Author Archives: admin

The Age of the Earth: Two Ancient Charts as Set Forth in the Matthew Bible

Posted on by Posted in MB

When John Rogers compiled the 1537 Matthew Bible, he included a wide variety of biblical information, guides, and study helps. One interesting feature in the front pages was two charts that compared two different calculations of the age of the earth. People who have the Hendrickson facsimile of the 1537 Matthew Bible will find the charts on the bottom of the last page just before the book of Genesis.

The first chart contained the calculations of the Hebrews, following the Hebrew Bible. The second chart set out the calculations of Eusebius and other “Chroniclers,” who were not identified and who, I am told, based their calculations on the Septuagint. I have adapted the charts for a table format and present them below. The English is gently updated. I also updated both charts to show the number of years passed since the coming of Christ as 2,020 years instead of 1,537 years.

The Hebrews arrived at an age of the earth which, to this present year, would make the world 5,972 years old. According to Eusebius’s calculations, however, the earth is now 7,190 years old.

Because the figures in the Matthew Bible were in Roman numerals and were often blurred due to the imperfect inking process, they were difficult to make out. There might be errors. However, I carefully compared my 1549 Matthew Bible with my 1537 facsimile and I believe the tables are correct.

Neither of these charts tallies exactly with Bishop James Ussher’s chart, which, according to a Wikipedia article I read, dates the earth as presently 6,060 years old. There are also other modern calculations, which disagree minimally.

From the Matthew Bible:

A brief review of the years passed since the beginning of the world
to this year of our Lord 2020,
both according to the reckoning of the Hebrews
and according to the reckoning of Eusebius and other Chroniclers.

© R. Magnusson Davis, September 2020

William Tyndale on the Mark of the Beast

Posted on by Posted in William Tyndale

William Tyndale did not write much about the New Testament book of Revelation, but he used imagery from it, including imagery of the beast and the “mark of the beast.”

Chapters 13-20 in Revelation contain prophecies about a beast, or beasts, who would have power over the nations and deceive them. The Greek word is therion, which means a savage, dangerous, or venomous animal (Strong 2342). Tyndale understood the dangerous beast(s) to represent false religion, and especially, at the time he wrote, the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries the Roman Church had been a powerful and savage persecutor, and it is widely accepted to be one of the beasts that the apostle John prophesied about in Revelation. John also referred to people who would take the “mark of the beast”:

If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark in his forehead or on his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured in the cup of his wrath.

And the beast was taken, and with him that false prophet who worked miracles before him, by which he deceived them that received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast into a pond of fire burning with brimstone.

(Revelation 14:9-10 and 19:20, the October Testament, NMB)

Obviously, those who take the mark of the beast would have some close connection with the Roman Church (or other similar religious beast), and thus receive a mark or sign from that beast. What might that mark be? Tyndale often spoke of it as ordination into the ranks of the Roman Church; for example, as a priest or bishop, or taking vows to become a monk or friar in a monastic order.

In his book The Obedience of a Christian Man, describing the gross unlawfulness of the Roman Catholic Church, Tyndale wrote, “For if any man will obey neither father nor mother, neither lord nor master, neither king nor prince, the same needs but only to take the mark of the beast, that is, to shave himself a monk, a friar or a priest, and is then immediately free and exempted from all service and obedience due to man” (p. 36). In this quotation, Tyndale was referring in part to the exemption that, historically, was granted to Roman Catholic clergy to exempt them from prosecution for criminal acts. The result of this was that some men sought ordination in the Church to escape prosecution for their crimes. To accept ordination into the apostate Church was, therefore, to take the mark of the beast of sin and unlawfulness. Ordination into the beast meant doing the beast’s work in whatever form that might take, including preaching false doctrine, persecuting the saints, etc. What Tyndale referred to as “shaving oneself a monk” meant to shave the top part of the head bald, as in the illustration, leaving a rim of hair around the skull. This was called a tonsure. Since shaving one’s head was a symbol of belonging to monastic orders in the Roman Church, this also was to take one of the beast’s marks.

Tyndale said of ministers or clergy, “If they minister their offices truly, it is a sign that Christ’s Spirit is in them, if not, that the devil is in them.” If they do not minister their offices truly, then they are “dreamers and natural beasts, without the seal of the Spirit of God, but sealed with the mark of the beast and with cankered consciences” (Obedience p. 110-11). Tyndale wrote:

Bishops and priests who preach not, or who preach anything save God’s word, are none of Christ’s nor of his anointing: but servants of the beast whose mark they bear, whose word they preach, whose law they maintain clean against God’s law. (Obedience p. 92)

Tyndale himself was ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, though the beast defrocked him, imprisoned him, publicly strangled him, and burnt his body. But a faithless man who turns himself over to the doctrine and practices of the beast, not caring about truth, and who takes part in deceiving the people, and who does not repent, has taken the beast’s mark. There are many modern so-called Christian organizations that Tyndale might identify as beasts, which, though they have lost their power to persecute, still take people captive through deception and error. But there are also savage beasts in other religions today.

Tyndale strangled before being burned in Vilvoord, in 1536.

Men (or now, women) might accept ordination from the beast in ignorance, or even as part of their search for God. Lately I have been reading the book Far from Rome, Near to God, which is the testimony of 50 converted Catholic priests. It is fascinating to read about their struggles to find truth, which often remind me of Martin Luther’s quest for truth as he broke free, step-by-step, from the strongholds of Romanism. The priests all describe their time in monasteries, which indicates that things have not changed much: isolation, asceticism, intense indoctrination with Roman dogma, praying the rosary, self-flagellation, and complete obedience to the superior of the order characterized their duties. One former priest wrote, “My blind and rebellious wanderings took me through the dark and treacherous paths of Romanism, psychology, eastern religions, and new-age philosophy.” The Lord can and does rescue his children from many a beast – which, in the end, are all the different faces of the one who roams the earth seeking whom he can devour.

Does it not make sense that receiving the mark of the beast is joining with false religion, rather than receiving a microchip under the skin as many think today? Our eternal well-being depends on receiving the true knowledge of God and avoiding the doctrine and deception of the beast, but a microchip will be of no consequence in a thousand or a million years.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, September 2020.

Quotations from The Obedience of a Christian Man are from the Penguin Classic edition, published 2000.

 

The Prophecy of Daniel 9:27 – Christ or the Antichrist?

Posted on by Posted in Zionism

For centuries, Daniel 9:27 was believed to be a prophecy about the New Covenant, the covenant that the Lord Jesus wrote in his body and blood. But that has changed in recent years through Dispensational and Christian Zionist teaching, which turns the traditional understanding upside down: it says Daniel 9:27 is about the covenant of the Antichrist.

Below is Daniel 9:26-27 in the 1537 Matthew Bible:

9: 26 After these .lxii. [62] weeks shall Christ be slain, and they shall have no pleasure in him. Then shall there come a people with the prince, and destroy the city and the Sanctuary: and his end shall come as the water flood. But the desolation shall continue till the end of the battle.

9:27 He shall make a strong bond with many for the space of a week, and when the week is half gone, he shall put down the slain and meat offering. And in the temple there shall be an abominable desolation, till it [has] destroyed all. And it is concluded, that this wasting shall continue unto the end.

Note, the “strong bond” in verse 27 is usually translated “covenant” in other Bible versions.

What do these verses mean? Drawing from Martin Luther, we find that it is quite simple.

Daniel 9:26

Daniel 9:26 is a prophecy that the Messiah would be slain: the Jews would have no pleasure in him, would reject him, and would murder him. Then, in judgement upon that dreadful murder, God would send a people to destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple). This judgement was executed in 70 A.D. when the Romans besieged and sacked the city. The “prince” who led the Romans in this destruction was the emperor Titus.[1] Jerusalem was crowded for the Jewish Passover at the time; the historian Tacitus numbered the people within the walls at over 600,000. Many thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans, and it is said that the surrounding countryside was stripped of trees, which were used to make battering rams and crosses.

