The ongoing debate over Bible translations is often marked by more heat than light. This is unfortunate and can also lead to unlawful divisions in the Body of Christ. Mark Ward and Christian McShaffrey are no strangers to the debate and have recently decided to conduct an experiment: Arguing a specific point in a calm and charitable manner. The following exchange is the result and we publish it here in good hope that it will serve as a model for all who find themselves standing on opposite sides of the issue (or anywhere in between).
Resolved: The Superior Accuracy of its Second-Person Pronouns Commends the Continued Use of the Authorized Version in Public Reading and Preaching

Christian (Affirmative Constructive)

Confusion over inspired pronouns is as old as the garden. When Satan first questioned God’s word, he also misquoted it by using a plural “ye” when God had spoken singularly, saying, “thou shalt not eat of the tree.” Eve, being deceived, repeated the wrong pronoun (cf. Gen. 2:17, 3:1-3). The discussion was over what God had said, so Eve should have quoted God’s word more accurately.
That is what this debate is about: accuracy. Modern translations of the Holy Bible no longer distinguish number between pronouns, and that compromises their accuracy.
Some readers may not remember what they learned in grammar school, so here is a quick review: second-person pronouns indicate the person, or people, being addressed by a speaker. The languages of original inspiration (Hebrew and Greek) distinguish the number of people being addressed, but contemporary English cannot. Our generic “you” can refer to an individual or a multitude.
The translators of the Authorized Version eliminated such ambiguity by using t-pronouns for the singular (thou) and y-pronouns for the plural (ye). These pronouns also distinguish case, but it may suffice for this debate only to focus on number. In that era, the ordinary “man on the street” did not speak this strictly. It was a translational decision intended to preserve accuracy, which is crucial when it comes to interpretation.
Besides the aforementioned example (which might have doctrinal implications concerning Adam’s federal headship), another example of the interpretive usefulness of numbered pronouns is found in Luke 22:31-32.
If you read the passage in a modern version, it appears as a personal conversation between Jesus and Peter. It certainly starts out as that, and also ends as that, but when Jesus says, “Satan hath desired to have you…” he was addressing all the apostles. Nothing in the context hints at that shift. Only a y-pronoun can convey it.
There are not many solutions when it comes to solving the problem of scriptural pronoun confusion, and all of them involve education. Here, it seems, are the options:
“Explain it, preacher.” This is an unacceptable solution because it makes people dependent upon fallible, and oftentimes incompetent, teachers. Every Bible reader deserves immediate access to the inspired words of God.
“Insert a footnote.” This option is definitely better, but it may overestimate grammar proficiency levels in America. A footnote that reads, “The original Greek employs a second-person nominative singular” may actually be less intelligible than an archaic pronoun.
“Teach the pronouns.” This is easier than most people imagine. Simply let a kindergarten teacher write the words thee and ye on the chalkboard, and ask the children about each: “How many points are on top of the first letter?” The students now know and, thanks to the added visual mnemonic, will never forget. More importantly, the kindergartener now has more immediate access to the inspired Hebrew and Greek than a professor of biblical languages who is reading the English Standard Version. By retaining the use of numbered pronouns, nothing is lost and much is gained.

Mark (Negative Constructive)

There is a sense in which I agree with the resolution as currently stated: the KJV’s second-person pronouns are more accurate—if what we mean is “closer in form”—to the Hebrew and Greek than are the second-person pronouns used in contemporary English.
But one must ask: what do we mean by “accurate”? I grew up in the fundamentalist world, where fornication is frowned upon because it leads to dancing; so I can’t say for sure how many people it takes to tango. But I’ve heard it’s two. A tango dancer may get all the steps “right,” but if he’s dancing by himself, what’s the point?
Likewise with communication: it takes a sender and a receiver. So I think clear communication of what God said _to the audience you actually have_ is the goal of translation. What else could it be? We are called to disciple the nations, and I’m going to have to presume that Christ intended each of us to reach the nations existing during our own lifetimes, or he would have outfitted us with time machines.
Do people in English-speaking nations understand the older forms thou and ye? Yes and no.

Yes: many contemporary English speakers understand that thou in “Thou shalt not kill” was a second-person pronoun. I think that many of them grasp, too, that thou was singular (and not plural) back then. Thou has hung around today in ways that bolled and bewray and many other Elizabethan words have not.
But no: I believe that a proper study would demonstrate that even experienced KJV readers have a hard time remembering that you in the KJV is always plural. Alas, I have a scientific study ready to go to check this, but I have no funding. I am stuck describing my own experience and making educated guesses at others’. I, for example, always misunderstood, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” I always assumed it was singular, even for decades after I was formally taught that you in the KJV is plural. Why? Because it’s very difficult to make oneself forget what an incredibly common word means—and in our English, you “means” SINGULAR-OR-PLURAL-SECOND-PERSON-PRONOUN. I think the KJV is tangoing by itself in Phil 2; I think a lot of English speakers aren’t getting the message.

