THE NEW TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT A PERIL TO THE EVANGELICAL CAUSE

By Rev Terence H. Brown, Secretary, Trinitarian Bible Society

The New Translation is the child of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, whose memorandum to the other Christian Churches of the British Isles in 1946 urged that the work of the Church was hindered by the archaic language of the Authorised Version of 1611 and the Revised Version of the 19th century. Representatives of all major Protestant denominations, and of the British and Foreign Bible Society and National Bible Society of Scotland, formed a joint committee which appointed panels of translators and literary advisers, who were said to be chosen “for their scholarly qualities alone.” The New Testament panel met for 57 three-day sessions between 1948 and 1958 and every verse was given due consideration by the translators and by those advising them concerning the English literary form.

The sponsoring bodies, having had access to many ancient manuscripts not available to earlier translators, and the fruits of recent scholarly research into the ancient versions and early commentators, now claim that from these sources, combined with their own scholarly judgment, the translators were able to decide, with a high degree of probability, what in any doubtful case was the authentic text.

To quote their own words, they have employed “the idiom of contemporary English to convey as faithfully as possible the meaning of the Greek, and have correctly rendered words and passages wrong or unclear in the Authorised Version.” A few representative passages are briefly examined in the following paragraphs, which may be sufficient to demonstrate how disastrously the translators have failed to substantiate the claims advanced for their translation.

More Difficult Than The Authorised Version

In many places the homely Anglo-Saxon words have been displaced by stilted latinisms, and simple expressions exchanged for more difficult ones. Typical examples are: — Invoke (call upon), Machinations (lying in wait), Anxious to ingratiate (willing to do the Jews pleasure), Divine retribution (wrath of God), Subordinate (put under), Beneficent work (grace), Divinely potent to demolish (mighty before God to the pulling down), Indefatigable in confuting (mightily convinced), Constant fortitude (all patience), Primacy (first-born), Refractory (oppose themselves), Effulgence of his splendour (brightness of his glory), Arrogates (takes), Malign (speak evil), Mercenary (covetous), Contaminated with sensuality (spotted by the flesh), Inscribed (written).

Other examples: — Astrologers (wise men), Massacre (slew), Presume (think), Calumny (speak evil falsely), Celestial powers (powers of the heavens), Imperial powers (mighty), Infamous (evil), Repudiate (reject), Reprimand (rebuke), Extirpate (destroy), Exasperate (grieved). The list of more difficult words includes: — obdurate, impeached, monstrous, ambiguous, magnanimity, sophistries, superlative, unscrupulous, delusive speculations, cosmic, dogmatic, atrophied, mythology.

Perhaps the most astonishing specimen is in Acts xvii, 18, “A propagandist for foreign deities” (a setter forth of strange gods).

Pedantic

Many of the alterations in the new translation may titillate the palate of the pedant, while doing nothing to make the English rendering more clear than the A.V.

The nice distinction between burglars, thieves and robbers, (Matt. xxiv, 43, etc.) while of interest to lexicographers, is rather remote from current English usage. ‘Transjordan’ for ‘the other side of Jordan’ seems quite unnecessary. Pasturage (pasture), Thereupon (then), Populace (people), represent no improvement upon the old version.

Outstanding examples of pompous pedantry are to be found in I Timothy i, 9, Parricides and matricides; I Tim. iv, 3, Inculcating abstinence; I Tim. vi, 4, Pompous ignoramus; James iii, 8, Intractable evil; Rev. xviii, 9, Smoke of her conflagration.

In Hebrews xii, 18, the Greek is now translated by an uncommon word of Latin derivation, ‘palpable’ from ‘palpabilis,’ meaning ‘that may be felt.’ The A.V. preserves the meaning in the simple monosyllables—’that may be touched.’

Other examples: — John vii, 28, The One who truly is; Acts iv, 13, Untrained laymen; Acts ix, 22, Cogent proofs; Acts xiii, 10, Impostor and charlatan; I Co. xii, 10, Exstatic utterance; Rev. vi, 15, Magnates and marshalls; Rev. xxi, 21, Translucent (transparent); xxii, 16, Scion (offspring).