The last sentence of verse 26 says that, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the desolation would continue to “the end of the battle.” I (Ruth) had always understood this battle to be the Lord’s battle, and that the desolation of Jerusalem would continue until he puts his enemies under his feet – that is, until the end of the world and the age. However, I checked Luther and discovered that he disagreed in part: he understood the battle in question to be Titus’s war on Jerusalem (I presume there is a slight difference in the translation). Otherwise, Luther agreed that after Titus’s battle “there shall remain the appointed desolation,” and Jerusalem and the temple would never be restored to their former position, but would remain abandoned by God.[2]

How would the continuing desolation of Jerusalem appear? It would certainly be of a spiritual nature, due to the Lord’s abandonment. I believe it would also, at least to some extent, be political and geographic: the city would never more thrive, and would therefore stand as an enduring testimony of two things:

  1. The Lord’s judgement for the murder of his Son. The magnitude of this deed should never be forgotten.
  2. The putting down, or abolishment, of the Old Covenant, represented by Jerusalem and the temple. In particular, the temple would be destroyed until not one stone was left standing upon another (M’t. 24:2, Mark 13:2).

If I understand correctly, the temple will never be rebuilt – at least, certainly never on the same site. The last sentence of verse 27 confirms the prophecy that the “wasting” in the temple will continue until the end.

Daniel 9:27

What then of verse 27? This is the verse so badly misinterpreted today. As Luther explained, it was a prophecy of Christ and the New Covenant. In particular, it speaks about the period immediately before and after Christ was slain. It is he who makes the “strong bond” or covenant.

Luther explained that the “week” spoken of in Daniel 9:27 is the period of seven years when the gospel went forth in Israel, beginning with Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him. During the first three and a half years, after John the Baptist pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah, Christ himself preached – but only until he was slain “mid-week.” The following half-week referred to in verse 27 is a prophecy of the three and a half years of powerful apostolic preaching that occurred after Christ was slain. During this entire “week” of seven years, Luther explained, the preaching of the New Covenant went forth in its greatest purity and power.

It is widely recognized that the “slain and meat offerings” referred to in verse 27 are the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, but who is the “he” who will put them down? It is Christ himself. He put them down by his own death: his death ended the Mosaic sacrifices because he was the true spotless Lamb. Of course, practically speaking the sacrifices did not end until 70 A.D. and the destruction of the temple; however, after the death of Christ they ceased to have any purpose in the sight of God, because he who had been pre-figured by the sacrifices had now been offered up himself. The true Lamb, the true Dove – the only One whose blood could atone for man’s sin – had come, and he was the holy sin-offering.

The putting down the slain and meat offerings was, therefore, symbolically and spiritually accomplished by the Lord’s death, and visibly ended once and for all by Titus’s attack on Jerusalem. The Lord’s death also put down the Old (Mosaic) Covenant: the animal sacrifices were the heart of the Old Covenant, but the sacrifice of Christ is the heart of the New Covenant, which has abolished and done away with the Old (Heb. 8:13).

How Christian Zionism and modern Bibles reinterpret Daniel 9:27

However, dispensationalism and Christian Zionism (“CZ” for short) have manufactured an entirely new prophecy out of Daniel 9:27. They put past events – prophecies about Jerusalem and the temple that are already fulfilled – in the future. They say city and temple will be rebuilt and then destroyed in the future. They say that the sacrifices the Lord ended by his own death will begin again in a rebuilt temple. They say the evil Antichrist will make and break a covenant with Israel, and will himself put down the slain and meat offering in the future. Thus CZ makes the work of putting down the sacrifices to be Antichrist’s – and this as if it were a bad thing, and not the good accomplishment of Christ. The ultimate error of CZ is that it denies that the strong bond or covenant of verse 27 is the Lord’s own covenant with the Israel that belongs to him (Ga. 6:16); that is, the New Covenant  that is with the body of all believers, both Jew and Gentile. Instead, CZ makes the covenant out to be Antichrist’s evil and duplicitous covenant with national Israel. This is what William Tyndale would call “turning the root of the tree upward.”

It is today an ardent hope and frequent prayer of many Christians that Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt; however, they do not realize that this is to hope and pray against the judgement of God. They even pray for animal sacrifices to resume, effectively denying the Lord’s own death (though they do not realize it). Revisions to Daniel 9:26-27 after the Reformation, especially in modern Bibles, have contributed to the error. The changes developed slowly over time, until in many modern Bibles it is impossible to derive the traditional understanding, or to see that the covenant of 9:27 could be Christ’s covenant. For example, the Living Bible has the following:

Daniel 9:27, LB This king will make a seven-year treaty with the people, but after half that time, he will break his pledge and stop the Jews from all their sacrifices and their offerings; then, as a climax to all his terrible deeds, the Enemy shall utterly defile the sanctuary of God. But in God’s time and plan, his judgment will be poured out upon this Evil One.

Thus in the Living Bible, Christ who put down the slain and meat offerings by his own death has become an “Evil One” whom God will judge. This is Antichrist’s own deception – a terrible error, and a terrible change to the English Bible. The Contemporary English Version makes verse 27 to be about a “foreigner” who destroys:

Daniel 9:27, CEV For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.

To compare, here again is the original translation from the Matthew Bible:

Daniel 9:27, MB He shall make a strong bond with many for the space of a week, and when the week is half gone, he shall put down the slain and meat offering. And in the temple there shall be an abominable desolation, till it [has] destroyed all. And it is concluded, that this wasting shall continue unto the end.

The abominable desolation was the destruction of the temple by Titus. There was further destruction by Muslim invaders, who built the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine, on the site of the old temple, where it sits to this day.

In closing, I wish to comment that I bear no ill will toward the Jews. The Scriptures are clear that we are not to be high-minded, nor to despise them, for the judgements of God are deep and secret (Ro. 11:1). All the things that happened to them were for examples, as warnings to us, who are capable of no more and no less than they have done (1Co. 10:6-11). It is in this spirit that we must understand God’s judgement on Jerusalem and the temple.

[1] Martin Luther, “Christ Was Born a Jew,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 45, 227. There was never any question about the identity of Titus as the “prince” who destroyed the city and the temple until recent times. “Prince” is Early Modern English for “ruler.”

[2] Ibid.

For more information about the errors of Christian Zionism, and how modern Bibles contribute to these errors, see Ruth’s article posted here on Academia.edu. See also the related blog post, Tribute is not Tax

Traitorous Conceits

Posted on by Posted in Puritans

The Geneva Bible (GNV) was published by puritan scholars in Geneva in the 16th century. The first full edition was published in 1560, and a revision followed in 1599. King James I, who ruled England from 1603-1625, is well-known for his statement that he did not like the puritan Bible, because the notes revealed “traitorous conceits,” or seditious views. The king’s words were prophetic: his own son Charles was beheaded at the hands of the puritans during their violent uprising in England, accused as a “tyrant” and a “traitor.”

Among other things, the revolutionary teachings that came out of Geneva – which were completely contrary to the teachings of Tyndale, Luther, Cranmer, or the early Reformers – advocated the right of lesser officials, called “magistrates,” to overthrow a king or queen, or any greater power, for “tyranny.” The revolution in England was preceded by a great deal of demagoguery against “tyrannical lordships” and so forth. The puritan goal was to, by force if need be, overthrow the monarchy, the bishops, and the English Church, in order to install themselves in power and build their “Restored Church.” Oliver Cromwell, who led the rebel armies, had a post-millennial vision of inaugurating the reign of Christ on earth. During the civil war, Cromwell’s troops were issued copies of “The Soldiers’ Pocket Bible,” containing excerpts from the GNV.

But before the trouble exploded in England, in an attempt to mitigate the revolutionary influence of the GNV, King James commissioned the Bible that is known by his name, the King James Version. He was adamant that it should contain no notes. However, it may have escaped his notice that the notes were not the only problem with the GNV. The biblical text itself had been changed in subtle ways that undermined the authority of the monarchy.

The GNV Old Testament was a revision of the Great Bible (GRT), which was itself based on the 1537 Matthew Bible (MB). But when it favoured their cause, the puritans departed from the GRT translation to follow other versions more closely, or to introduce a new translation of their own. Perhaps due to the influence of the puritans on the KJV translation committee, a few of the GNV revisions were replicated in the KJV. Psalm 76 below is an example. In the Matthew Bible, God was described as “wonderful” among the kings. “Wonderful” translated the Hebrew yawray. However, the GNV changed this in a way that portended only evil for a king, and the note was even worse (note, in 16th century English, a “prince” was a supreme ruler, a king, queen, or emperor):

Psalm 76:11-12

MB & GRT Look, what ye promise unto the Lord your God, see that ye keep it, all ye that be round about him. Bring presents unto him that ought to be feared, which [who] taketh away the breath of princes, and is wonderful among the kings of the earth.

GNV 1599 Vow and perform unto the Lord your God, all ye that be round about him; let them bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. He shall *cut off the spirit of princes; he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

  GNV note: The Hebrew word signifieth to vintage, or gather grapes; meaning, that he shall make the counsels and enterprises of wicked tyrants foolish and vain.

KJV Vow and pay unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

The GNV note suggests that it is a fruit of God’s harvest to make “foolish and vain” the works of “wicked tyrants.” Be that as it may, the simple fact is that such a note would alarm King James, especially considering that, for many years now, the puritans had been agitating to put down the “wicked tyrants” in England.

Below, Proverb 16:10 in the MB and GRT says simply that a king will not go wrong in judgement when he has “the prophecy.” I believe this means, when he has God’s word. But the GNV imposes an absolute duty on kings not to transgress in judgement. This sets up a standard that could be used – and which was used in England – to justify an uprising. The verse was further revised in the KJV, with an odd result:

Proverbs 16:10

MB & GRT When the prophecy is in the lips of the king, his mouth shall not go wrong in judgement.

GNV 1599 A divine sentence shall be in the lips of the king: his mouth shall not transgress in judgement.

KJV A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgement.

The KJV revision above states that the king does not transgress in judgement, which, of course, is impossible. Kings are not infallible. It also conflicts with Psalm 76. Why would the Lord be terrible to, and cut off the spirit of, such a king? The MB and GRT are eminently superior translations for their common sense and how they glorify God.

In Proverb 20:2 below, the puritans changed the GRT to follow the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Roman Church (a thing they frequently did). Here the MB and GRT taught that the king ought to be feared, but the GNV robbed the monarch of this due. It might seem a small thing – and in itself, it is a small thing – but together with everything else, it contributed to undermining the honour and authority of the king. The GNV note then portrayed the offence of angering the king as wrong merely because it endangers the self:

Proverb 20:2

MB & GRT The king ought to be feared as the roaring of a lion; whoso provoketh him unto anger, offendeth against his own soul.

GNV 1599 The fear of the king is like the roaring of a lion: he that provoketh him unto anger, *sinneth against his own soul.

  GNV note: Putteth his life in danger.

KJV The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.

In the next proverb, Geneva flipped the teaching to set a trap for princes. This was a new translation. The Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe Bible, MB, and GRT brought essentially the same message, but the GNV portrayed the evil as done by princes, and not against them. The KJV is again a strange revision:

Proverb 17:26

MB & GRT To punish the innocent, and to smite the princes that give true judgement, are both evil.

GNV 1599 Surely it is not good to condemn the just, nor that the princes should smite such *for equity.

  GNV note: For their well-doing.

KJV Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.

Thus, in the GNV, there were many new translations that could be used against princes and kings. Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, due for release in late 2020, will review several of the notes in the GNV, which validate King James’ concerns about their seditious tendencies, and which confirm that the Geneva Bible was published in order to support and advance the puritan revolutionary cause.

Luther vs. Calvin on the New Covenant

Posted on by Posted in History MB

When it came to the New Covenant, John Calvin contradicted Martin Luther on the fundamentals. They cannot both be right. Quotations from both men are set out below, so readers can see and judge for themselves.

When Martin Luther taught about the New Covenant, he extolled its newness and uniqueness. In the quotation below, he referred to it as a “testament,” emphasizing its likeness to a last will and testament. A last will and testament is a document by which a man gives his possessions freely to his heirs (Gal. 3), and which is made irrevocable by the testator’s death. Luther also taught that the Old Testament was a temporary covenant, and that it is now “disannulled” – that is, cancelled, abolished, obsolete. I emphasize these points so that when we get to Calvin, the difference will be clear.

The New Covenant, Luther explained, is Christ’s own promise to us:

Luther: [Christ] made a promise or solemn vow, which we are to believe and thereby come to righteousness and salvation. This promise is the words just cited, where Christ says, “This is the cup of the New Testament.” These we shall now examine.

Not every vow is called a testament, but only a last irrevocable will of one who is about to die, whereby he bequeaths his goods, allotted and assigned to be distributed to whom he will…. And so that little word ‘testament’ is a short summary of all God’s wonders and grace, fulfilled in Christ.

Christ also distinguishes this testament from others and says that it is a new and everlasting testament, in his own blood, for the forgiveness of sins; whereby he disannuls the Old Testament. For the little word ‘new’ makes the testament of Moses obsolete and worthless, one that is no longer in effect. The Old Testament was a promise made through Moses to the people of Israel … a temporal testament …

But Christ, the true paschal lamb (1Co. 5:7), is an eternal divine Person, who dies to ratify the New Testament. Therefore the testament and the possessions therein bequeathed are eternal and abiding. And that is what he means when he contrasts this testament with the other. “A new testament,” he says, so that the other may become obsolete (Heb. 8:13) and no longer be in effect.[1]

William Tyndale agreed with Luther. He taught:

Tyndale: The New Testament is as much as to say a new covenant. The Old Testament is an old temporal covenant made between God and the carnal children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, otherwise called Israel, upon the deeds and the observing of a temporal law. Where the reward of the keeping is temporal life and prosperity in the land of Canaan, and the breaking is rewarded with temporal death and punishment. But the New Testament is an everlasting covenant made unto the children of God through faith in Christ, upon the deservings of Christ. Where eternal life is promised to all that believe, and death to all that are unbelieving.[2]

But against Luther and Tyndale, John Calvin taught that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was not temporary, not abolished, not obsolete. He also, as will be seen, taught that the New Covenant was not really or substantially new. He said the covenant God made with Abraham precluded anything new, and that the Abrahamic covenant was the real enduring covenant. What need was there then for the covenant that Jesus came to inaugurate? In fact, said Calvin, the Lord came merely to confirm the Abrahamic covenant. Calvin taught that both the Old and New Covenants were merely confirmations of the Abrahamic covenant, and the only difference between them was as to the form and way of teaching.

Below are Calvin’s own words:

Calvin: Now, as to the new covenant, it is not so called because it is contrary to the first covenant, for God is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself. He then who once made a covenant with his chosen people had not changed his purpose, as though he had forgotten his faithfulness. It then follows, that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, he had already made his covenant with Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. As then the Law depended on that covenant which God made with his servant Abraham, it follows that God could never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant…. God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.

Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shown what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known.[3] (Emphasis added)

So Calvin said the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was not really a new thing in its time, and likewise the New Covenant was not really new. Both were just new-ish ways of confirming the Abrahamic covenant, to which God would always be faithful. Christ was a different “external way of teaching” doctrine to the Jews, as well as to the Gentiles who would also be brought into the Church. On this new foundation, Calvin developed his gospel. A few points to note about his teaching:

(1) Calvin emphasized “God’s covenant with Abraham.” The covenant that Luther emphasized was the one given by Jesus. Calvin’s different treatment undermines the primacy of the New Covenant and the agency of Christ.

(2) Calvin said Christ ratified the Abrahamic covenant, not his own, a re-emphasis which also deflects from Christ’s covenant.

(3) Calvin reinterpreted both the means and purpose of this ratification. When Luther used the word ‘ratify,’ he meant chiefly that Jesus died in order to make his covenant irrevocable and eternal. When Calvin used it, he meant that Jesus appeared in order to ratify doctrine and be a new external way of teaching.

In conclusion, Calvin made the Abrahamic covenant to be an overarching covenant that later covenants only confirmed. This meant that the New Covenant could scarcely be so called, because Christ came not to do a new thing, but to manifest or confirm the old. Thus Calvin taught a different covenant. Further, his new doctrine informed all the notes and commentaries, and even several Scripture revisions, in the Geneva Bible. His doctrine is the basis of so-called “Covenantal Theology.” It has a ring of truth, but when it comes down to it, it cannot be harmonized with Reformation doctrine. Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible looks at some of the issues more closely.

In the meantime, I have written a slightly longer (5 ½ pages) paper comparing the Matthew Bible, which agrees with Luther, and the Geneva Bible, which reflected Calvin’s doctrine, which is posted here on Academia.edu.

Endnotes:

[1] Martin Luther, “Treatise on New Testament,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 35, 84-85.

[2] “WT to Reader,” Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, 8-9.

[3] John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah 31 at biblehub.com. Accessed during February 2019.

 

Sarah’s Covering: The Matthew Bible vs. the Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Compare

What does Genesis 20:16 mean when it speaks of a covering to Sarah’s eyes? That depends which Bible you read.

Genesis 20 in the Old Testament relates the strange story of how Abraham, when he moved into the land of Gerar, told everyone that his wife Sarah was his sister. He instructed Sarah to go along with this falsehood, intended to deceive people about the true nature of their relationship. She obeyed. Then the king of Gerar, Abimelech, took a fancy to the beautiful Sarah and brought her into his own residence. But God appeared to the king before he had wrongful relations with her, and warned him to return her to her husband. Abimelech summoned Abraham and said to him,

Genesis 20:9-16 in the Matthew Bible: What hast thou done unto us, and what have I offended thee, that thou shouldest bring on me and on my kingdom so great a sin? Thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. And Abimelech said moreover to Abraham, What sawest thou, that moved thee to do this thing?

And Abraham answered, I thought that peradventure the fear of God was not in this place, and that they [people] would slay me for my wife’s sake: yet in very deed she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not of my mother; and became my wife. And after God caused me to wander out of my father’s house, I said to her, This kindness shalt thou shew unto me in all places where we come: that thou say of me that I am thy brother.

Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, menservants and women servants, and gave them to Abraham, and delivered him Sarah his wife again. And Abimelech said, Behold the land lieth before thee; dwell where it pleaseth thee best. And unto Sarah he said, See, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver. Behold, this thing shall be a covering to thine eyes, and unto all that are with thee, and unto all men an excuse.

Matthew Bible note: ‘Covering’ and ‘excuse’ is all one.

In verse 16 (italicized), William Tyndale translated the Hebrew word ‘kesooth’ as “a covering.” Here ‘kesooth’ is something that covers for an offence or injury in the eyes of the person(s) named. In his note on this verse, Rogers explained that ‘covering’ and ‘excuse’ had the same meaning. In early modern English an ‘excuse’ could be understood in a good sense, meaning something offered in mitigation of an offence. This is the same thing as a covering. Thus Abimelech’s gifts were both a covering and an excuse because they covered and atoned for any harm and appearances of evil that the king had caused.

Hebrew scholar H.W.F. Gesenius confirms that ‘kesooth’ had this meaning in Genesis 20:16:

Metaph. Covering of the eyes [is] a gift of appeasing given to anyone that he may shut his eyes (with regard to something deserving reprehension) … or a present given in order to obtain pardon, a mulct. So is the passage to be understood, which has a good deal troubled interpreters, Genesis 20:16. (Emphasis original. See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, s.v. 3682)

The Geneva Bible: Robbing Sarah’s covering

The “covering” idiom at Genesis 20:16 did not trouble Tyndale or Rogers. However, it became troubling in the Geneva revision:

Genesis 20:15-16, GNV 1599: And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee, dwell where it pleaseth thee. Likewise to Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver; behold, he is the (1)veil of thine eyes to all that are with thee, and to all others; and she was (2)thus reproved.

GNV note 1: Such a head [meaning Abraham], as with whom thou mayest be preserved from all dangers.

GNV note 2: God caused this heathen king to reprove her because she dissembled, seeing that God had given her a husband as her veil and defence.

The Geneva notes are contrary to common sense. Sarah’s head, Abraham, did not preserve her from danger, but exposed her to danger. (Perhaps he thought his lie was the least of dangers; the text does not say.) The Geneva Bible also says strangely that Sarah was reproved for dissembling, whereas in dissembling she only obeyed her husband. Obedience is a wifely obligation that the Geneva Bible repeatedly insists on. Further, since Abraham was dissembling to the whole world, was she to contradict him and thus endanger and dishonour him?

Further, in the Geneva translation of verse 16, ‘kesooth’ is translated as a “veil.” Others have also translated it this way, though in a slightly different application, as Gesenius indicates:

Several interpreters have taken a covering of the eyes to be a veil; and have thus rendered the whole passage, arbitrarily enough, behold this is to thee a veil of the eyes, i.e. with these thousand shekels (no little price indeed!) buy a veil for thyself, for all who are with thee, and altogether for all, i.e. that it may be manifest to all that thou art a married woman. They add that married women only wore veils, and that virgins did not; but this is altogether opposed to Eastern manners, and it cannot be proved. (Ibid. Emphasis original.)

The Geneva treatment of this passage is wrong for many reasons, including:

(1) It is absurd and dishonest to blame and reprove Sarah for doing as her husband told her to do, and especially in a society where women were without power or authority.

(2) It is also absurd and dishonest to hold up Abraham, who told his wife to lie and got her into the situation, as her defence. It was God who was her defence.

(3) The Geneva Bible creates a classic double bind. On the one hand, in many notes and commentaries it says women must be obedient to their husbands, but here it reproves a woman for being obedient. The woman cannot win.

(4) The Geneva Bible dishonours Sarah, where the intent of the passage was to restore her honour.

Again and again the Geneva Bible proves itself contrary to women (not to mention also contrary to the Matthew Bible). It refuses to protect and honour women.

The issue of a “covering” for women also arose in Malachi 2, which I wrote about in an earlier post. But when I wrote that post, I was less certain of my impressions of the Geneva Bible, and my post was too weak. Now I realize I was on the right track. In Malachi also, the Geneva Bible robbed women of their due “covering.” It is part of a pervasive and misogynist pattern.  Here is a link to the revised post, Altars Covered in Tears.

Compare also the Geneva treatment of Exodus 21, which is discussed in detail in my paper on the New Matthew Bible website: Exodus 21, Virgins or Slave-wives?

The KJV and modern Bibles

Among later Bibles, the KJV largely followed the Geneva Bible. However, moderns have come close to recovering the sense given in the Matthew Bible:

KJV: Behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

RV: Behold, it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee; and in respect of all thou art righted.

RSV:It is your vindication in the eyes of all who are with you; and before every one you are righted.

NIV:This is to cover the offense against you before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated.

ESV:It is a sign of your innocence in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone you are vindicated.

~~~

Note A: The notion of ‘reproof’ (in “and thus she was reproved”) was actually not new in the Geneva version. It also appears in the Great Bible. I have not discovered the source for this revision. It does not follow the Vulgate or the LXX. However, Geneva added even more changes to the translation, and also its notes. This will be discussed more in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible.

~~~~~~~

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October 2019.

Information about the New Matthew Bible Project is at   https://newmatthewbible.org

Calvin on Prophecy: 30 Pieces of Silver

Posted on by Posted in Calvin's teaching

To go from the Matthew Bible to the Geneva Bible is to step into a whole new world of commentaries. New and different doctrines were introduced into the Geneva Bible — about the Church, the New Covenant, and more. It is a huge topic, and most of it I’ll save it for Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. Here I will only touch on one thing: Old Testament prophecies of Christ. In the Matthew Bible these prophecies were treated as … well … as prophecies of Christ. However, in the Geneva Bible they were handled differently:

(1) Some were treated as metaphors. (see my last post here, about the prophecy of Christ coming into Jerusalem on a donkey).

(2) Some were treated as prophecies of or for the Church.

(3) Others were treated as prophecies for the Jewish people only.

I have now researched about twenty Old Testament prophecies of Christ that were subjected to this treatment. This was all based on John Calvin’s teaching. For example, Calvin said the ascension of Christ was a metaphor of Christ’s aid to the Church. He said the “voice in the desert” – which is treated by all the Gospel writers as a prophecy of John the Baptist – was a promise that there would be a continual succession of prophets and divine teachers in the Church. He said the prophecies of Christ’s healing miracles in Isaiah were metaphorical, meant to depict Christ as a “spiritual physician.”

The reader who would like to learn more can see a refutation of Calvin written by a 16th century Lutheran theologian, Aegidius Hunnius. He examined many examples of this in his book, available on Amazon here: The Judaizing Calvin

Thirty pieces of silver

Of particular interest to me was to discover how one of Calvin’s metaphors inflamed the Puritan hatred of ceremonies in Holy Communion. The Geneva Bible notes taught everywhere that ceremonies were “abolished under the gospel.” The revolutionary manifestoes of the early English Puritans, produced on secret presses during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, railed against ceremonies and “Judas purse bearers.” Ceremonies were a big factor in the Puritan revolution. Theodore Beza, rector of the Geneva Academy after Calvin, said ceremonies were filthy and must be thrust out of the Church. Whence all the hysteria? I discovered that it can be traced back, at least in part, to Calvin’s treatment of the Old Testament prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver (from Zechariah 11).

All the Gospel writers, led by the Holy Spirit, treated the 30 pieces of silver as a prophecy that was fulfilled when Judas accepted them as the price to betray Christ. However, Calvin said this was a metaphor about “dirty” and “hypocritical” ceremonies offered by wicked and hypocritical men. This may seem absurd, but this is what he taught. The puritan admonitions everywhere railed against the wicked priests in the Anglican Church, which inflamed people’s fears that the Church was insulting God. Now we see why the use of ceremonies was such a fearful thing: it was to be a Judas! Indeed, said Calvin, the value of ceremonies in the hands of hypocrites is to God as the wages of a swineherd, and a “dirty job”:

Calvin: By that cheap price worthy of a farmhand, he understands the frivolous nonsense by which the Jews thought they could satisfy God. For we know that they were excessively attentive in their ceremonies, as if this repayment should be of any value before God…. If the Jews would have brought themselves totally into compliance with his word. But how? If they had gotten rid of their ceremonies and other frivolous things, of course! Yes, this was a dirty job, as if they had wanted to pay off some swineherd.[1]

And by this teaching, Calvin turned a prophecy about Christ into an occasion of endless and destructive strife in the Church. He went on to say that the 30 pieces of silver (representing ceremonies) were “thrown to the potter” to show that they are unworthy of God — even like spitting in his face! He wrote:

Calvin: Afterwards he ironically calls [the 30 pieces] a magnificent and glorious price at which he was esteemed. In other words: This is my glorious price? I bore so much toil, and now they treat me just like some dirty farmer! Yet I was their Lord and Shepherd. Therefore, since they want to satisfy me in such a bogus manner, here also they want to thrust on me the cheap price of their contempt, as if to overthrow my glory or spit in my face. Throw it! Throw it to the potter, he says.… because I will not suffer my majesty to have an unworthy price so contemptuously thrust upon it…. He testifies that these things are worth nothing to him … the sacrifices offered by wicked men and hypocrites who have not the slightest sense of godliness are the highest form of abomination. Why? Because this is the highest form of insult that the reprobate hurl, as if they defiled his face with spit … [2]

Wow! Defiling God’s face with spit … this is harsh. Reverend Hunnius wrote:

Hunnius: Calvin himself understands the 30 pieces of silver as the hypocritical wages with which the people wanted to compensate the Lord for his labours and favours. He then says that these wages are external ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. But with what argument does he prove this incredibly impetuous interpretation of his? Surely it must be so, because he said so!

Not only did Calvin cause a lot of strife, he turned the gospel on its head, because – really – the Lord did suffer the unworthy price. He did so willingly. He did so humbly, not insisting on his “majesty.” More to the point: he ordained it – as he did every prophecy Calvin denied or fudged. That is what a prophecy is: the Lord tells us in advance what will happen, so that when it does happen, we will know it is of Him. In fact, it was Calvin who sold Christ for 30 pieces. But who would turn such an important prophecy into a metaphor and an occasion of disquiet and division in the Church? The apostle Paul said at Galatians 1:8, “Even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven preach any gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, hold him as accursed.”

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March 2019

[1] Aegidius Hunnius, Trans. Paul A. Rydecki The Judaizing Calvin (Texas: Repristination Press, 2012), 65. Hunnius did not cite his sources. The translator advised me that they were from Calvin’s 1617 Latin commentaries. This one is from the commentary on Zechariah, Volume 3, Part 2.

[2] Ibid, 72-73. Hunnius adds, “Perhaps you will say to me that, still, in the things that follow in his commentary, Calvin approves of the Evangelist Matthew’s exegesis. I reply: This is what we have said on several occasions – that Calvin observes this order in explaining the Prophets, with the effect that he truly weakens their prophecies with his interpretations that are primarily Jewish; and blunts their sharp edge; and cuts into the nerve of their argumentation against the unbelievers; and shakes the bedrock foundation by means of stunning tricks and intricate distortions overgrown with a thousand thorn-bushes; that is to say, by means of the deception of symbols and figures of speech, but especially with the deception of his precious metaphors.” (Pages 73-74)

The Geneva Bible on the Coming of Christ on a Donkey

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

It’s been a long journey to understand the changes the Geneva Puritans made to the Bible. I’m still learning.

The real primary version of the Geneva Bible (“GB”) was the Matthew Bible (“MB”). The MB was the combined work of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Then their friend John Rogers added commentaries and published the MB in 1537. It went on to be progressively revised as shown:

Matthew Bible (1537: Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers)
          ↓
Great Bible (1539: Reviser Myles Coverdale)
          ↓
Geneva Bible (1560: Revisers William Whittingham with Puritan Church leaders in Geneva)

The Puritans based many of their revisions on the teaching of John Calvin. They significantly changed the Scriptures, commentaries, and chapter summaries. What are chapter summaries? They are brief introductions to each chapter of the books of the Bible which explain the main topic or topics. John Rogers wrote the chapter summaries for the MB, which the Great Bible kept for the most part. However, the GB often changed them. One disturbingly consistent change was to substitute “the Church” for Christ.

An issue that emerges upon a careful comparison of summaries is how the GB handled prophecies of the Messiah. I’ll give one example only. It doesn’t seem too serious at first, but on deeper enquiry reveals a terrible error. Compare:

Chapter summaries on Zechariah 9:
Matthew and Great Bibles: The conversion of the Gentiles. The coming of Christ sitting on an ass.
Geneva Bible: The threatenings of the Gentiles. The coming of Christ.

Why did the GB cut out the prophecy about Jesus? It didn’t smell right to me.

I found the answer in a 16th century book written by Dr. Aegidius Hunnius, a Lutheran professor at the Wittenberg Academy in Germany. He wrote a confutation of Calvin in 1593 entitled The Judaizing Calvin. Back then, Calvin’s unorthodoxy was better known, and it was a real concern to the Lutherans. Hunnius showed what Calvin taught, which explains the omission. It is not a happy explanation:

When Zechariah says, “See! Your King comes to you riding on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a donkey,” the evangelists take the words ‘donkey’ and ‘colt’ in their proper meaning, without any ambiguity whatsoever…. But Calvin … put forth another interpretation:

[Calvin said] “It is certainly true that the words of the prophet are metaphorical, when he says that the King will come riding on a donkey. This is a figurative saying. For the prophet understands that Christ would be a rather poorly known man who does not extol himself above the common measure of the multitudes. This is the genuine sense. This is true, but nevertheless it does not hinder Christ from also putting forth an example of this when he mounts that donkey.”[1]

In other words, Calvin says this was NOT a prophecy – it was just a figurative way of speaking! Later, Jesus supposedly decided to act it out by using a donkey. But it gets worse. According to Calvin, Jesus’ purpose in doing this was to show that he wanted to be considered a common man, not above the multitudes, and even that he would be “poorly known.” But for one, Jesus is not poorly known – not to His, at least. Further, he never taught that he was “common.” He showed us that he was humble, but that is a totally different thing. But see how the devil uses false semantics. ‘Humble’ does not mean ‘common.’ Jesus indeed modeled humility, but he exalted himself as uncommon: the uncommonly humble and at the same time most high Lord and King of Israel, Master, Chief Shepherd, and Son of God. And he also that that he must be obeyed: “Ye call me Lord and Master, and so I am,” he said, (Joh. 3:13).

When Hunnius concluded on this section, he did not mince words:

Indeed, Calvin always seems to feel that deep, innate itch to twist the Word of God, so that with his figurative language and metaphors, the good-for-nothing deceives the more pious mind in such a serious and lofty matter, as charlatans mislead people with their tricks and deceit.[2]

The little-known unorthodox teachings of Calvin seem to be forgotten and lost in history, but their fruit is manifest in the Geneva Bible.

[1] Aegidius Hunnius, The Judaizing Calvin, translated by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki. Link to buy: The Judaizing Calvin

[2] Ibid., page 66.

For the fascinating story of the making of the Matthew Bible, go here for more information about our book.

When the Party of the Puritan Moses Slew Their King

Posted on by Posted in Puritans

On January 30, 1649, the revolutionary Oliver Cromwell, working with his rebel parliament, beheaded King Charles I in England. Cromwell styled himself a “Puritan Moses,” and believed he was guided by the finger of God. He was also known as the “General of the Parliament.” His military successes buttressed his view that he was divinely appointed to establish Christ’s kingdom on earth and the long-awaited reign of the saints in the Church.

First the Puritan party, which had gained control of the English Parliament, held King Charles prisoner for three years. During that time, Cromwell constantly pressed the king for concessions to remove his power and increase parliament’s. But the beleaguered king would not agree to more than he had already given away (which was too much), so finally the time came to do away with him. The rebels brought a charge of treason against the lawful head of the state.

I can’t go into all the background here, but I will in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible. (It’s important, in order to understand many of the changes made to the Scriptures, and especially the notes, in the Geneva Bible.) Suffice to say, to help trump up a treason charge against Charles, parliament passed a resolution shortly before the trial declaring that “by the fundamental laws of the kingdom, it was treason in the king of England for the time being to levy war against the parliament and the kingdom of England.” The prosecutor at the specially constituted tribunal fanatically denounced Charles as the very image of “Nimrod, the first tyrant.”

Charles protested that the proceedings were illegal, because a king could not be tried by any superior jurisdiction on the earth. But these men were a law unto themselves. After they obtained Charles’ conviction on January 20, 1649, they stayed his execution for ten days to pass an Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions thereof. This made it an offence to proclaim a successor after the King died. Now no one, not even Charles’ lawful heir, could fill his shoes after they killed him. The goal was of course to undo the monarchy entirely, so that they could call the shots.

Finally then, with all their ducks in a row, the party of the Puritan Moses, after a long season of humiliating their true and right king, slew him. As his severed head fell from his body, there was a stunned silence, and then a long groan from the onlookers. Soon after, Charles’ statue was thrown down, and on the pedestal was engraved the inscription Exit tyrannus regum ultimus or The last of the tyrant kings passes away. Thus was he dishonoured right to the end.

When foreign governments would not deal with Cromwell’s illegal government, parliament appointed the poet John Milton as Latin Secretary to the Council of State, a kind of foreign ambassador, to champion their cause. Milton was the poet who had earlier penned the line, “Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large,” but he sold out to the Presbyters. Historian Goldwin Smith explains “It is on a principle something like that of the social contract that [Milton] bases the responsibility of kings, and maintains the right of tyrannicide in default of more regular justice.”(1)

But what is this principle of the “social contract” or “compact”? It was straight from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and other writings, which developed a doctrine of revolution based on God’s “natural law” and a “king’s compact.” To put is simply and clearly, Calvin taught that if a king or other high ruler breached his supposed “compact” with the people required by the supposed natural law, then lower level public officials may rise up against him. Therefore, Calvin’s “natural law” trumps the laws of the state.

Oxford Professor Herbert Foster put Calvin’s teaching together quite clearly in his essay The Political Theories of Calvinists before the Puritan Exodus to America. Foster is sympathetic to Calvin and the Puritans, but the discerning reader will (hopefully) see the terrible leaven that lurks herein. (It is always best to go to the source and learn what the advocates themselves say.)

For more study, see Theodore Beza’s book Droits des Magistrats. In it, Beza justified revolution to protect the people’s liberty, and also justified regicide as “tyrannicide.”  Beza’s treatise became a major manifesto of Puritanism, and the constant war-cry “tyrant, tyrant” was one of the slogans that stirred up simple,  gullible people, and fuelled the Puritan revolution in England.

(1) Goldwin Smith, The United Kingdom: Political History, Vol. I (Toronto: The Copp Clark Company, 1899), page 576.

Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, 1560 Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Geneva
© Ruth Magnusson Davis, 2019
To my knowledge, this is the only place on the internet where you can read the Puritan dedication to Queen Elizabeth from the 1560 Geneva Bible. For some reason the 1560 preface is widely reproduced, but not this dedication. I typed it out myself, checked it diligently against the original, and modernized the spelling. It is set out below, with paragraph numbers for easy reference.

The dedication was dated April 10, 1560. It was unsigned and anonymous in my copy. I suspect the primary author was the zealous Puritan William Whittingham, who revised Tyndale’s New Testament in 1557, and/or John Calvin. I say this because some things written here strongly echo Whittingham’s dedicatory epistle to a book by the Puritan Christopher Goodman: How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects and Wherein They May Lawfully by God’s Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. The purpose and topic of Goodman’s book is evident from the title.  Goodman was not a popular  man with European rulers. It seems to me that neither Whittingham nor Calvin could affix their name in an epistle to the queen and expect a good reception, because of their revolutionary writings and affiliations with men like Goodman. However, I cannot be sure about authorship, and in any case, it is not important to know. What matters is the content of this dedication to the queen. The reader should understand that it is consistent with the teachings that came from the leaders and scholars of Geneva at this time, though they are often forgotten or overlooked. This dedication gives important insight into the spirit and purpose of the Geneva Bible. It also reveals why Queen Elizabeth and King James did not like it.

A note on Christopher Goodman’s book: It was typical of the revolutionary rhetoric of the Puritans. It was also diametrically opposed to William Tyndale’s book, The Obedience of a Christian Man. Whittingham’s endorsement of Goodman’s book shows how contrary his spirit was to Tyndale. It also raises questions about the changes Whittingham made to Tyndale’s New Testament. I examine some of these changes in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, including how Whittingham interpreted Jesus’ words to Peter about the use of the sword. It is fascinating, but disturbing too.

Some things to bear in mind:

(a)  When I say ‘Puritan,’ I mean it in the classic, original sense, referring to the men with a post-millennial dream who returned to England from Geneva after Queen Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558. They believed they were called to purify and restore the Church and inaugurate the reign of the saints.  As the reader will see, they considered certain Old Testament punitive practices (as they interpreted them) to be relevant under the New Covenant, to the extent that they, the Puritans, should “minister God’s law” and execute severe punishments, including the execution of false prophets, heretics, and anyone who stood in the way of building God’s Church. The highly esteemed Puritan Theodore Beza advocated ‘tyrannicide’ if need be. ‘Tyrannicide’ was a euphemism for ‘regicide’; i.e., revolutionary execution of kings or queens by their subjects.

(b) When you see a reference in the dedication to “God’s mouth” or the “mouths of the Lord,” understand that it means Puritan ministers. Whittingham and his associates believed they were God’s mouth. Thus paragraph 5.2 means that the queen should consult with Puritan leaders. This is only one example. And where the dedication speaks of obeying the will of God “immediately” (para 8:3), it means obeying the instructions of Puritan ministers immediately. Paragraphs 9.2- 9.3 make this clear.

(c) Note that all the emphasis here is on building the Church. John Roger’s dedication to King Henry VIII emphasized giving the Bible to the people. Further, the reader will see how frequently the Puritans urged the queen to seek their counsel concerning the will of God, and ONLY their counsel. They never once urged her to read the Bible, but said they were the ones chosen by God to understand and teach what it meant (para 9.2). On the other hand, Rogers in his dedication urged the king to read the Bible, and he warned the king that false prophets would surround him and try to influence him. I hope to get a chance to post Rogers’ dedication soon.

(d) Note the mention in paragraph 8.2 about executing people who will not seek the Lord. The Puritans drew on Old Testament stories as precedents to follow for building the Church and governing the people. This is why they talk about such things as putting false prophets to death. Paragraph 5.1 refers to rooting out, cutting down, and destroying. But there are no particulars at all. What exactly is to be rooted out? Who are the people who will not seek the Lord? Who are the false prophets? The Puritans were holding their cards close to their chest. Because they were writing to the queen, they could not afford to be clear about their goals, which included terminating her role as the head of the Church so that they could establish a Presbyterian model.

(e) Items in round brackets are original. Items in square brackets are added by me: [italicized words] are modern synonyms and [regular font] indicates words that I added to complete the sense.

(f)  I added a few more notes at the end.

*****

Dedication to Queen Elizabeth I, 1560 Geneva Bible

To the Most Virtuous and Noble Queen Elizabeth, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, etc. Your humble subjects of the English Church at Geneva, wish grace and peace from God the Father through Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 How hard a thing it is, and what great impediments let [hinder], to enterprise any worthy act, not only daily experience sufficiently showeth (most noble and virtuous Queen) but also that notable proverb doeth confirm the same, which admonisheth us, that all things are hard which are fair and excellent. And what enterprise can there be of greater importance, and more acceptable unto God, or more worthy of singular commendation, than the building of the Lord’s Temple, the house of God, the Church of Christ, whereof the Son of God is the head and perfection?

2 When Zerubbabel went about to build the material Temple, according to the commandment of the Lord, what difficulties and stays daily arose to hinder his worthy endeavours, the books of Ezra and Esdras plainly witness: how that not only he and the people of God were sore molested with foreign adversaries, (whereof some maliciously warred against them, and corrupted the king’s officers, and others craftily practiced under pretence of religion) but also at home with domestic enemies, as false prophets, crafty worldlings, faint-hearted soldiers, and oppressors of their brethren, who as well by false doctrine and lies, as by subtle counsel, cowardice, and extortion, discouraged the hearts almost of all: so that the Lord’s work was not only interrupted and left off for a long time, but scarcely at the length with great labour and danger after a sort brought to pass.

3.1 Which thing, when we weigh aright, and consider earnestly how much greater charge God hath laid upon you in making you a builder of his spiritual Temple, we cannot but partly fear, knowing the craft and force of Satan, our spiritual enemy, and the weakness and inability of this our nature: and partly be fervent in our prayers toward God that he would bring to perfection this noble work which he hath begun by you:

3.2  and therefore we endeavour ourselves by all means to aid, and to bestow our whole force under your grace’s standard [to rally all our forces under your grace’s flag], [you] whom God hath made as our Zerubbabel for the erecting of this most excellent Temple, and to plant and maintain his holy word to the advancement of his glory, for your own honour and salvation of your soul, and for the singular comfort [strengthening/ encouragement] of that great flock which Christ Jesus the great shepherd hath bought with his precious blood, and committed unto your charge to be fed both in body and soul.

4.1 Considering therefore how many enemies there are, which by one means or another, as the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin went about to stay the building of that Temple, so labour to hinder the course of this building [work of building] (whereof some are Papists, who under pretence of favouring God’s word, traitorously seek to erect idolatry and to destroy your majesty: some are worldlings who, as Demas, have forsaken Christ for the love of this world: others are ambitious prelates, who, as Amasah and Diotrephes can abide none but themselves; and as Demetrious, many practice sedition to maintain their errors), we persuaded ourselves that there was no way so expedient and necessary for the preservation of the one, and destruction of the other, as to present unto your Majesty the holy Scriptures faithfully and plainly translated according to the languages wherein they were first written by the holy Ghost.

4.2 For the word of God is an evident token of God’s love and our assurance of his defence, wheresoever it is obediently received: it is the trial of the spirits, and as the Prophet saith, It is as a fire and hammer to break the stony hearts of them that resist God’s mercies (1) offered by the preaching of the same. Yea it is sharper than any two edged sword to examine the very thoughts and to judge the affections of the heart, and to discover [reveal] whatsoever lieth hid under hypocrisy and would be secret from the face of God and his Church. So that this must be the first foundation and groundwork, according whereunto the good stones of this building must be framed, and the evil tried out and rejected.

5.1 Now as he that goeth about to lay a foundation surely, first taketh away such impediments as might justly either hurt, let [hinder], or deform the work, so is it necessary that your grace’s zeal appear herein, [so] that neither the crafty persuasion of man, neither worldly policy, or natural fear, dissuade you to root out, cut down, and destroy these weeds and impediments, which do not only deface your building, but utterly endeavour, yea and threaten the ruin thereof.

5.2 For when the noble Josiah enterprised the like kind of work, among other notable and many things he destroyed, not only with utter confusion the idols with their appurtenances, but also burnt (in sign of detestation) the idolatrous priest’s bones upon their altars, and put to death the false prophets and sorcerers, to perform the words of the law of God: and therefore the Lord gave him good success, and blessed him wonderfully, so long as he made God’s word his line and rule to follow, and enterprised nothing before he had inquired at the mouth of the Lord.

6 And if these zealous beginnings seem dangerous and to breed disquietness in your dominions, yet by the story of King Asa it is manifest that the quietness and peace of kingdoms standeth in the utter abolishing of idolatry, and in advancing of true religion. For in his days, Judah lived in rest and quietness for the space of five and thirty years, till at length he began to be cold in the zeal of the Lord, feared the power of man, imprisoned the Prophet of God, and oppressed the people: then the Lord sent him wars, and at length took him away by death.

7 Wherefore great wisdom, not worldly, but heavenly, is here required, which your grace must earnestly crave of the Lord, as did Solomon, to whom God gave an understanding heart to judge his people aright, and to discern between good and bad. For if God for the furnishing of the old temple gave the Spirit of wisdom and understanding to them that should be the workmen thereof, as to Bezaleel, Aholiab, and Hiram, how much more will he endue your grace and other godly princes and chief governors with a principal Spirit, that you may procure and command things necessary for this most holy Temple, foresee and take heed of things that might hinder it, and abolish and destroy whatsoever might impair and overthrow the same?

8.1 Moreover, the marvelous diligence and zeal of Jehosaphat, Josiah, and Hezekiah, are by the singular providence of God left as an example to all godly rulers, to reform their countries and to establish the word of God with all speed, lest the wrath of the Lord fall upon them for the neglecting thereof. For these excellent Kings did not only embrace the word promptly and joyfully, but also procured earnestly [took earnest measures] and commanded the same to be taught, preached, and maintained through all their countries and dominions, binding them and all their subjects both great and small with solemn protestations [public declarations] and covenants before God to obey the word, and to walk after the ways of the Lord.

8.2 Yea and in the days of serving Asa it was enacted that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slain, whether he were small or great, man or woman. And for the establishing hereof and performance of this solemn oath, as well Priests as Judges were appointed and placed through all the cities of Judah to instruct the people in the true knowledge and fear of God, and to minister justice according to the word,(2) knowing that, except God by his word did reign in the hearts and souls, all man’s diligence and endeavours were [would be] of none effect. For without this word we cannot discern between justice and injury, protection and oppression, wisdom and foolishness, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil.

8.3 Therefore the Lord, who is the chief governor of his Church, willeth that nothing be attempted before we have enquired thereof at his mouth. For seeing he is our God, of duty we must give him this pre-eminence, [so] that of ourselves we enterprise nothing but that which he hath appointed, who only knoweth all things, and governeth them as may best serve to his glory and our salvation. We ought not therefore to prevent [go before] him, or do anything without his word, but as soon as he hath revealed his will, immediately to put it in execution.

9.1 Now as concerning the manner [design] of this building, it is not according to man, nor after the wisdom of the flesh, but of the Spirit, and according to the word of God, whose ways are divers from man’s ways. For if it was not lawful for Moses to build the material [earthly] Tabernacle after any other sort than God had showed him by a pattern, neither to prescribe any other ceremonies and laws than such as the Lord had expressly commanded, how can it be lawful to proceed in this spiritual building any other ways, than Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is both the foundation, head, and chief corner stone thereof, hath commanded by his word? And forasmuch as he hath established and left an order in his Church for the building up of his body, appointing some to be Apostles, some Prophets, others Evangelists, some pastors and teachers, he signifieth that everyone according as he is placed in this body which is the Church, ought to enquire of his ministers concerning the will of the Lord, which is revealed in his word. For they are, saith Jeremiah, as the mouth of the Lord: yea, he promiseth to be with their mouth, and that their lips shall keep knowledge, and that the truth and the law shall be in their mouths.

9.2 For it is their office chiefly to understand the Scriptures and teach them. For this cause the people of Israel in matters of difficulty used to ask the Lord either by the Prophets, or by the means of the high Priest, who bare Urim and Thummin, which were tokens of light and knowledge, of holiness and perfection, which should be in the high Priest. Therefore when Jehosaphat took this order in the Church of Israel, he appointed Amariah to be the chief concerning the word of God, because he was most expert in the law of the Lord, and could give counsel and govern according unto the same. Else there is no degree or office which may have that authority and privilege to decide concerning God’s word, except withal he hath the Spirit of God, and sufficient knowledge and judgement to define [make a precise statement] according thereunto. And as everyone is endued by God with greater gifts, so ought he to be herein chiefly heard, or at least that without the express word, none be heard, for he that hath not the word, speaketh not by the mouth of the Lord. Again, what danger it is to do anything, seem it never so godly or necessary, without consulting with God’s mouth, the examples of the Israelites, deceived hereby through the Gibeonites: and of Saul, whose intention seemed good and necessary: and of Josiah also, who for great considerations was moved for the defence of true religion and his people, to fight against Pharoah Necho King of Egypt, may sufficiently admonish us.

10.1 Last of all (most gracious Queen) for the advancement of this building and rearing up of the work, two things are necessary.

10.2 First, that we have a [illegible] and steadfast faith in Christ Jesus, who must dwell in our hearts, as the only means and assurance of our salvation: for he is the ladder that reacheth from the earth to heaven: he lifteth up his Church and setteth  it in the heavenly places: he maketh us lively [living] stones and buildeth us upon himself: he joineth us to himself as the members and body to the head. Yea, he maketh himself and his Church one Christ.

10.3 The next is, that our faith bring forth good fruits, so that our godly conversation [manner of life] may serve as a witness to confirm our election, and be an example to all others to walk as appertaineth to the vocation [calling] whereunto they are called, lest the word of God be evil spoken of, and this building be stayed [delayed] to grow up to a just height,(3) which cannot be without the great provocation of God’s just vengeance and discouraging of many thousands through all the world, if they should see that our life were not holy and agreeable to our profession.

10.4 For the eyes of all that fear God in all places behold your countries as an example to all that believe, and the prayers of all the godly at all times are directed to God for the preservation of your majesty. For considering God’s wonderful mercies toward you at all seasons, who hath pulled you out of the mouth of the lions, and how that from your youth you have been brought up in the holy Scriptures, the hope of all men is so increased, that they cannot but look that God should bring to pass some wonderful work by your grace to the universal comfort of his Church. Therefore even above strength, you must show yourself strong and bold in God’s matters: and though Satan lay all his power and craft together to hurt and hinder the Lord’s building, yet be you assured that God will fight from heaven against this great dragon, the ancient serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, till he have accomplished the whole work and made his Church glorious to himself, without spot or wrinkle.(4)

10.5 For albeit all other kingdoms and monarchies, as the Babylonians, Persians, Grecians, and Romans have fallen and taken end, yet the Church of Christ even under the Cross hath from the beginning of the world been victorious, and shall be everlastingly. Truth it is, that sometime it seemeth to be shadowed with a cloud, or driven with a stormy perfection [sic; persecution?], yet suddenly the beams of Christ the sun of justice shine and bring it to light and liberty. If for a time it be covered with ashes, yet it is quickly kindled again by the wind of God’s Spirit: though it seem drowned in the sea, or parched and pined in the wilderness, yet God giveth ever good success. For he punisheth the enemies, and delivereth his, nourisheth them and still preserveth them under his wings.

10.6 This Lord of lords and King of kings who hath ever defended his, strengthen, comfort, and preserve your majesty, [so] that you may be able to build up the ruins of God’s house to his glory, the discharge of your conscience, and to the comfort of all them that love the coming of Christ Jesus our Lord.

From Geneva. 10.April.1560.

**********

Notes:

(1) Para 4.2 There are two teachings here about God’s word which, coupled with what is missing, indicate a distorted understanding and a lack of true Christian knowledge. One is the idea that God’s word is but a “token of his love.” The other is that it is a “hammer.” What is missing is the understanding that the preaching of the Word, who is Jesus, is a preaching of mercy and forgiveness for salvation, in the power of the Holy Spirit. This explains many changes the Puritans made to the New Testament. See for example my post about 1 Peter 13 and also Psalm 23.

(2) Para 8.2 This is a veiled reference to appointing Puritan ministers and officials in secular and Church offices throughout the country, with effective judicial and executive control over civic and Church affairs, so they could run the country according to “God’s laws.”

(3)(4) Para 10.3 and 10.4 These passages express the Puritan postmillennial vision for the Church. This was the zeal that (in part) fuelled the Puritan revolt and murder of King Charles I in England in 1649. They believed that after they slew all who stood in the way of building the Church, whether “great or small,” the Church would grow to a glorious perfection according to the Geneva model. However, their dreams were dashed quite quickly, when the throne was restored to Charles II in 1661.

It seems to me that Puritan history and the English revolution, in which over 200,000 people lost their lives, is often misunderstood by the evangelical Church today, or painted with a false rosy hue. But a sense of the early Puritan spirit, and their willingness to take up the sword to build their Church, can easily be gained from this dedication. King James’ misgivings about the Geneva Bible were prophetic: Charles, whom the Puritan revolutionaries beheaded, was his own son.