This, too, is key: older forms like ye don’t just communicate SECOND-PERSON PRONOUN; they also inject a note of solemnity, of archaism, perhaps even of humor. Imagine saying to a friend, “Art thou coming?” He would likely understand the strict literal meaning, but he’d (rightly) detect that you were trying to communicate something else. Who knows quite what? I think that making God sound like an Elizabethan does, yes, make him sound more grand. But it also makes him sound more grandiloquent. God did not choose archaic Greek in Paul’s day; he chose the common variety. We should do the same in English and use footnotes for clarification where needed.

Christian (Affirmative Rebuttal)

Yes, it takes two to tango and there is actually something worse than dancing alone: Allowing a third party to cut in. Due to the nature of inspiration, Bible translators should be concerned primarily with two parties: God and the original audience.
Per your example, unconverted nations need to hear what God said to the saints at Philippi. Explaining and applying those inspired words to a contemporary audience is properly the work of teaching, not translation (Matt. 28:19-20).
Your example also seems to bewray a deeper problem than misunderstanding pronouns. Namely, literary imperception. If the immediate contextual emphasis on like-mindedness, being of one accord, and esteeming others (vv. 2-4) does not incline the reader to anticipate a communal exhortation (vs. 5), nothing probably will.
As for the alleged difficulty of remembering the meaning of the AV’s pronouns, my previously suggested t/y mnemonic device has proven extremely effective in my congregation.
The “Art thou coming?” illustration is as ironic as it is unpersuasive because you employ humorously grandiloquent expressions often in your YouTube videos without any apparent concern over alienating the plowboys who are watching on their iPhones.
Your proposed solution of adding explanatory footnotes is simply not reasonable. I actually did this with the plural verb conjugations and pronouns in Phil. 2 and ended up with more footnotes than there are verses!
All personal anecdotes aside, you have essentially conceded the debate by agreeing that the AV’s pronouns are indeed superior in formal accuracy and offering no reasonably executable alternative.

Mark (Negative Rebuttal)

I plead guilty to occasional humorous grandiloquence on my YouTube channel. It’s other people’s fault if they come hear me—or the fault of algorithms (which, and this is a little known fact, get their name from a former US vice president cum tech inventor). But I learned long ago not to use obscure humor while preaching in church. Why? Well, nobody laughs. And a herald should not have only two audiences in mind; he needs, as I said earlier, to speak to the audience God gives him.
Bible translators, too, must translate not for the ideal reader who knows all they know but for the plow boy.
The answer KJV defenders always give to my English readability concerns is teaching. The plow boy must be taught to understand the more accurate and beautiful English of the KJV. And one would think that the second-person pronouns in the KJV provide a perfect opportunity. Many people already sort of know them from exposure to Shakespeare.
But in my experience, this teaching usually doesn’t happen. I can’t demonstrate this except from experience, however. So, in a way, I must admit defeat on the technical accuracy point of this debate (as I knew I would going in!)—if KJV preachers will do what Christian does and teach their people to understand archaic second-person pronouns. If KJV preachers can get their congregations to the point where 80% (?) of their members and regular attenders know that “let this mind be in you” is plural, I’ll willingly lose. My goal is just to see people understand God’s word! I think the number is rather at about 5%—but, again, I lack the resources to prove it (anyone want to fund a Barna study?).
But I don’t think Brother McShaffrey has answered my point about what the inclusion of archaic forms does to the overall feel of the language—the way it makes not just the humor in Scripture but practically every single line sound grandiloquent. He took my suggestion of footnotes and applied it woodenly. Contemporary translations don’t need to footnote every plural, anymore than they need to footnote “whom” in “knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim 3:14).
What do I mean? Old English used to distinguish, as Greek does, between singular and plural relative pronouns (like “whom”), not just personal pronouns (like “you”). But KJV and modern Englishes have no way of making this distinction; the very finest grammatical details just don’t always come over easily from one language to another—but God’s truth still does.
Meanwhile, a value most people aren’t actually getting—accuracy—is trumping a value they have a right to, the Bible in their own English. Again I say, God had a chance to use archaic Greek but chose the language of the people. We should do the same, and use footnotes where careful Bible teachers judge that a little extra help might be beneficial for the plow boy.