Not Contemporary English

In many passages the ‘Literary Advisers’ have sanctioned words and phrases which have no place in current English usage. Their use of “Ministrant” in Heb. i, 14, where A.V. has “ministering” is a representative case. Other strange expressions are in Luke iii, 15, On the tip-toe of expectation; xix, 46, Robbers’ cave, (savouring of the Arabian Nights); John viii, 41, Base-born; I Co. v, 9, Loose livers; I Tim. i, 1, True-born; i, 11, Eternal felicity; Heb. iii, 5, Servitor (servant); Rev. xviii, 16, Bedizeden (decked). This last quotation should be read side by side with the pathetic lament that ‘the work of the Church is hindered by the Archaic language of the A.V.’ ‘Decked’ or ‘Bedizeden’—which is archaic?

Crude Colloquialisms

Strangely intermingled with the abstruse and archaic language of the new version there are countless expressions so crudely colloquial, awkward, indiscreet and inappropriate, that the reverent reader of the Scriptures will be shocked and appalled that they should be approved by a joint committee representing the major denominations and some of the Bible Societies.

“Let us toss for it,” said the soldiers (John xix, 24). “I sponged on no-one” said the Apostle (2 Cor. xi, 9). “They left me in the lurch” (2 Tim. iv, 16). “This is more than we can stomach,” said the disciples (John vi, 60). “You are crazy,” they said to Rhoda. “They got wind of it” (Acts xiv, 6). “Tell her to come and lend a hand,” said Martha (Lu. x, 40). “It touched them on the raw” (Acts vii, 54).

The Son of God, in Rev. ii, 27, is said to use the words, “Smashing them to bits,” and in Matt. xx, 12, “We have sweated all day in the blazing sun,” and in Luke xv, 14, “To feel the pinch” (to be in want). Deacons are to abstain from “money-grubbing.” (I Tim. iii, 8).

Other instances: Lazy rascal, inkling, rounded on him, truckle, catch me out, bed and all, its drift, fretting and fussing, bickering, hubbub, perfect pest, in the dock, dumping, grabbers and swindlers, gibberish, shook hands on it, did not square.

Inappropriate

It seems unnecessarily disrespectful to refer to Mary as “a girl . . . and the girl’s name was Mary,” in Luke i, 26, 27. It is unlikely that Paul would write, “I stake my life . . .” (II Cor. i, 23), or “Giving you a chance” (II Cor. v, 12). “Hawking the Word of God about” does not represent the Greek so faithfully as the A.V. in II Cor. ii, 17. “Be consolidated in the faith” (Col. ii, 7) is not so appropriate as the A.V. “established.” “A man dressed in silks and satins” (Matt. xi, 8) is a free paraphrase and no improvement on A.V. ‘soft raiment.’

Unseemly

The translators of the Authorised Version were wise and discreet in their choice of English words to convey the meaning of the original in passages relating to subjects not normally publicly discussed in mixed company. This becoming restraint was discarded by the translators of the new version. Expressions now introduced into the translation will make it unsuitable for use in Sunday Schools, Bible Classes and young people’s associations. The work of the Church is more likely to be hindered by the use of the new translation than the old.

Instances will be found in Matt. i, 25, xxi, 16, 31, 32; Lu. ii, 6; Ro. i, 26, 27; I Co. vi, 10; Gal. v, 12; Jas. ii, 25, and Rev. xii, 2.

Literary Losses

The translators appear to have overlooked the fact that the A.V. has been in use long enough to fix many expressions permanently in the language of the people without regard to their scriptural context. “Pearls before swine” has become proverbial and is not improved by alteration to “Pearls to pigs.” “Tombs covered with whitewash” will not displace “whited sepulchres.” Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” now becomes “a sharp pain in my body.” These changes are absurd, annoying and pointless.

Other beautiful expressions which have enriched our language and are now to be discarded are “His unspeakable gift” (II Co. ix, 15); “the Royal Law” (Jas. ii, 8); and “Inasmuch” (Matt. xxv, 40).

Many of the words used in the A.V. with reference to vital doctrines of the faith are also lost. The reader will no longer find the words elect, justify, impute, redemption, regeneration or book of life in the New Testament. These are replaced by other terms which weaken the force of the truth revealed.

