1

The Pronouns

Used in Prayer

For centuries many English-speaking Christians have used

the pronouns “thee” and “thou” in their prayers and songs.

Connected with the use of the old pronouns is an archaic verbal

ending “est” that is attached to the end of verbs that are used

following the pronoun “thou” as in the phrase “thou gavest”. Various

helping verbs like “can”, “did”, or “would” also have “st” or “est”

following them; “thou canst deliver”, “thou didst save”, and “thou

wouldest heal”. The second person singular in the archaic form also

involves the use of the archaic “art” from the verb “to be” as in “thou

art high”.

Many English-speaking Christians have ceased to use the

archaic pronouns that are found in the King James Bible. In the KJV

the pronouns “thee” and “thou” are used to refer to anyone who is

addressed in the second person singular. They are not limited to the

address of God. They are the old-English words that were used to

refer to a person who was second person singular. The word “you”

was used to denote the second personal plural, that is, when a number

of people were being addressed.

Some people think that using “thee” and “thou” show more

respect to God. Is it Biblical and necessary to use these pronouns in

prayer? What light does the Bible shed on this matter?

The following reasons are given in support of using

2

contemporary pronouns in prayer. First, the use of modern English in

public prayers is currently accepted and preferred among conservative

Reformed Christians and is generally considered to be eminently

appropriate, respectful and reverent. Second, the traditional use of

antiquated verbs and pronouns in prayers is becoming increasingly

unfamiliar, awkward and cumbersome, particularly for children and

young people, who, on the contrary, need every encouragement to

foster an intimate prayer life. Third, visitors and new members will

likely be needlessly frustrated and uncomfortable with the prospect of

leading prayers using Elizabethan English. Fourth, there seems to be

no Biblical evidence to support the notion that Jesus, when teaching

his disciples to pray, insisted upon the use of peculiar verb forms and

pronouns to engender proper respect and reverence when addressing

His Father.

A Defense of the use of “thee” and “thou”

In The Standard Bearer, there is at least one article that

addresses this issue of the use of pronouns in prayer. The Rev. Dale

Kuiper defended the use of “thee” and “thou” in an article entitled:

“Addressing God in Prayer”.1 Since the arguments in this article are

representative of those who hold to “thee” and “thou” let us examine

some of the arguments.

Kuiper begins by giving examples of prayers that do not

show respect: “God, you‟re the greatest”; “God,…you‟re a cool cat”;

“Hello, Dad” (p. 88). He comments that all of these prayers occurred

“within the context of the “Reformed community” (89). He says:

“These samples,…will serve to point to the seriousness of the “you-

thou” controversy” (p. 89) He then makes one of his main points: “At

stake is one‟ conception of God and the attitude one takes in prayer to

God” (p. 89)

Kuiper argues that the use of contemporary pronouns is done

to “introduce familiarity in prayer”. He says that the reason for using

contemporary language is this:

By referring to God in common, down-to-earth language we

can make Him real in the child‟s mind. Then He will not

seem so far away, so abstract, and so unapproachable (p. 89).

1 Volume 49. Pp. 88-90.

3

He comments that such people think that “to use thee, thou, thy, and

thine is rather superficial and awkward.” Rev. Kuiper‟s response is

that God will use His Spirit to break “through all barriers and

abstractions”.

He then admits that the archaic pronouns do not carry

inspired authority:

It must be conceded that such words as thee and thou do not

carry the force of inspired authority. Some languages make a

distinction between familiar and polite pronouns….If one

turns to the original Biblical languages, however, he finds

that the Hebrew and Greek do not provide for such a

distinction. So that the dispute is not actually between the

usage of sacred language and modern usage, but between the

usage of Old and Middle English of four centuries past and

twentieth century practice (more especially language patterns

of the last half of the twentieth century (p. 89).

Rev. Kuiper adds:

The version of the Bible authorized by King James in 1611

reflected the usage of that day, and thus we find the words

thee-thou-thine when the Godhead is addressed. In fact, these

words are also used when one man speaks to another in the

King James Version (p. 89).

In spite of these admissions Rev. Kuiper goes on to argue for

why Christians today should use “thee” and “thou”. He gives three

main reasons for this.

Providential Argument

First, he gives a providential argument for this position. He

writes:

As the centuries rolled by since the time of Shakespeare, the

English language changed, and we are left only with common

pronouns in our daily usage. But for some reason one

exception prevailed; as all this time went by and language

4

became more secularized and familiar, the words thee-thou-

thine survived, and the use of them in respect to God

persisted! This is a very good thing! (p. 89)

Then Rev. Kuiper presents an argument from providence:

And the reason for the survival of this practice surely is that

the God who directed all that history is pleased by the

distinction (p. 89).