Christian (Affirmative Rebuttal)

My opponent has admitted technical defeat, so I will simply tie up loose ends, agree on one point, and advocate for today’s plowboy.
As for loose ends, the language of the AV is technically Early Modern, not Old English. Also, I did not address the “overall feel” because that is entirely subjective. It does not “feel” quaint, humorous, or grandiloquent to me and, even if it did, why should I be surprised that an ancient book might actually sound ancient?
One point of agreement is this: If most preachers today are failing their people as alleged, they should repent or resign.
When it comes to the proverbial plowboy, let it be noted that Tyndale was not arguing for colloquial translations for the un-intelligentsia when he said, “If God spare my life, I will make a plowboy know more of the scripture than thou dost.” He was denouncing papal authority and, as a schoolmaster, simply wanted to help working-class folk understand scripture better than the priests. He succeeded.
Why should we effectively undo his work by making people dependent on a new priestly class of “careful Bible teachers” who “judge” whether and where to grant occasional insights to the inspired original via footnotes? Every man deserves immediate access to the inspired text and the grammatical precision of AV pronouns affords just that.
Finally, as one who homeschooled six children and pastored dozens more, I have personally seen the old adage proven: Most students rise—or fall—to the level of expectation.
Mark Ward (PhD, Bob Jones University) is the editor of Bible Study Magazine and author of its back-page column, “Word Nerd: Language and the Bible.” He is the author of several books and textbooks including Biblical Worldview: Creation, Fall, Redemption (BJU Press, 2016), Basics for a Biblical Worldview (BJU Press, 2021), and Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible (Lexham Press, 2018), which became a Faithlife infotainment documentary. He is also an active (read: obsessive) YouTuber.
Christian McShaffrey (M. Div, Mid-America Reformed Seminary) is Pastor of Five Solas Church in Reedsburg, Wisconsin and also serves as Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Minnesota and Wisconsin (OPC), editor-in-chief of the Text & Translation webzine, vice-chairman to the Bahnsen Institute, and on the Board of Visitors of Seminario Reformado de las Americas in Quito, Ecuador. He recently co-edited the anthology: Why I Preach from the Received Text.
Related Posts:

As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers.  Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err.  We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture.  Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly. 

The 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), meeting in June 2024, will consider five overtures (amendments to the Book of Church Order) that will require background checks for ordained church leaders.  Some PCA churches have already adopted this practice to screen support staff and other volunteers.  However, I believe “requiring” background checks for elders and deacons is both unwise and unbiblical, for the following reasons.

Background checks do not indicate a man’s Christian character or fitness for ministry.

All five presbyteries (Missouri, Ohio, South Texas, Susquehanna Valley, and Warrior) in their overtures appeal to the elder and deacon requirements in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in support of mandatory background checks.  However, the qualifications for ordained office in these texts are spiritual and moral, not legal.  Background checks do not reveal a man’s present moral character, spiritual maturity, or Christian commitment. They only indicate if he has felony or misdemeanor convictions or court actions in his past.  It is the responsibility of the church through its Sessions and Presbyteries to determine if an elder or deacon candidate has the character in line with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
To illustrate this, say “John” is an elder candidate in his church.  His Session conducts the mandated background check and finds a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession from seven years ago, before he was a member of his church.  Prior to joining his present church, John repented, sought counseling for his sinful habit, and has not used any drugs since.  The background check will not indicate if he is above reproach, sober minded, self-controlled, and able to teach, which are spiritual qualities.  It will not speak to his Christian character or his present fitness to serve as an elder.  In fact, it may prejudice his Session against him simply because he has a legal conviction in his past.  If one argues that John is not above reproach because of his past, then we must concede that the Apostle Paul was not above reproach and could be disqualified from ministry in the PCA.

The use of background checks can lead to entanglement with the civil magistrate in approving ordained leaders.

The consequence of background checks is clear:  the civil magistrate becomes involved in the church’s vetting of elders and deacons.  Proponents will argue that the state does not approve or deny ordination.  This is true; however, the civil magistrate, who bears the sword, must be separate from the church, whose authority is only spiritual.  If the PCA implements mandatory background checks, the church must necessarily involve the magistrate, however indirectly, in the ordination of leaders.

Rationale given for mandatory background checks is tenuous, at best.