Poor Substitutes

We lose also “in whom I am well pleased” and receive in exchange “on whom my favour rests.” We find ‘safe’ for ‘saved;’ ‘bad characters’ for ‘sinners;’ ‘true self’ for ‘soul.’ It is probable that few readers will see the point of ‘incorporate in’ for the simple ‘in’ of the A.V. in Eph. i, 1; or ‘triumphal procession’ for ‘triumph’ in II Co. ii, 14 (borrowed from Weymouth). In these and many other respects the candid reader will be constrained to admit that the old is better. The men of 1611 would have been incapable of passing the strange rendering of Titus, i, 5, “set in order what was left over,” and they might also wonder at Rev. xix, 16, “on his robe and on his leg.”

Inconsistencies And Anachronisms

The translators have carefully avoided Easter in Acts xii, 4, where they have correctly used the word ‘Passover,’ but surprisingly they have introduced ‘Whitsuntide’ for ‘Pentecost’ in I Cor. xvi, 8, while preserving ‘Pentecost’ in Acts ii, 1. The use of ‘Friday’ in Lu. xxiii, 54 and ‘Sunday’ in Lu. xxiv, 1, is also a quaint anachronism which does nothing to illuminate the reader. The introduction of ‘hymns’ into I Co. xiv, 15, 26, where the Greek is more closely akin to our ‘Psalms,’ is unwarranted and misleading.

Important Doctrinal Changes

(1) Relating to the Son of God

The Greek MONOGENES (only-begotten) is now reduced to ‘only’ (John i, 14; iii, 16, etc.). Some scholars have endeavoured to prove that the Greek word was being used during and before the first century to signify ‘only,’ although its precise etymological signification is “only-begotten.” A few evangelical scholars have also swallowed the bait, notwithstanding its strong flavour of heresy. The case for this important alteration is unscriptural, illogical, fallacious and untenable, and the diluted rendering calls into question the fundamental doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of our Lord.

(2) His Miraculous Birth

A footnote to Matt. i, 16 (Library Edition) states, “one early witness has—Joseph, to whom Mary, a virgin, was betrothed, was the father of . . .” This note casts serious doubt upon the Virgin Birth of our Lord. It is culled from ONE early witness. No doubt many strange and erroneous readings could claim ONE early witness, but this appears to be the only instance where the translators have considered the error of one early witness to be worthy of a place in their margin. The element of doubt is increased by the omission of the word ‘first-born’ from Matt. i, 25.

(3) His Unique Divine Sonship

Articles. In the new version the treatment of the articles and personal pronouns weakens the force of many vital passages revealing or referring to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matt. xxvii, 54, A son of God. The Greek has no indefinite article. It is not necessary to supply one in the English. If the translators objected to the definite article, they could preserve the force of the passage without any article, as in their own John x, 36, “God’s son,” and xix, 7, “Son of God.” Their treatment of the article is by no means consistent. Luke iv, 16, to synagogue (Greek ‘to the synagogue’); John iii, 5, 6, Water and spirit (A.V. the Spirit); but Heb. i, 2, ‘In the Son’ (where the article is not found in the Greek).

Pronouns. The reverent ‘Thou’ and ‘Thee’ and related verb endings are retained in the new version only when addressed to God the Father. These forms are thus preserved throughout John xvii and wherever the Son addresses the Father, but the Father always addresses the Son as ‘You.’ If the respectful ‘Thou’ is retained as a mark of honour to the Father, dare we forget Our Lord’s words in John v, “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father?”

In the new version Jesus teaches his disciples to say to the Father, ‘Thy name be hallowed,’ but the Father speaks to the Son saying of John, ‘He will prepare your way before you,’ (Matt. xi, 10). A distinction is thus introduced between the correct manner of address to the Father and the correct address to the Son. Saul of Tarsus, hearing a voice from heaven, and not knowing whose voice, nevertheless carefully distinguishes between the honour due to the Father and the Son and says in Acts xxvi, 15, “Tell me, Lord, who you are.”

The translators are not consistent in their handling of this matter, as will be seen in Acts xiii, 33 and Heb. i, 5. They would not profess to know whether these two statements were made by Paul, but all must agree that both passages quote the second Psalm. In the former we read, “you are my son;” in the latter, “Thou art my Son.” There is even inconsistency in the use of the capital letters.