But perhaps there are other possible explanations for the church

maintaining traditional language. The conservative and traditional

nature of the church might be an explanation. Look at how the Latin

Vulgate survived as the unchallenged Bible version of the church for

ten centuries. Look at how long the Roman Catholic Church used the

Latin language in the Mass right up into the twentieth century in

countries where the natives had no clue about what the priests were

saying. In the church changes in patterns of language can be very

slow.

This argument from providence can easily be dismissed. One

might counter the argument by saying that since today, God, in His

providence has led Christians to translate the Bible into contemporary

language and because Christians today are, in the providence of God,

praying with “you” and “your” this is evidence of God‟s delight in

contemporary language.

One’s Conception of God

The second reason that Rev. Kuiper gives is his most serious

one. He argues that at “the heart of the controversy, after all, is our

conception of God” (p. 89). He refers to the third commandment and

points out that Christians must not become guilty of “dragging the

Name of God off the high pedestal where it belongs and making it

common and profane.” He says:

The danger is never that we honor God too highly or that we

esteem Him too much, but the danger is always that we refuse

to honor Him by treating the living God as just another being.

Before we know it, we begin to think that God is altogether

such an one as ourselves (Ps. 50:21). Is that not the greatest

5

blasphemy and the worst profanity (p. 89).

The problem is that Rev. Kuiper has no Biblical evidence to prove

that the use of contemporary pronouns does actually dishonor God.

He does present some examples in the beginning of his article where

people are treating God in a dishonoring way, and they just happen to

be using contemporary language.

To show that the use of “thee” and “thou” do not

automatically imply respect, just look at how in the KJV in Job 1:10

we find the Devil himself addressing God with the word “thou”:

“Hast not thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and

about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his

hands, and his substance is increased in the land.” The Hebrew

makes a distinction between the second person singular and the

second person plural. The singular is translated “thou” and the plural

is “you”. The fact that the second person singular is used by the devil

and is translated “thou” in the KJV does not signify respect. In this

context the Devil is showing great disrespect to God. He is showing

familiarity in that he dares approach the Holy God with his evil

intentions. So we have an example of “thou” used in context where

there is familiarity and disrespect.

The next step Rev. Kuiper makes is to connect the use of

contemporary pronouns and verbal forms in prayer with Arminian

theology. He argues:

It is no coincidence that this over-familiarity is pushed the

harder in those circles where God‟s sovereignty is only given

lip service, and where salvation is pictured as a co-operative

venture of God and man” (p. 90).

It is one thing to say that Arminian theology leads to a low view of

God. It is another to imply that the use of contemporary language

involves a lower view of God. The motivation in many American

evangelicals using “you” and “your” is not due to their theology as

much as indigenization in America and the use of contemporary

language. The reason why many American Calvinists want to use

“you” and “your” in prayer is not because they want to dishonor God,

but simply use ordinary language, the language of the heart.

In Biblical times the contemporary pronoun used in the Greek

to address any other single person was a form of the pronoun “su”.

6

Here are the personal pronouns used by the Greeks:

Singular Plural

_______ ______

ego, I hemeis, We

su, you humeis, you

autos, he

autee, she autoi, they

You will notice that for the second person singular there is

one word that is used “su”. This word is used in the New Testament

whenever another person, the Devil, or God is addressed in the

second person singular.

To address a number of persons one would use a form of the

plural “humeis”. Rev. Kuiper is arguing in this article that to use

contemporary language in prayer, the pronoun with which we refer to

other ordinary persons, is to be familiar with God in the sense of

showing disrespect. But the Biblical evidence demonstrates

otherwise. The Scriptural record demonstrates that using ordinary

language is what Jesus did in prayer. In Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter

says: “Thou (su) art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus

responds: “Blessed art thou (su), Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood

hath not revealed it unto thee (su), but my Father which is in heaven.”

Later Jesus uses the same pronoun with which He addressed Peter

when He prays to God before Lazarus‟ tomb: “Father, I thank thee

(su) that thou hast heard me.” (John 11:41)

In the Old Testament the same independent personal pronoun

that is used to refer to God is used to refer to other men. The Hebrew

language does make a distinction between the second masculine

singular and the second feminine singular. Here are the independent

personal pronouns used by the Hebrews:

Singular Plural

___________ ____________

7

eney, I enachnu, we

at, you (a single female) aten, you (addressing a # of

women)

atah, you (a single male) atem, you (addressing a # of

men)

he, she, it (3rd

fem. singular) heenah, they (3rd

feminine

plural)

hu, he, it (3rd

mas. singular) heemah, they (3rd

masculine

plural)

What stands out in the Hebrew language is that a distinction

is made between masculine and singular pronouns. So when a female

is addressed as “you” the word “at” was used while when a male was

addressed as “you” the word “atah” was used. English reflects this

difference in the 3rd

person singular because we have the word “he” to

refer to a man and the word “she” to refer to a woman.

What is important for our discussion is that the second person

singular “atah” which is the word used to address a single male, is the

same word used in the Old Testament when God is addressed. This is

because God and His names are understood to be masculine and not

feminine. So in the Old Testament David used the same pronoun to

address God that he did when he addressed his friend Jonathan.

Therefore in the Old Testament the pronoun that is used to refer to a

man in the second person singular is the same one used to refer to

God. There was no special pronoun that was used only when

referring to God, which is now the case when American Christians

reserve the pronoun “thee” or “thou” for addressing the Lord.

For example, the same pronoun is used in Genesis 17:2 where

God addresses Abraham in the second person singular as is used in

Psalm 92:1 where the Psalmist uses the second person singular to

refer to God. In the Hebrew the phrase “unto your name” is written

with the preposition “unto” first, then the noun “name” and then a

suffix is added. The suffix is the pronoun. The second singular

masculine suffix is “ka”. The KJV translates this word “thy”. In

Genesis 17:2 the KJV uses the word “thee” to translate the pronoun.

8

God says “And I will make my covenant between me and thee (ka)”.

In one passage God addresses Abraham and refers to him as “ka” or

“you”. In the other passage David refers to God as “ka” or “you”.

The same word and pronoun are used to refer to an ordinary man, as

is used to refer to God.

Jesus speaks to the transcendent God using the same pronoun

He used to refer to Peter. Is Jesus violating the Creator/creature

distinction? The Scriptural evidence should be enough to silence

anyone who thinks that using the pronouns we use in ordinary

language when we speak to God show familiarity or disrespect.

Clearly the use of “thee” or “you” does not reflect a difference in

one‟s conception of God. It reflects merely the use of archaic

language or contemporary language. It also reflects how Jesus used

ordinary language, the language of His day in prayer. He did not

employ archaic pronouns or verbal forms.

A Slippery Slope

Rev. Kuiper‟s third argument is that the use of contemporary

language in prayer will lead to the slippery slope of showing blatant

disrespect in prayer. He refers back to the quotes with which he

began his article: “God, you‟re the greatest”; “God,…you‟re a cool

cat”; “Hello, Dad”:

The quotations at the beginning of this article are sad. You

will notice an increase in the degree of profanity as you pass

from one to another. As was explained, the age of the

individual also increased with each example. This is the

result of modern education in the area of prayer. Does it

make God seem real and close? Does it enable little children

to understand God better? Does it result in true godliness? It

ought to be clear that it fails miserably. It ought also to be

clear that once a person sets out along lines which stress

familiarity, there is no telling where he will stop. We might

be shocked by these examples, and hopefully we are; but we

ought not to pretend that this is as bad as it will get. The end

point is contempt, absolute contempt of God! (p. 90)

All Reformed Christians take issue with language that dishonors God.

It simply is not true that the use of contemporary, ordinary language

9

dishonors God. David, for example, prayed in the Psalms in what

was in his day, contemporary, colloquial Hebrew.

Covenant Intimacy

One thing should also be said about this matter of

“familiarity”. The negative connotation of this word is to treat

someone whom we should keep at a respectful distance as if they are

on our same social level. But in the Bible we find another concept

taught—that of intimacy with our Covenant God. One problem that

can exist in the use of archaic language is that is inhibits a Christian

from using his natural heart language in speaking to God. Covenant

intimacy and closeness with God means that we do not just treat Him

just as the transcendent God, but also as our intimate Friend. If

archaic language detracts from a Christian experiencing an intimate

covenant relationship with God, he should use the language of his

heart—so that he can commune with God as his Friend and his King.

Rev. Kuiper is worried about children learning familiarity

with God. Our covenant children should rather be learning covenant

intimacy with God. In prayer there is to be a mixture of intimacy

with the fear of God. We certainly do not want our children to be

praying to God in such a way that they only meditate on His awesome

Transcendence. We want them also to pray to a God who is their

Dearest Father and their closest Friend.

Rev. Kuiper concludes his article:

May God keep us from all trends which result in the dishonor

of His great Name. And may we continue to use that form of

address which makes clear distinction between Creator-

Redeemer and man. (p. 90)

But Jesus did not use pronouns that were different for the Creator

than what He used to refer to a man, Peter.

Christians who use contemporary language in their prayers

are praying in the tradition of Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.

There is no prayer in the Bible where a saint uses archaic pronouns or

verbal forms. The Biblical writers always used the same pronoun that

was commonly used to refer to a man in the singular to refer to God.

