For hundreds of years English-speaking people in all parts of the world have been accustomed to using thee and thou in prayer to God in much the same way as these pronouns are used in the older versions of the Bible, in particular the King James (or Authorized) Version. Yet in the last forty years there has been a movement away from the use of these distinct pronouns in prayer. The transition away from these forms is also reflected in contemporary translations of the Bible. While this is no longer an issue of discussion in many denominations, in others it is being passionately discussed. At times the difference even threatens to alienate church members from each other.

In the debate regarding these matters there has been a degree of misunderstanding about the issues involved. When discussing the use of "thee" and "thou" it is essential, in order to avoid confusion and rash judgments about others, that we understand and keep in mind these important distinctions:

1. First, we must distinguish between the issue of accuracy and the issue of reverence.
2. Secondly, we must distinguish between the issue of the language of Scripture and our language in prayer.

Are these issues not related to each other? Yes, they are related spiritually. Irreverence toward God is often coupled with less respect for the accuracy of the Bible. Furthermore, that the Bible and prayer are related is evident from the fact that the Lord urges to us "take my words in your mouth." But when we are debating in these matters it is important to make it clear whether we are speaking of Scripture or about prayer, about the issue of accuracy or about reverence. If we fail to make this distinction we will end up misunderstanding, and — even worse — misjudging each other.

I. In Regard to the BIBLE the Arguable Issue Is ACCURACY⤒🔗

Respect for the Word of God dictates that we preserve, not so much a cultural tradition, but the accuracy of the translation. What is the most accurate way to translate the Holy Word of God? How can we best translate the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament in order to preserve--word for word--what God has revealed to us from Genesis to Revelation? That is the primary issue according to our Reformed confession.

The Belgic Confession (Art. Vll) says, "...it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God." The Westminster Confession says, "unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (underlining mine, PVM).

If we are forced to choose between what is archaic and what is contemporary, people make different decisions. Some like the old simply because of a traditional bent, a discomfort with change or the preference for the antique. Others prefer what is new, modern, fresh, and contemporary. But these subjective motivations pale against the consideration of the issue of accuracy.

Is the use of "thee" and "thou" archaic? Yes, it is. In our everyday common speech we do not use these pronoun forms when speaking to each other. No one would deny it. In every day conversation the use of "thee" and "thou" are outdated.

But why not go along with the newer versions then? Apart from the matter we are discussing there are a whole host of issues that enter into this consideration and would lead us to conclude that no one version we have seen so far is an overall improvement on the King James Version. But let us stay with the point at hand. Why is the King James Version viewed as better than most of the newer versions merely on this point of the use of "thee's" and "thou's"?

The lack of this use, in current Bible versions, has resulted in a loss of accuracy. Some translators have chosen consciously to sacrifice this for the sake of contemporaneous language. Others even appear oblivious to the difference or are deliberately misrepresenting the King James Version. The New King James Version (known in England as the Revised Authorized Version) has in its preface the following statement:

Readers of the Authorized Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy, and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language. However, reverence for God in the present work is preserved by capitalizing pronouns, including You, Your, and Yours, which refer to Him. Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalization the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun is not always clear in the English translation.¹

The above quotation gives the impression that the motive of the translators for using these forms had to do with reverence. This is not true. Furthermore, to go on to make pronominal distinctions to designate reverence is to add a usage that did not exist in Biblical Hebrew or Greek. This is an addition to the Biblical text.

Older English had available the use of different forms of the pronouns. But gradually this usage diminished. It is questionable whether these pronoun forms were ever used in common usage as consistently as they are in the Authorized Version of the Bible. Even in the time that the 53 English scholars translated the King James Version (1604-1611) these forms were not being used consistently in English society. If you read through some of Shakespeare's plays (and he lived from 1564-1616) you find usage is not grammatically consistent (cf. Shakespeare's Henry V). Sometimes he uses "thee" and "thou," at other times he uses "you" for the second person singular. The variations had other connotations than that of reverence² "No one speaks the English of the Authorized Version, or ever did for that matter, for though, like Shakespeare, it is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet unlike Shakespeare it reproduces to a remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible."³ A theologian and linguistic scholar, Oswald T. Allis, has stated the following:

It is quite obvious that the AV [Authorized Version, or King James Version] did not attempt to make the usage of the Hebrew and Greek conform to the usage of the Elizabethan or early Jacobean period. It simply followed the Biblical usage, despite the fact that for some three hundred years the trend had been increasingly away from it.⁴

While the common folk in the 1600's were increasingly using "you" and "your" for the second person singular, the KJV translators used "thee" and "thou." They used them deliberately, precisely and consistently for grammatical purposes. WHY? Because ACCURACY meant more to them than being contemporary. It was more important to have God's Word faithfully translated for the people than to be using the impoverished and less precise language of the people of the streets (and theatres) of England. For them the great concern was to have the original text of the scriptures translated as much as possible with a word-for-word accuracy.

But how are these forms (thee and thou, thine) more accurate? What is the difference of these pronouns? There is a grammatical accuracy at stake.

The various usages of the pronouns in Jesus' prayer in John 17 can be studied in comparison with the table below in order to appreciate the precision of language found in the King James Version.

Personal Pronoun Usage←⤒🔗

1st Person	Singular/Plural	Subjective	Objective	Possessive adj.(absolute)
1st Person	Singular Plural	I we	Me us	My (mine) Our (ours)
2nd Person	Singular Plural	THOU YE	THEE	THY (THINE) your (yours)
3rd Person	Singular Plural	he/she they	him/her them	his/hers their/(theirs)

All of the above forms, with the exception of five (CAPITALIZED) second person forms, are still in common use. But take note: in the above table no two forms are alike. Each form has one specific grammatical use. Thus, there is no ambiguity, no confusion about the meaning and a maxi­mum of accuracy is maintained in the translation of these distinct pronouns of the Hebrew and Greek language of the original.

However, with the loss of the above archaic (CAPITALIZED) second person pronouns in our contemporary English usage, the word, i.e. the pronoun "you" has to carry four dif­ferent grammatical usages instead of one, and "your" and ‘yours’ each have two usages, as the following table shows:

Personal Pronoun Usage←⤒🔗

1st Person	Singular/Plural	Subjective (Nominative)	Objective	Possessive adj.(absolute)
1st Person	Singular Plural	you you	you you	your (yours) you (yours)

Thus, there is now considerable ambiguity in the use of the pronoun "you." We have lost the precision which was available in the biblical usage and which the King James authors tried to preserve in the English translation.

"Well," you say, "we have learned to live with the change in our everyday language. We manage to figure out the usage from the context of what a person is saying or writing." True, but there is a risk of error. We must admit that an added ambiguity has entered into the biblical text of modern versions, which no longer use the distinct second person usage. However, the Authorized Version does not leave you guessing whether Jesus is addressing one, or all of His disciples. You do not have to be a Greek scholar to know.

The most important issue is accuracy. We are not talking about common conversation, or even pulpit language. We are talking about the language of the Scriptures themselves. We believe it has been verbally inspired. That means that God has guided the writing of all of it – word-for-word. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16, cf.Matt. 5:18). Should all of Scripture then not be conveyed in our translation? Can we allow for the loss of precision in its translation? If there is a way to preserve the accuracy of the usage of the pronouns should we not gladly make use of it? The translators, in a time when the usages of these pronominal forms were already being mixed, insisted on the consistent use of distinct forms so that as much as possible the accuracy of each word of Scripture would be preserved.

You say, "Does it really make a difference?' Let us look at two examples to help us understand the difference:

1. Isaiah 7:14. While in verse 10 and 11 the Lord says to Ahaz, 'Ask thee (singular) a sign of the LORD thy God..." when the Lord declares the sign that He will give He says, in verse 14, 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (plur­al) a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son. and shall call his name Immanuel.' The Lord here gives a promise to provide a sign, not merely for Ahaz, but for 'you," for the whole 'house of David" (v.13) and thus for the church of all ages.

