling of daylight, the Father ran to meet him, raising up His own Son!

The Father's reaction was simply, "My Son was dead. Now, He's alive!"

The Father gave Him a robe of righteousness and a ring to say that He was His Heir. I can imagine the robe being a coat of many colors. (You, know. Like a rainbow of promise.)

I've no doubt there was such a party in Heaven! It goes on still. Christ, Who's choices, Who's actions had separated Him from His Father, was welcomed Home as a Son. The first Son!

Sin was dead! Christ was alive!

The old man was dead.  The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world is risen!

Yes, all the parallels become more obvious as I look over the Scripture. The more I think and pray on it, the more I'm convinced the Lord gave me something here. (Though, I won't blame Him if I'm wrong.)

Both men did what they did for differing reasons. Yet, their journeys were, I think, undeniably images of the other.

Christ, our Brother, left His Father, left His inheritance, gave all He had for us, was counted as one of us, was dead, now lives and is the preeminent Son of the Father. Yes, the party is for Him. But we are invited.

Many of us are so jealous at the good fortune of others, that we stand outside, pouting and angry and, worst of all, missing out on the party inside.

Won't you come inside and join the celebration? I promise, it'll be fun!







Luke 15:11-32 KJV
[11] And he said, A certain man had two sons:
[12] And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
[13] And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
[14] And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. [15] And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
[16] And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
[17] And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
[18] I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
[19] And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
[20] And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
[21] And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
[22] But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
[23] And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
[24] For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. [25] Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
[26] And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
[27] And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
[28] And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
[29] And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
[30] But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
[31] And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
[32] It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.