The wide-spread use of the King James Bible has left people

with the impression that it is Biblical to use “thee” and “thou” in

10

prayer. But they forget that the Bible also addresses any person in the

second person singular with the words “thee,thou,thine”. There has

clearly been a change in the English language that should be reflected

in the prayer lives of American Christians in the twenty-first century.

That it is not necessarily more respectful to use archaic

pronouns is evident from the following examples: If you show up in

court and address an American Judge as “thy honor” he would

consider that strange and old-fashioned. Or if when talking with

President Bush in the Oval Office you kept referring to him as “thee”

or “thou” he would find that odd.

The Quaker’s Refusal to use “You” to show Respect to Social

Superiors

The Quakers in England refused to lift their hats to a social

superior. Because of the fundamental equality between all men they

insisted on using the more familiar “thee” and “thou” when speaking

to a fellow Quaker or to a social superior. Meic Pearse writes:

Removing one‟s hat in the presence of one‟s social superiors,

or addressing them with “you”—rather than the more familiar

“thou” and “thee” (as in French tu, German du, Welsh ti,

etc.)—was to give honor to humans, rather than respecting

the fundamental equality bestowed upon them by their

Creator.2

It is false that in Old English the pronoun “thou” showed more

respect than “you.” It was the other way around.

“Thee” as an Old English Insult

In Louis Brewer Hall‟s masterful study of the pre-reformer

Jon Wyclif entitled ,The Perilous Vision of John Wyclif, the author

records the connotation of the pronoun “thee” in the fourteenth

century. For his preaching in London, John Wyclif was summoned to

appear before the bishop of London, William Courtenay. John of

Gaunt, the duke of Lancaster, a supporter of Wyclif, asked four friars

2 Meic Pearse. The Age of Reason: The Baker History of the Chruch: From

the Wars of Religion to the French Revolution 1570-1789 Volume Five.

(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 201.

11

who were doctors to help in Wyclif‟s defense. John of Gaunt decided

that he should accompany John Wyclif to St. Paul‟s cathedral where

the bishop planned to take Wyclif to task. Bishop Courtenay spoke

for the church while the duke of Lancaster defended Dr. Wyclif.

Crowds had gathered which involved themselves in shoving Wyclif

and his supporters. Involved in a war of words, the duke of Lancaster

attacked the proud bishop:

Thou bearest thyself so brag about thy parents, who shall not

be able to help thee. They shall have enough to help

themselves.3

Louis Hall explains the implications of what the duke was

communicating:

The duke of Lancaster had shifted his form of address from

you, the pronoun of respect, to thou, the pronoun of

familiarity, a technique of insult popular in the fourteenth

century, now lost to modern English.4

In other words in the fourteenth century the pronoun „thee‟ was the

pronoun of familiarity and could be used as an insult to show

disrespect.

A Matter of Christian Liberty

Clearly what pronouns are used in prayer is a matter of

Christian liberty. Legalism on this issue of the use of “you/your” or

“thee/thou/thine” in prayer is wrong. During Jesus‟ ministry He took

issue with legalism. If the Jews thought it was wicked to heal on the

Sabbath, He would make a point of healing on the Sabbath. Paul took

issue with the legalism of the Judaizers. If they said that it was

wicked that Gentile converts were not circumcised, then Paul

considered that reason enough not to allow a circumcision to take

place, even though at other times he considered circumcision a matter

of adiaphora.

If you feel comfortable with “thee” and “thou”; use them, it is

a matter of Christian liberty.

3 Louis Brewer Hall. The Perilous Vision of John Wiclif, 99-100.

4 Ibid., 100.

12

Evangelistic Reason

Throughout history the Christian tradition has bee slow to

update Bible versions or language. For example, the Latin Vulgate

was the standard Bible for a thousand years, although most Christians

could not read Latin. In the Roman Catholic Church the Mass was

said in Latin until the 1960‟s, even though most of the people in the

pew could not understand Latin. There apparently is a strong danger

that Christianity which is an old and historical religion should cling to

outmoded forms.

In the American scene, there certainly is good reason for

Christians not to come across as old-fashioned. We should be “all

things to all people” in America in order that we might win some to

Christ. Paul says: “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain

the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means

save some” (I Cor. 9:22). Part of being “all things” to Americans is

that we use ordinary language in our prayers. We do not want people

to think that to be a Christian is to be old-fashioned. To become an

American Christian does not mean that one must learn a new dialect

that must be used in prayers to God. In our witness to the world we

should not set up barriers that need not be there.

In Conclusion

The matter of using “thee” and “thou” or contemporary

pronouns in prayer is a matter of adiaphora. It is a matter of Christian

liberty. There certainly is not anything more intrinsically respectful

about using the Old English pronouns “thee” and “thou.” The

theological arguments for using the archaic pronouns are flimsy.