2. Luke 22:31-32. Jesus says to Peter, 'Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you as wheat." The plural indicates that, while Jesus is speaking to and possibly facing Peter, to whom the warning is especial­ly addressed, He wants all the disciples to know that Satan will be desiring to have and sift them too. They will all be offended because of Him. But the Saviour now focuses on Peter and gives him personally a very precious promise: "But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy (singular) faith fail not; and when thou (singular) art converted strengthen thy (singular) brethren." Other passages can be studied to confirm the sig­nificance of this difference such as Exodus 4:15, 29:42, Numbers 16:8-11, Deuteronomy 4:3, 2 Samuel 7:23, 1 Kings 9:5-6, Isaiah 33:2-4, Matthew 5:39, 6:4-7, 11:23-24, 18:9-10, 18:22-35, 20:21-22, 23:37-38, 26:64, Mark 14:37-38, Luke 5:4, 6:30-31, 9:41, 10:13-14, 16:25-26, 22:31-32, John 1:50-51, 3:7, 14:9-11, 1 Corinthians 8:9-12, 2 Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, James 2:16 etc.

Another suggested exercise would be to examine the letter of Philemon to find out when Paul is speaking to Philemon personally and when he is addressing the believers of the "church in his house" (cf.v.2). Another exercise is to take several of these passages in which the distinction is significant for the proper understanding of the text and then compare them with what the modern versions such as the NIV do with these texts. Take note of how many texts end up losing the precision of the second person pronoun. Then ask yourself whether the loss of accuracy on account of the indis­criminate use of "you" actually helps us understand the Word of God better. Furthermore, is something not being taken away from the Scriptures? (cf. Rev. 22:19).

As you examine the Scriptures in the light of this issue of the accuracy of pronouns you will be encouraged by the fact that you do not have to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar in order to know which the second person pronoun. You have it clearly distinguished for you in your King James Bible.

II. The Use of Pronouns in our PRAYER Concerns REVERENCE←⤒🔗

While many of us prefer the use of "thee' and "thou" in prayer as a way of addressing God, some further understanding will be helpful here too so as to avoid making rash judgments about others.

On the one hand, one might say that we should maintain a consistency with the Biblical usage of "thee' and "thou.' After all, as we have seen, the use of 'thee" and "thou" is a matter of accuracy indicating the second person singular. So then if we put ourselves completely in the context of the King James Version usage (and if we were firmly acquainted with the significance of the word "you" as indicating the sec­ond person plural) it would strike us that this significance is inappropriate for God. "You" is a plural form. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD (Deut. 5:6). It would seem dishonoring to make use of a word, which has the connotation of addressing God as plural, instead of one.

However, we must realize that it is in fact not the intention of those who use "you" in prayer to deny the monotheism of the Bible. Common usage today allows the word "you" to represent the singular and plural usage. Most people understand the word "you" in such a way in everyday speech that it leaves no impression in the mind of the hearer that a person using "you" in prayer is denying that there is only one true God. The offense is not the suspicion of professing the heresy of polytheism.

The matter of usage in prayer usually centres on the issue of reverence. Many of us have for years used and heard "thee and "thou" in prayer as a manner of addressing God and have come to associate this usage with respect or reverence. The trend to move away from this is of relatively recent origin, having developed over the last 20 to 30 years. We do need to recognize that this is a historical cultural phenomenon. Some cultures and languages have in their history a distinct pronominal form to designate respect; others do not. Most western cultures that had such distinctions and used them in addressing fellow-humans have lost them altogether from their common usage with the elimination of class struggles and class distinctions over the years.

Yet, in a few cultures there has been some distinction preserved when it comes to a religious usage of the pronouns. In English, and also in Dutch culture, the distinct usage of the second person pronoun for addressing God has been somewhat preserved. This is a heritage of our religious history. We may wish to argue (even strongly) that, since we associate the older usage with reverence, it should be preserved. Those for whom this association is strong should indeed not violate their own conscience in these matters.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). But does the personal association and preference of some bind the conduct of all other Christians?

In charity we believe that no sincere Christian would be against preserving the spirit of reverence in prayer. But is it not possible for a person to pray reverently without making use of a distinct second person pronoun? Yes, Peter, John, Paul, and Jesus did, when they prayed in Greek.

As such, the older usage is not something that we can defend by pointing to any identical precedent in the lan­guage of Scripture. The fact is that Biblical culture never had any such distinction in their usage of pronouns. There is no distinct reverential form of the second person pronoun in either the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New.

