J.L. Van Popta

This is a short paper written in 1995 for the Canadian Reformed Congregation in Ottawa.

1. The use of “you, your, yours” in the language of prayer.

The consistory has decided that it should follow the recommendation of the last General Synod and use the NIV in the worship services.[1]  With that change would come a parallel change in the language of prayer. We now would address God with “you, your, yours” instead of  “thee, thou, thy, thine”.  Some members of the congregation have raised concerns about this change in prayer language.   The following observations are made to help us to understand that this is not due to lack of respect towards God but that this is simply because of change and development of the English language. 

The defense for using “thee, thou, thy, thine” is rooted in the use of the KJV of 1611.[2]  In that translation, especially when we read the Psalms, we notice that God is addressed in this way.  It may sound to our ears as a respectful form;  one properly used for the persons of the Trinity.  We should note, however, that in the English of the KJV the LORD God addresses even the serpent with "thee,” “thy,” and “thou”  in Genesis 3:15.   In an other place (2 Samuel 16:7-8) we can read that Shimei, when he curses David by calling him a man of the devil [Belial], addresses David with “thou” and “thee”.   Yet in the following verses, when David speaks to his nephews (who want to vindicate their King and maintain his honour) he addresses them with “ye,” and “you”.  In Genesis 9 when God speaks to Noah and his sons and makes his covenant with them he addresses them as “you” and “your.” Compare this to God using “thee” in Genesis 17:2-4, when he makes his covenant with Abram.  This difference is not based on a distinction of either familiarity or honour.  Rather, it is a difference in number.  “Thee, thou, thy, thine” in the KJV are the singular forms.  They apply to God, to the devil, to an enemy, to a friend.  “Ye, you, your, yours,” are the plural forms and are also used for all kinds of persons.  This difference because of number is apparent, for example, in Genesis 45:17 ff.  Pharaoh addresses Joseph with “thy” [i.e.  singular] whereas he tells Joseph to speak to his father and brothers with “your” and “ye” and “yours” [i.e. plural].  This plural  “you” and singular “thou” can also readily be seen in Psalm 82.  In verse 6 we read, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” In verse 8 we read,  “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for thou shalt inherit all nations.”  In the New Testament, in Acts 5, Peter addresses Ananias with “thine” and “thou” even though he says that Satan has filled his heart.  Yet Paul says to the Church in 1 Cor 6:19 (using the plural form),  “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

It was in 1952 that the RSV [the NASB in 1960] introduced a new distinction.[3] In these translations “thee, thou, thy, thine” were used for the persons of the Trinity, whereas  “you, your, yours”[4] were used for all other persons, plural and singular.  The use of “you, your, yours” in the RSV and the NASB simply followed modern English, which had lost the singular — plural distinction between “thou” and “you”.  The singular — plural distinction of Elizabethan English was dropped.  The forms, however, were now used to indicate a divine — human distinction [but see 1 Cor 15:55 in the RSV!] In these translations, this retention of  “thee, thou, thy, thine” to make a divine — human distinction was a completely new convention not ever seen before in the nearly 600 year history of English Bible translation since Wycliffe’s work  of 1380.[5]

We need not impose something first formalized in a Bible translation in 1952 as the only proper way to address God. Neither should we fight to maintain old forms and language, thinking that they are more pious and dignified. Rather, we should recognize that language goes through transformation and change. The churches of the Reformation, following Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, and Beza, have always desired to have the Bible available in the language of the people.  It was the church of Rome that wanted to keep a dignified holy liturgical language [Latin] and did so till the 1960’s. The RSV and the NASB are faithful translations that bridged the gap from the Elizabethan language of 1611 to the international English of the 21st Century[6].   Though they have a legitimate place in the history of Bible translation, we need also to recognize that the gospel must be presented to the Church and in the world in the language of the day.  There should be no ecclesiastical language that is separated from the life of God’s people nor from the life of the people in the world.

This change to modern usage in contemporary Bible translations or in prayer language is not a matter of disrespect or dishonour to God, nor is it a “sign of the times.”  It is just an acknowledgment that English is a living language and that over the past 400 years it has adopted new forms.  The gospel of salvation can and must be proclaimed to all peoples, in all languages, in all times.  People everywhere must also be able to pray to God in their own language. We need not be overly attached to the language of 400 years ago, ascribing more dignity to it.  Neither should we bind the churches to a form of English that first appeared in a printed Bible less than 50 years ago.

All this, however, does not mean that using the old forms is wrong.  No one should force others to change from the old way to the more contemporary.  But neither should we rigidly maintain that the only way for Reformed believers to address God is with “thee, thou, thy, and thine.”

2. Capitalization of Pronouns Used for the Persons of the Trinity.

A secondary question concerns the capitalization of these words (as well as the personal pronouns — “he, his, him, me, my, mine”) with reference to God. To my knowledge the turn of the century (1901) American Standard Bible was the first Bible translation to adopt this convention. The NASB maintained this. This practice was taken over by various private Bible translations; the Berkley Bible among others.  The capitalization of pronouns shows itself to be unsatisfactory in a passage like Dan 9:24-26.  There  the Berkley translation capitalizes the pronouns  which the NASB does not, and vice versa.  The use of capitalized pronouns makes it plain how the translators interpret the passage. The question arises whether the translators should remove the ambiguity present in the Hebrew, which has no capitals.   The standard versions, which leave all such pronouns without capitals, are better.

This practice, however, was picked up by the old printing (1934) of the CRC Psalter- Hymnal which used the 1929 ASB as its Bible translation. (It is very strange, however, that this 1934 edition does not capitalize the pronouns when quoting Bible passages!).  The practice of capitalization may have been passed on to the Canadian Reformed Book of Praise as we made the transition from the old Psalter-Hymnal to our own “church-book” in the 1960’s.  Though doing this is not wrong, to maintain this as the norm and to insist that others do the same would be to impose a burden that goes much beyond Scripture and confession.