The sponsors of this version claim that the work of the Church is hindered by the archaic language of the Authorised Version, but the new translation introduces elements of dangerous confusion which were not to be found in the old. The reader is still required to master “Thou” and “Thee” and the old verb endings throughout John xvii and elsewhere. It is thus admitted that they remain a part of the language of religion wherever English is spoken. The alleged difficulty is certainly not removed in the new translation.

Punctuation

In the A.V. Ro. ix, 5 declares that Christ is God. The new version changes the punctuation, so that we read two sentences, one saying that the Messiah was of human descent from David, and the other an ascription of praise to God, “May God . . . be blessed for ever.” This adaptation of the text, together with the adoption of the earlier Revisers’ I Tim. iii, 16, “He who was manifested” for the A.V. “God was manifest in the flesh,” will make the version more readily acceptable to Jehovah’s witnesses and other unitarians.

Readers will be glad, however, to note that John iii, 16, excluded from Our Lord’s discourse by the quotation marks in the R.S.V., has now come back to us as spoken by the Son. Lamentably, the word ‘only-begotten’ shrinks to ‘only,’ as mentioned above.

Retreat From Reformed Faith

Quite indefensibly the new version has in Matt. xvi, 18, “You are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church.” The parallel passage in John i, 42 becomes “You shall be called Cephas (that is, Peter, the Rock”), but A.V. “Cephas, by interpretation a stone” has support from Alford and R.S.V. “Cephas, which means Peter.” The new version affirms that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built. The Scriptures affirm that Christ Himself is the rock foundation of the Church. The prevailing anxiety to be conciliatory to Rome is carried too far when it is allowed to corrupt the plain teaching of God’s Word.

Another concession to Rome will be found in Acts xiii, 2, where the significance of the change will be more evident to those who have knowledge of earlier controversies around this text. The new version sees the disciples keeping a fast and “OFFERING worship to the Lord.” (A.V. “ministered,” R.S.V. “were worshipping”). Pereira’s R.C. Portuguese has “sacrificed” and the Bordeaux N.T. had “offered the Sacrifice.” R.C. propagandists have used this text to prove that the Apostles celebrated Mass, and their contention hinges upon the word “OFFERED.”

“General baptism,” Lu. iii, 21; Solomon’s Cloister, Acts iii, 11; and “Priestly service,” Ro. xv, 16, will all doubtless be of interest to R.C.’s and Anglo-Catholics.

Dogmatic Bias

It must not be assumed that all of the changes made have been dictated by manuscript evidence newly to hand, or by scholarly research into the precise meaning of Greek words, or by the requirements of good literary form. Countless alterations betray the dogmatic bias of the translators against the reformed faith of our fathers.

The Atonement. I John ii, 2. ‘Propitiation’ is weakened to ‘remedy for the defilement of our sins.’ The Greek word used by John was earlier used by the LXX with reference to the atonement, propitiation and reconciliation symbolised by the O.T. sacrifices. The sense of reconciliation and satisfaction is lost in the new version. “Redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,” in Col. i, 14 becomes the weaker ‘release’ and ‘the blood’ disappears.

Imputed Righteousness. Matt. v, 20, ‘Except your righteousness exceed . . .’ becomes ‘unless you show yourselves far better men.’ This no longer leads the reader to Christ ‘who is made unto us wisdom and righteousness;’ or reminds one of the blessedness of the man unto whom “the Lord imputeth righteousness without works;” or of Paul’s contempt for the righteousness of the law. The sinner merely has to show himself to be a better man than the Pharisee. The vital doctrine is also obscured by the consistent suppression of the word “imputed.”

Effectual Calling. The Scriptures reveal the Son of God calling sinners to repentance. Repentance is revealed as the gift of God. The calling and the gift are associated with justification. In the new version He merely ‘invites’ sinners to repent, (Matt. ix, 13).

Faith is declared to be “the gift of God.” The new version speaks of faith being “awakened,” suggesting that all men have some kind of dormant faith which merely needs to be roused to active life. (Acts iii, 16 and Ro. x, 17). The truth that all men are by nature ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ is thus obscured. To believe now becomes ‘to yield allegiance,’ John i, 12, suggesting that the sinner makes a concession, while the Scriptures really affirm that he receives a gift.

