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

1
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.

2
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

3
 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

4
 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”.

5
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
___________ ____________

6
 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.

7
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

8
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

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.

12