For this reason we must be very careful how we defend our stance on this matter. If we cannot come up with a Biblical principle, precedent or precept which binds all believers to a certain form of usage in worship then we must be careful not to judge others on the basis of our personal convictions or preferences. We may not bind the conscience of fellow believers when the Lord has not done so in His Word. I may prefer to use "thee" and "thou" in prayer myself because I have been raised with it. I may personally associate the usage with reverence. However, may I judge a Christian brother as being irreverent in his prayer simply because of his different usage? He may have been convert­ed and nurtured spiritually in a context where "thee" and "thou" was hardly ever used. Is it not possible for him to pray with the spirit of reverence and with a humble heart before God using different pronouns?

Let us remember that the important principle of worship is that God, who looks at the heart, seeks to be worshipped "in spirit and truth" (1 Sam. 6:7, John 4:24). In an article on this topic, Mr. Terence H. Brown, who has in the past served many years as general secretary for the Trinitarian Bible Society, is careful in his statements about this matter:

Critics of the modern colloquial style sometimes assert that it is irreverent to address God as you, but God only, who is able to search the heart and mind, can see where there is reverence and where there is not. It is possible on the one hand to use the most elegant and high-sounding language in prayer, and to fall short of a truly reverent approach to 'the Majesty on high'. On the other hand, it is possible for a barely literate person with a very limited vocabulary, and lacking in experience of the other forms of speech, to draw near to the throne of grace with a simple prayer, poorly expressed, but heard in heaven as a reverent utterance of the heart.

Reverence is indeed a most important factor in private and in public worship, in prayer, and in praise, and in the read­ing and hearing of God's Word. In our approach to Him whose ways are above our thoughts, 'as the heavens are above the earth', speech, thought and conducive to reverence, and expressive of reverence, should be encouraged. It would ill become us to discourage or disparage a reverent approach to God expressed in either way.⁵

It is true that I might appreciate the loving accommodation of a brother who in prayer would try to use "thee" and "thou" (possibly with some of the appropriate verb forms) in my presence to avoid hindrance to my being edified. But may I impose this on my brother by judging him as irreverent if he would pray as he is used to doing? Would Paul not say, Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? (Rom. 14:4)

Arguments can be advanced for both positions, just as in Paul's time Jewish Christians could bring up arguments against Paul about eating certain meat (cf.Rom. 14:1-15:7, 2 Cor. 10:23-33). These were serious matters. Some Christian vegetarians were as firmly convinced in their conscience as Paul was. In the case of such matters we are called to loving accommodation and to show an attitude of mutual respect. For those on both sides of the issue the exhortation holds that we must pray in such a way that we do not violate our own conscience before Christ. For, as Paul stated, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). But we must also be careful not to lay upon the conscience of others burdens which Christ has not placed upon them in His Word, lest in our zeal to defend the King James language we be found to contradict Christ's warning by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:3-9). We may think we are defending the Bible's language while in fact we are contradicting its teachings. Mr. Brown comes to the following conclusion:

These problems call for mutual understanding and sympathy, rather than for mutual censure and criticism, and where the Eternal God is reverently worshipped differences of opinion on this subject should not constitute a bar to Christian fellowship, or disturb that true charity which is the bond of peace among the Lord's people. Among the various age-groups in the Christian community there are many who will never relinquish the long-established thou and thee usage in their approach to God, and there are also many who will never adopt that usage, being increasingly insulated from it, in the home, at day school, Sunday school, and in their places of worship. Paul had to remind his readers that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink" and we have to remind ourselves that the worship of God is not merely a matter of traditional usage and forms of speech, although the language of worship should never be lacking in reverence.⁶

May our conduct and speech regarding such matters reflect a balanced love for God's Word. Zealous about its accuracy let us not take anything away from it (whether it be a pronoun, a jot or tittle); but, equally committed to the sufficiency of Scripture's teachings, we must just as zealously avoid the temptation to add to it the traditions or commandments of men. May all our public expressions of worship – whether it is Scripture reading, prayer, or singing – always reflect a spirit of humble, respectful love for God and for our neighbour. Anything else would be taking His name in vain.