For obvious dogmatic reasons, the word “receive” is carefully suppressed in favour of “accept” (Lu. xviii, 17; John x, 38, xii, 48, xiv, 11; Acts ii, 36, 41, viii, 14, xi, 1; II Co. xi, 4; Jas. i, 21). The new terminology portrays the sinner having his inherent faith awakened, accepting the evidence, quietly accepting the message, yielding allegiance to Christ, exerting himself to clinch God’s choice and calling (II Peter i, 10), letting himself be built into God’s house (I Peter ii, 5), and exhorted not to miss his chance of entering into rest (Heb. iv, 1). The sinner is now assumed to be able to undertake a large share in the work of his salvation, and is apparently less in need of election, justification, redemption, imputed righteousness, regeneration and the mercy seat. All of these are therefore quietly eliminated.

The Book has not merely been re-translated. It has been largely re-written. The reader may feel entitled to enquire whether “scholarly qualities alone” are sufficient equipment for the solemn and responsible task of translating the Divine Revelation.

No Acknowledgment of Divine Inspiration

The Translators’ Preface to the Authorised Version of 1611 reverently acknowledges the Divine Inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, a gift from heaven. One seeks in vain for any such testimony in the new version. The preface and the long statement issued by the sponsors at the time of publication are silent on this subject. It does not therefore occasion any surprise that II Tim. iii, 16 has again been reduced to an assertion of partial rather than plenary inspiration. That “scholarly judgment” upon which the “untrained layman” is invited to rely sometimes betrays the characteristics of the chameleon. A.V. “All scripture is given by inspiration;” R.V. “Every scripture inspired of God;” Moffat “All Scripture is given by inspiration;” Twentieth Century N.T. “Everything that is written under divine inspiration;” R.S.V. 1952 “All Scripture is inspired by God;” and now the new version comes back to the weaker statement. In 1952 the consensus of scholarly opinion in 40 Protestant denominations in America confirmed the Authorised Version of this text. In 1961 the consensus of scholarly opinion in the major denominations of Great Britain supports the contrary view, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier rendering is undoubtedly correct.

Voices From The Past

Although the new version claims originality there are some notable passages where it may be said of earlier revisers that “They being dead yet speak.”

e.g. Lu. iv, 22, Words of such grace (Westcott).

Ro. viii, 28, He co-operates for good with those who love God (Moffat).

Eph. i, 5, note: In his love he destined us (Wyclif 1382).

Heb. i, 1, In fragmentary and varied fashion (R.V. and Alford).

Acts xv, 41 (and in many other places), “Congregation” for “Church.” This was Tyndale’s word and was favoured by the Geneva translators of 1557/60. The A.V. Translators were advised not to use it, but in many cases it is the better choice.

This list could be considerably extended, but these examples are fairly representative.

The Manuscripts

Some changes have been made in the text on the ground that some of the more recently recovered Manuscripts, being of earlier date than those available in 1604, probably represent the original documents more reliably. Some scholars tend to oversimplify this problem and give the impression that this part of the subject is closed. This is far from true. In the new version the translators have adopted most of the new readings favoured by 19th century revisers and they have added a few of their own. They claim to have brought their “scholarly judgment” to bear upon the available evidence, so as to produce in doubtful cases, with a high degree of probability the most likely text. Such judgment is fallible and the degree of probability variable, and partly conditioned by the translator’s Christian experience, faith and dogmatic environment.

Every alteration on Manuscript grounds is a debatable subject, and no-one is obliged to assume that the new version is better than the old because it adds ‘Isaiah’ in Mark i, 2; omits ‘My words’ in Mark viii, 38; changes 70 to 72 in Lu. x, 1; puts ‘Chosen one’ for ‘Son of God’ in John i, 34; ‘Son of Man’ for ‘Son of God’ in John ix, 35; moves John vii, 53-viii, 11 to the end of the Gospel in a place of distinguished doubt; and embellishes the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel with a confusing array of misgivings and hesitations.

We have read this translation through completely, comparing several hundred passages with the latest critical edition of the Greek and with the Authorised Version and eight modern versions. Our conviction is that if any have been hindered in their approach to the truth by the alleged “barriers of language,” more are likely to be hindered in their apprehension of the truth by the numerous and serious deficiencies of the new version.

This translation will be a great embarrassment to those professedly evangelical societies and literature distribution organisations which have committed themselves in advance to accept and circulate a version so utterly alien to the faith of our fathers and unacceptable to those who still cherish some respect for the old paths.

FALLOW GROUND

By Rev Gavin Parker, Aberdeen

Jeremiah iv, 3.—”Thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.”

There is here a call to Israel to repent and live to God. The call is applicable to us, for there is among us much profession, but little faith; much ground lying waste.

I. Consider the view here given of the state of the heart: it is like fallow ground, not in a state of preparation, but neglected, and barren, and useless. A thicket of thorns and wild bushes.

i. The powers of the understanding neglected. There is little thinking or study about God and His Word; and few efforts are made to understand, or remember, or apply Divine truth.

ii. The will and affections lying waste. There is no love to God, nor hatred of sin: no hope of heaven, or fear of hell: no joy in holiness, nor grief for depravity: no will to depart from evil, nor desire to seek after good.

iii. Conscience asleep. There is no reproof for sin, no regular way of thinking, acting, or judging. All is confusion within. There is no judgment-seat; no cognizance of thoughts, words, or actions; no remorse.

iv. Abundance of evil productions resembling thorns. Evil thoughts, desires, propensities, actions and words. All things are wild, unholy, vain; wicked thoughts, prejudices, errors, delusions, hypocrisies.

It is difficult to cultivate ground so neglected. It is hard and full of roots; the clearing away of bushes, etc., is difficult. Similar is the state of sinners, who seldom will ever hear the truth. They hate the light. They will not remember, nor reason, nor seek God, no voice but that of God can reach the heart; no power but Jehovah’s is sufficient to arouse the dead conscience, or to alarm sinners dead in sin. No persuasion of man can make the sinner repent, or pray, or be humble or spiritually minded.

II. The call of God to break up the fallow ground.

i. There will be much reluctance in the mind to this work. Sinners wish to sleep on, and not to be troubled about God, and sin, and holiness.

ii. It will be a work of great difficulty, especially if it has been long uncultivated. Even in youth it is difficult to turn the thoughts to God, and it is more so afterwards.

iii. It requires vigour, firm resolution, and persevering exertion.

iv. It must be done sufficiently, not slightly, but by tearing up the ground, and bushes, and not sparing.

What is to be done in order to do this work?

1. Begin to think seriously on sin and danger, on the laws, justice, and tribunal of God; on the uncertainty of time, and an awful eternity.

2. Let conscience awake; you are in the hands of an angry God; condemned, and already under the curse. Sleep no more, lest you awake in hell.

3. Seek not false peace. Be not deceived by the indifference of others, nor by inward treachery. “There is no peace to the wicked.”

4. Spare no sin. Pluck out every idol and temptation. Love not the world. Be not proud. Depart from all evil. Cut off the right hand, pluck out the right eye, if necessary.

How can all this be done?

1. Read much the Word of God; search the Scriptures. Meditate on the character of God, on His laws and threatenings, and on the nature and results of sin.

2. Attend a soul-searching ministry. This, though despised, is one of the most valuable blessings on earth. To discover sin, and to root out sin, the Word of God must be pointed to the heart and conscience.

3. Be earnest in prayer. Wrestle with God. Seek the new heart. Plead with God to give you power to cast away your transgressions, and make you a new heart, and a new spirit.

4. See that all your exercises be heart work. Truth must go to the heart. Convictions are felt in the heart. Prayer must be from the heart. Dig deep. Tear up every thorn.

III. The subsequent duty. “Sow,” after the thorns are away, get into the heart and soul what will be productive of good fruit. Turn the ground to use.

i. The prepared and cleared ground is the new heart. Good ground, illuminated by the sun of righteousness, and watered by the rain and dew from the Holy Spirit.

ii. Seek spiritual knowledge, wisdom, knowledge of God, of Jesus Christ, and salvation. Without this knowledge the heart cannot be good.

iii. Seek faith, love to God and man, hope, peace with God, Christian comfort, and holiness.

iv. Attend with honest and enlightened minds on the ordinances of religion. There will be showers of blessing on Zion and dew from heaven; times of refreshing will come.

v. Seek to be fruitful. Be devout; spiritually minded; do good to all; glorify God; work righteousness.

vi. Be earnest. Sow beside all waters. Be not weary in well-doing. Think often of the coming harvest in eternity. Gather much fruit unto eternal life to cause joy in heaven.