Ohio Presbytery’s rationale for mandatory background checks is the most extensive, and several of their points invite a response.  Their overture first gives the moral character argument:
It is, therefore, clear from the recent debates and votes that the presbyteries of the PCA desire more reflection on the moral character of candidates’ ministries. Background checks are consistent with the recent emphasis on moral character within the PCA and its officers. (Ohio Presbytery Overture p. 3, Lines 32-34)
A legal background check, as I have argued above, is not a judge of a man’s moral character, present spiritual maturity, or his adherence to the biblical leadership requirements.
Ohio Presbytery cites the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault:
“Background checks, social media checks, and careful reference checks should be used to screen for abusive leadership” (ibid., 1183).  (p. 2, Lines 41-42)
What is not explained is how a legal background check will warn if a ministry candidate has the potential for “abusive leadership,” which is a nebulous concept and difficult to define.  Legal actions in a person’s past do not necessarily demonstrate how he will lead the church as an elder or deacon.  A background check would not reveal vague and ill-defined concepts such as “spiritual abuse” or “emotional abuse”.  I would again use the example of the Apostle Paul, whose hypothetical background check and reference checks would not speak to his calling or gifts as an apostle.
Ohio Presbytery attempts to give a common grace argument in support of their position:
Further, the concept of “extra-biblical” in the objections [to background checks] is not properly defined or defended in the reasoning given by the Overtures Committee of the 50th General Assembly. For instance, neither examination in church history nor the Book of Church Order are required by a clear scriptural command; nonetheless they are requirements for ordination, along with many other things that are not explicitly named in Scripture (BCO 21-4.c; 24-1)…In particular, we confess “there are some circumstances concerning the … government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence” (WCF 1.6) (p. 3, Lines 37-45)
This line of reasoning is weak at best.  Examinations in church history or the BCO do not touch on a person’s legal past, nor does failing these exams have any legal consequence, as could the results of a background check.  Further, churches may take many actions that are permissible or expedient; it does not mean such actions are Biblically wise or appropriate.
Ohio Presbytery includes what could be construed as a veiled threat:
If approved by the General Assembly and Presbyteries as a desired application of Scriptural principles, [mandated background checks] would be capable of binding the conscience of officers (PP 1) who “promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord” (BCO 21-5; 24-6). (p. 4, Lines 14-16)
I am amazed that a PCA presbytery could be so ignorant of both the doctrine of Scripture and church history.  As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers.  Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err.  We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture.  Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly.
Despite Ohio Presbytery’s claim to the contrary (p. 4, lines 5-6), mandating background checks is most certainly the church’s attempt to please both the world and the State.  Is there data showing a massive influx of pedophiles, rapists, drug addicts, spousal abusers, and sex offenders into the ranks of PCA elders and deacons?  Emotional and fear-driven arguments about this do not carry weight here.  Contending that “this is the world we live in now” is not sufficient; the Church must be distinct from the world.  If PCA churches and presbyteries took seriously discipleship and church discipline, if elders led the way in holding Scripture high and applying its principles to their peoples’ lives, then background checks would not and should not be necessary.
The PCA General Assembly and PCA presbyteries should defeat all five overtures to require background checks for ordained leaders, a practice that is both unwise and unbiblical.
Christopher Brown is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.  He lives in Charleston, South Carolina.
Related Posts:

The decision-making microstresses. Pastors must make countless decisions every week. One pastor told me his greatest challenge was “decision fatigue.” The decisions can range from making a small church expenditure to counseling a terminally ill patient on important decisions. Some seem insignificant. But they all add up quickly. The critical-comments microstresses. For most people, pastors included, criticisms sting. Many pastors are subject to a regular litany of criticisms. It wears on them, makes them question their own leadership, and can lead to depression.

December 15, 1967 was a major moment in American history.
I bet few of you know what happened on that day. I sure didn’t until I began studying the world of microstresses.
Let me explain.
On that fateful day in 1967, the Silver Bridge collapsed, and 46 people died. The bridge connected Point Pleasant, West Virginia to Gallipolis, Ohio over the Ohio River. The collapse was attributed to microstresses, small and almost imperceptible factors that cumulatively caused the catastrophe.
A small fracture formed in a part of the bridge that was one of many components that held the bridge deck in place. The fracture, too small by itself to cause damage, was the result of a design flaw. The flaw allowed salt and water to seep in the component. The salt and water led to corrosion and cracking. Because that one component was not working, the load shifted to similar parts of the bridge. The cumulative shifting led to overload on the working parts of the bridge. That overload led to the ultimate tragedy.
So, December 15, 1967, became a pivotal day where inspection of bridges became commonplace, and where quality standards of new bridges hit a higher and safer level.
One little stress ultimately led to a total collapse.
Pastors are not alone in having stressful jobs. I don’t want to imply that their work is more difficult than other jobs. But pastors are unique in the cumulative number of microstresses in their lives. And, left alone without care, these microstresses can lead to a total collapse.
Here are nine of the most common microstresses pastors experience by the very nature of their jobs and calling.
Read More
Related Posts: