Author Archives: admin

Martin Luther Was Not Antisemitic: A Defence

Posted on by Posted in Ruth's Picks

This blog post is my short answer to the question, was Luther antisemitic? I answer, “no.”

Luther has been accused of prejudice and hatred toward Jewish people, and even of inciting Nazism. These charges arise especially out of his small book, On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543. I will quote here some of the things he said in that book. I have also written a longer answer to the question, was Luther antisemitic, with more quotations – the worst as well as the best – in this paper, which is also linked again below.

Three main points in Luther’s defence are:

1) He rejected any form of ethnocentric prejudice, let alone hatred. He insisted that all peoples are as one, descended from the same ancestors, and that love requires impartiality. On this ground he condemned the ethnocentric prejudice of the Jews themselves.

2) Luther did, however, oppose the anti-Christian teachings and practices of Judaism.

3) Luther’s opposition to Judaism was based on a thorough knowledge of ancient and contemporary Jewish history, literature, and practice, all of which he reviewed in his book so that people would understand the reasons for his opposition and concerns.

Title page of 1543 edition of “On the Jews and Their Lies” by Martin Luther

The definition of antisemitism

The Oxford English Dictionary defines antisemitism as prejudice, hostility, or discrimination towards Jewish people on religious, cultural, or ethnic grounds. Despite appearances, this does not describe Luther’s treatment of the Jews. His quarrels with them inevitably touched on religious questions – how could they not? – but were not rooted in prejudice as the world imagines. Luther considered the Jews as he considered all people, according to how they received or rejected God’s word and gospel, which is the same thing that divides us in the eyes of the Lord (Lu. 12:51), and based on their treatment of their fellow man.

Luther expressly condemned ethnocentric prejudice

In this post, the page numbers in brackets refer to On the Jews and Their Lies as contained in volume 47 of the American edition of Luther’s Works. The page references are not exhaustive, since Luther often returned to discuss the same items several times in his book.

The truth is that Luther rejected any form of prejudice, hostility, or discrimination on ethnic grounds. This is why he condemned the Jews’ claim to divine favour on account of their race and lineage. He complained that, in their synagogues and around their dinner tables, following their religious liturgy, they regularly praised and thanked God that they were born Jews, not Gentiles. He called this carnal and arrogant. He also objected to the prayers of the men, who praised God because they were not born women. To disdain others on account of their natural attributes is to blaspheme God’s creation:

God has to endure that, in their synagogues, their prayers, songs, doctrines, and their whole life, they come and stand before him and plague him grievously (if I may speak of God in such a human fashion). Thus he must listen to their boasts and their praises to him for setting them apart from the Gentiles, for letting them be descended from the holy patriarchs, and for selecting them to be his holy and peculiar people, etc. And there is no limit and no end to this boasting about their descent and their physical birth from the fathers.

And to fill the measure of their raving, mad, and stupid folly, they boast and they thank God, in the first place because they were created as human beings and not as animals; in the second place because they are Israelites and not Goyim [Gentiles]; in the third place because they were created as males and not as females….

They have portrayed their Messiah to themselves as one who would strengthen and increase such carnal and arrogant error regarding nobility of blood and lineage. That is the same as saying that he should assist them in blaspheming God and in viewing his creatures with disdain, including the women, who are also human beings and the image of God as well as we; moreover, they are our own flesh and blood, such as mother, sister, daughter, housewives, etc. For in accordance with the aforementioned threefold song of praise, they do not hold Sarah (as a woman) to be as noble as Abraham (as a man).… But enough of this tomfoolery and trickery. (p140-42)

Luther wrote that both Gentiles and Jews “partake of one birth, one flesh and blood, [and] neither one can reproach or upbraid the other about some peculiarity without implicating himself at the same time” (p148). Further, we are all “lumped together” equally as sinners by nature and birth (ibid).

Therefore, on ethnic grounds Luther was not antisemitic and did not discriminate. But the Jews did discriminate on ethnic grounds – and the men on the grounds of gender.

Luther was not antisemitic, but he did oppose the anti-Christian teachings and practices of Judaism

To the extent that Luther’s quarrel with the Jews reached into the areas of religion and culture, it was due only to how their apostasy from God’s word manifested in these areas. It is inevitable that apostasy will manifest in religion and culture. This is true for Jew and non-Jew.

Luther learned about some of the religious issues he discussed in his book from converted Jews, including a former rabbi, Anthony Margaritha, who had written his own book to expose some very disturbing prayers and rituals of synagogue practice. I know it will shock many people to learn that these included prayers (which were later removed from the Jewish Talmud) for the stabbing and death of the Gentiles (p273). Luther rightly said such prayers were devilish and malicious. The Jews also regularly prayed for the overthrow of Germany and other nations so they could advance in dominion in the world (p264, 293, etc.), which they believed was God’s promise for them. Such goals obviously threatened national security, among other problems. (When the contents of the Talmud became more widely known to the authorities, the Jews, fearing for their own safety, expunged the worst prayers from it; however, when Luther lived they were still part of it. This is further discussed in my longer paper).

Luther also explained how, in addition to cursing their host country and the Gentiles, the Jews regularly cursed Jesus and his mother, the virgin Mary. They called Mary a whore who conceived Jesus in adultery with a blacksmith (p257). They perverted Jesus’ name in Hebrew; they shortened Yeshua to Yeshu so that it operated as a kind of secret curse that only they could understand, and they spit on the floor at the mention of this name (ibid). They called Jesus Hebel Vorik, which signified that he was the very embodiment of lying and deception (p284-85; more on this below). Further, when conversing with each other about Jesus, they said Delateatur nomen eius, which means “May God exterminate his name,” or “May all the devils take him” (p257).

The Jews also ritually cursed Christians. Luther explained,

They treat us Christians similarly in receiving us when we go to them. They pervert the words Seid Gott willkommen [literally, “Be welcome to God”] and say, Sched wil kem! which means: “Come, devil,” or “There comes a devil.” Since we are not conversant with the Hebrew, they can vent their wrath on us secretly. While we suppose that they are speaking kindly to us, they are calling down hellfire and every misfortune on our heads. (p257)

Again, Luther learned about these curses and rituals from converted Jews who were eye-witnesses to and former practitioners of them, including the former rabbi Anthony Margaritha.

The advice that has generated charges that Luther was antisemitic

On account of these “abominations,” as Luther called the rabbinic prayers and rituals, he said that if the Jews would not stop, their synagogues should be destroyed. This should be done not only for reasons of national security, but, perhaps more important to Luther, to demonstrate that Christians would not knowingly condone the public cursing of Christ. If Christians tolerated this when they had the power to prevent it, then they were participants in the abominations (p270). Luther said that, while inward belief could not be compelled, public blasphemy should be prevented if possible (p268f, 279f, etc.).

Further, Luther said that if the Jews would not reform, they should be expelled from the country and go back to Jerusalem, and their Talmuds and literature should be destroyed. He also said their homes should be burned down, which I found extreme, but then I learned that it was not a new idea: in former times, the authorities burned down the homes of serious offenders as a manifest sign and warning to others. This historical context explains Luther’s comment that the burning down of the homes of Jewish offenders was intended to “bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast” (p269). Also, expulsions were then common for treason or crime. The Jews themselves had Anthony Margaritha expelled from Augsburg for writing his book – hardly a crime! (These things are further discussed in my longer paper.)

Luther emphasized repeatedly that his purpose for these measures was to ensure that the German people did not, as he wrote, “become guilty sharers before God in the lies, the blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves” (p274). He had a keen sense of duty to avoid partaking in the sins of others – especially gross, persistent, open blasphemy against the Son of God:

If we permit them to do this where we are sovereign, and protect them to enable them to do so, then we are eternally damned together with them because of their sins and blasphemies, even if we in our persons are as holy as the prophets, apostles, or angels. …

They dub [Jesus] Hebel Vorik; that is, not merely a liar and a deceiver, but lying and deception itself, viler even than the devil. We Christians must not tolerate that they practice this in their public synagogues, in their books, and in their behavior, openly under our noses and within our hearing in our own country, houses, and regimes. If we do, we, together with the Jews and on their account, will lose God the Father and his dear Son, who purchased us at such cost with his holy blood, and we will be eternally lost, which God forbid.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter, but a most serious one, to seek counsel against this. (p284-85)

And so Luther advised the authorities to act forcefully to end the evil. However, he anticipated that they would not heed his advice. He wrote, “I observe and have often experienced how indulgent the perverted world is when it should be strict, and, conversely, how harsh it is when it should be merciful” (p276). Nonetheless, he said that he had spoken his mind fully and was thereby exonerated before God (p292).

But it is most important to note that Luther insisted the Jews must not be personally harmed. He wrote:

You, my dear gentleman and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners [to] be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. (p274)

Luther also never advised the authorities to harm the Jews personally, and he said no action against them should ever be taken from a spirit of vengeance (p268). Therefore, to accuse him of sowing the seeds of Nazism is absurd and slanderous. It is as facile to accuse him of fomenting Hitler’s evil as it is to blame Moses for the evils that men have wrought through misuse of the Bible.

Luther’s strong and sometimes intemperate language: Straining at gnats?

I acknowledge that Luther sometimes went far in using intemperate language in his book On the Jews and Their Lies, especially when writing about the ritual cursing. But I will leave it to God to judge if he went “too far,” as people say. When the Day of Judgement comes, we will learn the measure of God’s wrath against his servant Luther for his indignant and “vehement” speech, as well as the measure of his wrath against those who cursed his Son. I know I would rather be found on Luther’s side than on the side of those who cursed the Son. They definitely went too far.

Finally, the point should be made that Luther did not live in such a delicate age as we do; strong and unpleasant language was common in 16-century literature. The theory that illness or medication contributed to his irascibility is possible – I recall him lamenting in one of his later works that he was too often angry – but it ignores the gravity and severe provocation of the problems he was addressing. He was not wrong to be angry about them. To find fault with his language and overlook the terrible problems he was writing about is to strain at gnats and swallow a camel.

Luther’s other concerns

Luther addressed other rabbinical teachings and practices in his book, along with a fascinating and learned review of history – especially certain events of the first century, which he examined alongside messianic prophecy to show how rabbinic interpretations of history and Scripture do not add up. I learned a lot from his exposition of the prophecies in Daniel 9. He drew from a wealth of personal knowledge and study, and he possessed keen insight. After discussing the history of the Jews, their false interpretations of Scripture, their spiritual blindness, and the problems in the synagogues, he mourned:

The wrath of God has overtaken them. I am loathe to think of this, and it has not been a pleasant task for me to write this book, being obliged to resort now to anger, now to satire, in order to avert my eyes from the terrible picture which they present. It has pained me to mention their horrible blasphemy concerning our Lord and his dear mother, which we Christians are grieved to hear. I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans 10 when he says that he is saddened as he considers them. I think that every Christian experiences this when he reflects seriously, not on the temporal misfortunes and exile which the Jews bemoan, but on the fact that they are condemned to blaspheme, curse, and vilify God himself and all that is God’s, for their eternal damnation, and that they refuse to hear and acknowledge this, but regard all of their doings as zeal for God.

Oh God, heavenly Father, relent and let your wrath over them be sufficient and come to an end, for the sake of your dear Son. Amen.

Thus Luther’s true heart and prayer for the Jewish people.

Therefore, Luther was not antisemitic, but was motivated only by his love of God’s word and Son, and his love of truth and righteousness. He was motivated by these same things in all his writings, whether against the Jews, Turks, Roman Catholics, Arians, Sacramentarians, his fellow Germans, the peasant insurrectionists, or others. This is shown in my longer paper, Luther Was Not Antisemitic. My defence there – my longer answer to the question, was Luther antisemitic? – is structured around the horrid accusations against Luther made by the Concordia House editor Franklin Sherman in his introduction to On the Jews in volume 47 of Luther’s Works.

Sherman, a pro-Judaizing ecumenist, attacked Luther’s character, knowledge, and “thought,” as well as his supposed gullibility, superstitious beliefs, stereotypes, abusiveness, and negative attitude. He said Luther possessed an “immense capacity for hatred” and provided a prototype for Hitler’s “final solution.” He also defended the “merits” of Judaism while he never spoke well of Christianity; he even refused to acknowledge salvation by faith alone, which he presented as merely Luther’s view. Quoting from rabbinical sources that he preferred far above anything Luther ever wrote, Sherman went so far as to suggest Judaism was the “mother” of an ungrateful and unappreciative Christianity. He also repeatedly referred readers to sources that blamed Christians for the circumstances of the Jews throughout the New Testament age.

Sherman’s unfortunate influence can sometimes be seen in Lutheran circles, where people echo his accusations and say they wish Luther had never written On the Jews and Their Lies. But I for one am glad he wrote his book. I learned a lot from it – about history, about prophecy, about the Talmud, and more. It was an eye-opener.

********

Ruth Magnusson Davis. Blog post May 2021, Martin Luther Was Not Antisemitic: A Defence

Link to longer defence on Academia.edu, which can read as a pdf online or downloaded and printed.

Consider also our book, The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2, which shows how Lutheran the 1537 Matthew Bible was. It also highlights some little-understood differences between the early Lutherans and Calvinists in the 16th century. The Geneva Bible changed some translations, but especially the notes, to advance Calvinist and puritan doctrine and practice.

********

K.Ps. Was Luther antisemitic? Was Martin Luther antisemitic? Martin Luther Was Not Antisemitic

Christ Our Sin Offering and Passover Lamb: The Matthew Bible vs. the Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Compare

It is almost Easter in the church calendar, and time for the remembrance of how our Lord was offered up upon the cross for us. Here we see how the 1537 Matthew Bible taught this remembrance at 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 8:3, and contrast it with the different teaching in the Geneva Bible on these same verses. The difference arose in part from the Geneva re-interpretation of Paul’s mysterious saying, “Christ was made sin for us.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 – Christ was made sin for us (or, became sin for us)

In the Incarnation, God the Word took on flesh. This was a unique, momentous event in the history of the world and the universe. Now there was born the only one, the Messiah and Saviour, who could be the spotless lamb and acceptable offering to God to atone for the sin of man. Jesus was thus born the Christ, both Son of God and Son of man. For God ordained that, to save us from his eternal wrath for sin, the Messiah must be made man in the flesh and must bear our punishment in his flesh. Christ was thus born to offer himself the holy, fleshly sacrifice to atone for sin – a sin offering, as graphically foreshadowed by the fleshly sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Paul taught about Christ as the divine sin offering at 2 Corinthians 5:21, which says Christ was “made to be sin for us.” However, we cannot understand this unless we first understand the Hebrew idiom that Paul employed.

An idiom is a word used in a non-standard way – that is, idiomatically – in contexts where it takes a unique, figurative meaning.[1] Idioms can be impossible for people who are not native speakers of a language, or well advanced in it, to understand.[2] William Tyndale explained in several notes in his 1534 New Testament that, in Hebrew, sometimes the word “sin” was used idiomatically to mean a “sacrifice for sin” or a “sin offering.” This odd idiom was one of many that found its way into the Greek of the New Testament. Hebrew idioms adopted into Greek or other languages are called Hebraisms.

In the 1537 Matthew Bible, John Rogers added a note explaining the Hebraism “sin” as Paul used it in 2 Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 5:21, Matthew Bible: For he hath made him *to be sin for us, which knew no sin, that we by his means should be that righteousness which before God is allowed.

MB note: To be sin for us: that is to say, to be the sacrifice for our sins. “Sin” in the Scripture is sometimes taken for the sacrifice of sin.

In other words, Christ, who was without sin, was for our sakes made a sacrifice for sin and a sin offering.

The Matthew Bible interpretation of the idiom “sin” is orthodox and traditional. In the 5th century, St. Augustine wrote that in the Bible, “sacrifices for sins are named ‘sins,’ and the punishments of sins are sometimes called ‘sins.’”[3] It seems that in the early Reformation this idiom was well understood in English circles; I chanced, while writing this, to read the work of the little-known Reformer Richard Brightwell, an associate of John Frith, who noted that “sin [means] a sacrifice for our sin, and so is ‘sin’ taken in many places of the two Testaments.”[4] In more recent times, Bible commentator Adam Clarke confirmed that this Hebraism occurs in “a multitude” of places in the Scripture.[5]

Romans 8:3

Paul also used “sin” idiomatically in Romans 8:3. Here Rogers added another explanatory note, which he took from Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament:

Romans 8:3, Matthew Bible: For what the law could not do, inasmuch as it was weak because of the flesh, that performed God, and sent his son in the similitude of sinful flesh, and by *sin damned [punished] sin in the flesh …

MB note: Sin is taken here for a sin offering, after the use of the Hebrew tongue.

Therefore, fully translated and updated, Romans 8:3 means:

For what the law could not do inasmuch as it was weak because of the flesh, that God performed, and sent his Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, and by a sin offering punished sin in the flesh …

At Romans 8:3, Tyndale used the verb “damned” emphasizing chiefly the sense “punished.” In Early Modern English, the word “damned” took the sense condemned or sentenced to punishment, just as today we would speak of someone’s “damnation” meaning his eternal punishment. The idea of punishment was, therefore, an important component of the meaning. We might say that the divine sin offering was a punishment of sin sufficient for all eternity. Galatians 3:15, where Paul wrote that Christ was made accursed for us, is sometimes associated with the idea that Christ became sin for us, and in a note on verse 15 Tyndale explained that the meaning is, “he was punished and slain for our sins.”

Thus it was that Jesus was made sin for us: through the terrible punishment he took in his own flesh, he was made the holy sin offering foreshadowed in the Passover supper and temple sacrifices. (As he himself said, “This is my body, given for you.” Lu. 22:19, 1Co. 11:24.) This explanation is simple, clear, and manifestly biblical. It does not require tortuous mental gymnastics to understand. It is also the essential gospel.

But if we do not understand how Christ was made sin for us, we lose the gospel. And because this Hebraism is indeed not well understood today, we have lost the gospel at 2 Corinthians 5:21 and at Romans 8:3. This is partly due to the new translations and interpretations introduced in the Geneva Bible, particularly the 1599 edition.

The new Geneva commentaries on how Christ was made sin for us

The New Testament of the 1560 Geneva Bible was the work of the English Puritan William Whittingham. However, it was not his original work; Whittingham took William Tyndale’s translation and, under John Calvin’s oversight, revised it and added new commentaries, often bringing new teaching.[6] The 1599 Geneva Bible used Tomson’s revised New Testament,[7] being a later revision of Whittingham’s work, and brought more new teaching. 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 8:3 are examples of how, step by step, different doctrine was introduced, so that by 1599 the knowledge of the Hebraism “sin” was lost:

2 Corinthians 5:21 in the 1560 & 1599 Geneva Bible:  For he hath made him to be *sin for us, which knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him.

1560 note: That is, a sacrifice for sin.

1599 note: A sinner, not in himself, but by imputation of the guilt of all our sins to him.

Obviously the 1560 note agrees with Tyndale, though the translation was changed. However, in 1599 an entirely new commentary was introduced. A similar thing happened at Romans 8:3 (note, the brackets are original in the Geneva revision below):

Romans 8:3 in the 1560 & 1599 Geneva Bible: For (that that was impossible to the Law, inasmuch as it was weak, because of the flesh) God sending his own Son, in the similitude of (4)sinful flesh, and *for (5)sin, (6)condemned sin in the flesh  …

1560 note: *or, by sin.

1599 note 4: Of man’s nature which was corrupt through sin until he sanctified it.

1599 note 5: To abolish sin in our flesh.

1599 note 6: Showed that sin hath no right in us.

Much could be said on this, but I limit my comments to the six points below:

(1) Whittingham changed the preposition of agency (by sin) to a preposition of service (for sin). This made it difficult to understand that by a sin offering, sin was punished in the flesh, though the 1560 marginal note helped. (Modern Bibles handle this in a variety of ways.)

(2) Whittingham changed “damned” to “condemned.” This contributed to losing the sense “punished.”

(3) The editors of the 1599 Geneva Bible apparently rejected the traditional understanding of the Hebrew idiom – rejected it completely, deliberately, and silently. They did not openly refute it, nor mention it as an alternate interpretation. I have not seen where, in any other place in the 1599 Geneva version, the meaning of the Hebraism “sin” was acknowledged or taught. (If anyone finds it, please let me know.)

(4) Of particular concern, the 1599 GNV notes misrepresent the accomplishment and work of the cross. Especially, note 5 says Christ came to abolish sin in our flesh rather than to take our punishment for sin in his flesh. Among other problems – including the novel idea that sin can be eradicated from the flesh[8] – this confuses the offices of Christ and of the Holy Spirit; in particular, it confuses the propitiating work of Christ with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. On the cross, Jesus took our punishment in his flesh to appease the wrath of God and reconcile us to God: his work there was to take on himself the punishment of sin, not to sanctify us from sin. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, which follows after salvation and faith. Thus the Geneva Bible confused and even falsified the work and offices of the Persons of the Trinity – and in so doing, it manifestly changed the gospel.[9]

(5) Note 6 in the 1599 GNV twists the cross into a metaphor: the Lamb, his flesh torn and bleeding, dying as he hung on the cross to atone for our sins, was no sin sacrifice, but was showing that sin has “no right” in us. Again, this denies Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross, and it suppresses the meaning and significance of his self-offering. This flows from rejecting the traditional understanding of the Hebraism “sin.”

(6) It is very subtle, but note 6 also undermines the biblical understanding of the law, which says the disobedience of our first parents did indeed give sin “right” in us (to use the strange GNV terminology). Sin, and therefore death, were our parents’ due for their disobedience to God’s law and commandment, and are our due under the law as their heirs; thus sin does have “right” in us (though again, this is a strange way to speak about it). That is why we needed a saviour born under the law, who could redeem us from the law (Gal. 4:3-5). Therefore, note 6 is based on a premise that again changes the gospel, in that it changes the purpose and significance of Christ’s coming and work on the cross.

The last three points should cause any objective and biblically literate reader to wonder about the doctrine of the Geneva Bible. Indeed, a careful examination of the notes reveals that, in many essential respects, the Puritan commentaries, especially in 1599, taught another gospel than that taught in the Matthew Bible – so different, and in so many points, they cannot be reconciled. This is amply demonstrated in my new release, The Story of the Matthew Bible: Part 2, The Scriptures Then and Now, which looks at the different Geneva treatment of the New Covenant, the miracles of Christ and his other works, the church, and more. I have also blogged about the significant Geneva revisions to 1 Peter 1:13 here, which revisions led to the destruction of the doctrine of the revelation of Christ through preaching. God willing, I will also blog soon about how the Geneva Bible lost the gospel in the book of Job.

After I (R.M.D.) became aware that most moderns do not understand the Hebraism “Christ was made sin for us,” I emended later editions of the October Testament to give the idiomatic meaning plainly in the biblical text at 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 8:3. It needs to be clear in the text, not tucked away in a note. Some other modern Bibles have done the same, including the NASB and Christian Standard Bible; however, they kept the word “condemned” at Romans 8:3, which, in my view, muddies the water. The CSB has “He condemned sin in the flesh by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering.”

The final revision of Romans 8:3-4 in the October Testament (New Matthew Bible) is,

3For what the law could not do, inasmuch as it was weak because of the flesh, God has performed. He sent his Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, and by a sin offering punished sin in the flesh, 4so that the righteousness required by the law may be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

With the benefit of hindsight, Tyndale’s literal translations of the Hebraism “sin” were not the best choice. As he himself once wrote, “Words that are not understood, profit not.”

Ruth Magnusson Davis, blog post April 1 2021: William Tyndale on How Christ Was Made Sin for Us. The Matthew Bible vs. the Geneva Bible.

_____________________

[1] An idiom can be a word or a saying. Here we are dealing with just the word “sin” used idiomatically.

[2] I can testify to the difficulty of idioms for non-native speakers of a language. I studied civil law in Québec, Canada. I passed my days studying in the French language and I wrote exams in French. This was only a little more difficult for me than studying in English. However, if I went to a coffee shop I would be lucky to understand half of the conversation there. The difference was the local idioms, which I did not know. The French in my university environment was standard, international French.

[3]Augustine of Hippo, Against Lying: To Consentius, trans. Rev. H. Browne., ed. Philip Schaff (Charleston USA: no pub., facsimile, 2015), 40.

[4] Richard Brightwell, “A Pistle to the Christen Reader,” contained in The Revelation of Antichrist in The Works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, editor Thomas Russell, Vol. III (London: Ebenezer Palmer, 1831), 460.

[5] Adam Clarke wrote on Romans 8:3 that God in Christ “did that which the law could not do; i.e. purchased pardon for the sinner, and brought every believer into the favor of God. And this is effected by the incarnation of Christ: He, in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, a human body like ours, but not sinful as ours; and for sin, και περι ἁμαρτιας, and as a Sacrifice for Sin, (this is the sense of the word in a multitude of places), condemned sin in the flesh – condemned that to death and destruction which had condemned us to both.” (https://www.studylight.org/commentary/romans/8-3.html#verse-acc, accessed March 29, 2021.)

[6] The dramatic nature of the new commentaries in the Geneva Bible, both in 1560 and in 1599, is shown at length in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible: The Scriptures Then and Now.

[7] See the Tolle Lege edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible at page xxiv. No additional information about Tomson is given there. According to a Wikipedia article, he was Laurence Tomson, an English Calvinist, who published his first revision of the Geneva New Testament in 1576. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tomson, accessed March 29, 2021.)

[8] The Bible does not say sin can be abolished in the flesh, but that the flesh is in its very nature irremediably corrupt, and we must die to put on the incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:53). Further, it is not our flesh that is sanctified after salvation, but our life, spirit, and conscience. The flesh remains the flesh, and lusts against the spirit, as Paul said at Galatians 5:17. This is acknowledged in the 1599 GNV note on Galatians 5:17, which sets up an internal inconsistency in the commentaries.

[9] See also my paper, Christ Manifest vs. Christ Incarnate, in which I show how Calvin’s doctrine of the manifestation of Christ (as opposed to the Incarnation of Christ) changed the traditional understanding of Jesus’ office and work. Also, Calvin’s characterization of the Mosaic sacrifices as “shadowy observances” rather than “observances that foreshadowed” was one of several new interpretations that severed the all-important conceptual link between the Old Testament sacrifices and the sacrifice of the Son of God under the New Testament.

~~~~~~

KP. Christ was made sin for us, Christ became sin for us

“Unto” as a Nonce-word, and Why We Should Keep “Unto” in the Bible

Posted on by Posted in Ruth's Picks

“That day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)

The old English expression for the nonce means “for the present.” A nonce-word is a word that is used only for the nonce; that is, on a specific occasion or in one specific text or writer’s work.[1] In the context of that occasion, text, or work, it acquires a nonce-meaning, its own special meaning, which readers learn to understand.

The word “unto” has become something of a nonce-word in biblical use. In 1768, Samuel Johnson’s dictionary showed it as already obsolete, but it has continued in quasi nonce-use in the Bible and in related works and speech. However, we hear it less now, since modern Bible translators have substituted “for” or other words in its place.

There are people who say we should keep “unto” in the Bible. It is not just that they miss the old familiar phrasing, but they also know that “unto” conveyed a special meaning that is lost in the new translations. This meaning involves a fascinating grammatical concept called fusion with the object.[2] I will explain this, but first, to see an example of lost meaning, we will compare 1 Timothy 1:16 in The October Testament (the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible or NMB[3]), where we kept William Tyndale’s word “unto,” with some modern translations.

In 1 Timothy 1:16, Paul wrote that he, a notorious sinner, had received mercy from Jesus Christ:

NMB: as an example for those who will in time to come believe on him unto eternal life.

ESV: as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

NIV: as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

“Unto” conveys a unique meaning in the NMB, which is lost in the two modern versions.

(I note in passing that the ESV and NIV restrict this verse to the past, as if Paul was not to be an example for believers during the entire New Testament age. This is a significant change in meaning. The new meaning has nothing to do with a variant in the Greek manuscript used by the modern translators, but is a new interpretation.[4] This is the case with at least 98% of the losses and differences in meaning and doctrine in modern Bibles.[5])

About “unto” and fusion with the object

“Unto” is a preposition. A preposition is a word that is placed before a substantive (noun or pronoun) to show its relation to some other word or words in the sentence. The substantive is called the object of the preposition. In 1 Timothy 1:16, the substantive is (eternal) life, and it is the object of the preposition “unto,” where “unto” denotes the relation between believing on Jesus and eternal life.

But what relation does “unto” denote? The OED says “unto” was formed on the analogy of the word “until,” and it denotes motion directed towards and reaching (a place, point, or goal).[6] In other words, it expresses the concept of movement toward and finally reaching the object, the substantive. This is the concept that grammarians call “fusion with the object.” See how this works:

► [Paul is an example] for those who will in time to come believe on Jesus (related words) unto eternal life (object, substantive).

“Unto” expresses the idea that believing on Jesus begins motion toward and reaches the object, eternal life. In grammatical jargon, this is fusion with the object.

In 1 Timothy, some translators updated “unto” to “to.” Darby put, “those about to believe on him to life eternal.” However, in my view “unto” expresses the idea of movement “until” the object more emphatically. It has acquired – or with familiarity, does acquire – this unique, emphatic nonce-meaning, but “to” does not convey the idea as well.

Why we should keep “unto” in the Bible

The concept of fusion with the object, which is so well denoted by “unto,” teaches about spiritual things. In 1 Timothy 1:16 it teaches about the process and progress of faith, which finally attains to eternal life. In other verses, it teaches about the progress of the soul toward its eternal reward, as in “repentance unto salvation” (2Co. 7:10), or about the consequences of sin, as in “the sin unto death” (1Jo. 5:16). What a person does, believes, gives himself to, takes pleasure in, etc., propels him along a path that will reach (fuse with) good or evil in eternity.

“Unto” also teaches about the relation of believers as one with God in the Holy Trinity – our fusion with God, as it were, in and through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is attained in oneness with the trinitarian God. Jesus alluded to this when he prayed for His disciples that “they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they may also be one in Us” (John 17:21). “Unto” conveys the idea of oneness with the divine in and through Christ. Myles Coverdale referred to this oneness as an “incorporation” into Christ’s body, and by him into the Holy Trinity, wherein only can man attain to eternal life.[7]

The importance of understanding what it is to be “in Christ”

The concept of fusion with the object – that is, with God through Christ – enhances our understanding of our position in Christ and of what it means to be “in Christ,” as Paul often spoke of salvation. The following quotations are from The October Testament (NMB):

Romans 3:24 – We are justified … through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:1 – There is then no damnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 16:7 – Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, who were … in Christ before me. (Ro. 16:7)

The idea of being in Christ is mysterious, but is clearly taught in the New Testament. The apostle John said in his divine and inspired words:

He who believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself. … And this is that testimony: that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life, and he who does not have the Son does not have life. … We know that we are of God, and that the world is altogether set on wickedness. We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us a mind to know him who is true. And we are in him who is true through his Son Jesus Christ. This same is very God and eternal life. (1John 5:10,11-12,20, NMB)

Understanding our position in Christ, who is very God and eternal life, helps us understand the Holy Trinity, how God is known, the glory of salvation, how it is that we do not belong to this world but in another world, and much more. It helps us discern the body of Christ when we approach unto God in Holy Communion (1Co. 11:29). “Unto” is the right word to build understanding of these holy mysteries, and, also, to move the spirit to wonder and praise for what Jesus Christ accomplished for us through his cross.

A very important little preposition: We should keep “unto” in the Bible

Who could have imagined that so much doctrine, so much meaning, could be packed into one little preposition? However, it is lost if we substitute other words. In the ESV, the preposition “for” in 1 Timothy 1:16 indicates a relation of purpose, not progress and fusion. The NIV paraphrase also brings a different message: it says only that those who believe on Jesus will (or rather “would,” past tense) receive eternal life. There is no sense of process or progress towards, or growth into, the object.

The Greek preposition that Tyndale translated “unto” in 1 Timothy 1:16 is εις (or eis, pronounced “ice”). Strong defines εις as meaning to or into, indicating an object “reached or entered.”[8] Thus it denotes fusion with the object, exactly like “unto” does. Tyndale’s translation was faithful to this meaning.

There are many good reasons to keep “unto” in the Bible as a nonce-word. To use other prepositions changes the meaning, while an update to the modern “to” – especially in the context of our relation to the divine – gives a weaker and unnatural result.

Below are three examples showing how well “unto” conveys spiritual teaching:

John 4:36

NMB: He who reaps receives reward, and gathers fruit unto life eternal.

ESV: Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life.

NIV: Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life.

Such different translations! In the ESV, it appears the translator rendered the Greek aorist verbs literally to convey sense of process that was lost by translating εις as “for.” However, the result is unnatural. “Unto” works well in nonce-use.

(I note also that both the NIV and ESV refer to “wages” instead of “reward.” This is too concrete and worldly when speaking of spiritual things. It is another change that had nothing to do with the Greek manuscript.)

2 Corinthians 7:10

NMB: Godly sorrow causes repentance unto salvation, not to be regretted, while worldly sorrow causes death.

ESV: For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Here the ESV expressed the idea of the Greek preposition εις by a paraphrase. However, a subtle difference in meaning remains. The preposition “unto” indicates that repentance reaches salvation; however, the verb phrase “leads to” suggests it only puts one on the road to salvation. It does not convey the same relation.

It is interesting to see John Wycliffe’s 14th century translation, which to my mind conveys the meaning of the verse better than the 21st century ESV. (Note, in older English “penance” meant repentance and “health” meant salvation):

WYC: For the sorrow that is after God, worketh penance into steadfast health; but sorrow of the world worketh death.

1 Peter 1:3-9

The following beautiful passage from the apostle Peter speaks of the beginning and the end of our faith, and illustrates how “unto” conveys the spiritual meaning:

Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who through his abundant mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death, to enjoy an inheritance immortal and undefiled, and that does not perish, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Which salvation is prepared all ready to be shown in the last time – in which time you will rejoice, though now for a season (if need require) you are in heaviness through manifold trials, so that your faith, once tried, being much more precious than gold that perishes (though it be tried with fire), may be found to laud, glory, and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ – whom you have not seen, and yet love him; in whom even now, though you see him not, yet you do believe, and rejoice with joy inexpressible and glorious, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (NMB)

In conclusion, “unto” has a nonce-meaning, a spiritual meaning, that is instructive for the Christian faith and is easily understood. The concept of fusion with the object teaches about salvation and about our relation with the divine through Christ. These are good reasons to keep “unto” in the Bible.

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” (Ephesians 5:30)

“The glory that you gave me, I have given them, so that they may be one as we are one, I in them and you in me, so that they may be made perfect in one.” (John 17:22-23)

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March 2021.

—————

Blog post, baruchhousepublishing.com. “Unto” as a Nonce-word, and Why We Should Keep “Unto” in the Bible.

For real grammar buffs, see “Understanding ‘Like Unto’ in William Tyndale’s Writing”

See also this article on Tyndale Complains about Revisions to his Scripture Translations

———-ENDNOTES———

[1] OED online, s.v. “nonce,” noun, entry I.1.a. Only subscribers have access to the online OED.

[2] More correctly, “fusion with the dative,” because the object is in the dative case. It is also called “blending with the dative.”

[3] The New Matthew Bible is published by Baruch House Publishing. It is the chief work of the New Matthew Bible Project, dedicated to gently updating the 1537 Matthew Bible (MB) for today. This study of “unto” illustrates why an update should be gentle.

The MB was the work of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, the translators, and their friend John Rogers, who compiled their work, added study notes, and published the MB in 1537. King Henry VIII then licensed the MB for use in the Church. It went on to serve as the (unacknowledged) base of the Great, Geneva, and King James Bibles, so readers will find much that is familiar in it.

In 2016, Baruch House published the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible as The October Testament. Work on the Old Testament is underway.

[4] For Greek text comparisons, for the RT I use Scrivener’s text as set out in Green, Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English, 2nd edition (USA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986). For CT Bibles I use the Nestle Greek New Testament set out in Zondervan’s Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, ed. Alfred Marshall (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975).

[5] The many changes in modern Bibles are discussed, with examples, in The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2: The Scriptures Then and Now (Canada: Baruch House Publishing, 2020).

[6] OED online, s.v. “unto” preposition, entry A.I.1.a.

[7] Baruch House will publish Coverdale’s treatise Fruitful Lessons before the summer of 2021 (God willing). This is only one of his works containing teaching about the incorporation of the believer into Christ and, through Him, into the Holy Trinity.

[8] Strong’s Concordance, s.v. εις, entry 1519 in the Greek lexicon.

William Tyndale on Antichrist: Who Is He?

Posted on by Posted in William Tyndale

The teaching of William Tyndale on Antichrist is scattered throughout his writings, but the most succinct was this passage from Parable of the Wicked Mammon:

Mark this also above all things – that Antichrist is not an outward thing, that is to say, a man that should suddenly appear with wonders, as our fathers talked of him. No, verily; for Antichrist is a spiritual thing. And is as much to say as Against-Christ; that is, one that preacheth false doctrine, contrary to Christ.

Antichrist was in the Old Testament, and fought with the prophets. He was also in the time of Christ and the apostles, as thou readest in the epistles of John, and of Paul to the Corinthians and Galatians, and other epistles. Antichrist is now, and shall, I doubt not, endure till the world’s end. But his nature is (when he is revealed and overcome with the word of God) to go out of play for a season, and to disguise himself, and then to come in again with a new name and new raiment. As thou seest how Christ rebuketh the scribes and the Pharisees in the gospel (who were very Antichrists), saying, “Woe be to you, Pharisees, for ye rob widows’ houses; ye pray long prayers under a colour; ye shut up the kingdom of heaven, and do not allow those who would to enter in; ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye make men break God’s commandments with your traditions [precepts]; ye beguile the people with hypocrisy,” and such like. Which things all our prelates do, but have yet gotten themselves new names and other garments, and are otherwise disguised.

There is a difference in the names between a pope, a cardinal, a bishop, and so forth, and to say a scribe, a Pharisee, an elder and so forth; but the thing is all one. Even so now, when we have exposed him, he will change himself once more, and turn himself into an angel of light.[1]

Four points may be taken from the teaching of William Tyndale on Antichrist:

(1) Antichrist is a spiritual thing.

Antichrist is an evil spirit, the spirit of Satan, Christ’s adversary. Therefore, Antichrist is not a particular man, though he is personified in false teachers, and particularly in pre-eminent ones. Tyndale and other Reformers often referred to the pope as Antichrist, and in the quotation above, Tyndale called the Pharisees “very Antichrists.”

(2) Antichrist is now. The spirit works wherever and whenever he can through false teachers.

The work of Antichrist is always the same: to preach against the doctrine of Christ. In related writings, Tyndale elaborated that Antichrist suppresses the sacraments, and that he seeks authority and pre-eminence in the Church. He is also a persecutor. These are the things that Antichrist does.

It was obviously important in the teaching of William Tyndale on Antichrist to dispel the false idea that he was a future man. If we believe this, we will miss Antichrist now: we will be asleep, not watching, not even believing that he might presently be among us as a false teacher or prophet. Tyndale warned:

That Against-Christ or Antichrist that shall come is nothing but such false prophets as shall juggle with the Scripture and beguile the people with false interpretations, as all the false prophets, scribes, and Pharisees did in the Old Testament.[2]

John Rogers echoed William Tyndale on Antichrist in his note on 1 John 4 in the Matthew Bible:

Antichrist signifieth not any particular man, which (as the people dream) should come in the end of the world. For ye see that even in St. John’s time he was already come. But all who teach false doctrine contrary to the word of God are Antichrists.

(3) Antichrist goes out of play and then comes in again.

There are seasons when Antichrist has greater or lesser power. In his preface to the New Testament, Tyndale wrote that as it had gone under the Old Covenant, so would it go under the New: Antichrist would have seasons of power when the light of God’s word would be darkened. Before the Reformation, Antichrist had been entrenched in power in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. Tyndale prophesied that after the Reformation, he would return. This brings us to the fourth point.

(4) Antichrist was bound to come on the heels of the Reformation in a new disguise.

Tyndale foresaw that after Antichrist had been exposed in the Roman Church and people had the Bible in their own languages, he would disguise himself with new names and garb, pose as an angel of light with appearances of righteousness, and begin again to darken the word and truth of God. This has occurred through various means. It has come to pass that the pure word has been almost destroyed in some of the worst modern Bibles, and many modern churches or denominations are completely apostate.[3] This is the very work of Antichrist, the false angel of light, who is gaining power as modern apostasy grows. Indeed, Antichrist is now revealed in this apostasy, for those who have eyes to see.

For a in-depth (10 pages) examination of Tyndale’s teaching about Antichrist and his translation of 2 Thessalonians 2, see Tyndale’s Doctrine of Antichrist. This paper compares Tyndale’s teaching with other views prominent today or in the past, including the Orthodox Church’s teaching, Puritan teaching from the 16th-17th century, and modern evangelical beliefs.

RMD, Feb 2021

___________________

[1] William Tyndale, Parable of the Wicked Mammon, (Facsimile; no pl.: Benediction Books), 4-5. (Updated: ‘suffer’ to ‘allow’ with syntax, ‘uttered’ to ‘revealed’ and ‘exposed,’ ‘which’ to ‘who,’ ‘them’ to ‘themselves,’ ‘senior’ to ‘elder.’)

[2] Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, ed. David Daniell (London: Penguin Books, 2000), 17.

[3] Modern Bible versions, along with the history of translation of 2 Thessalonians 2 on Antichrist from the revisions in the Geneva Bible onward, are reviewed in chapter 23 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2, our new release. Here is a link to buy it on Amazon USA

Pentecost: Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale

Posted on by Posted in Ruth's Picks

In about the year 1540, the English Reformer Myles Coverdale published a treatise called Fruitful Lessons. In it he expounded the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the sending of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. It is a book that makes the believer’s heart rejoice for its knowledge, reverence, and depth of spiritual wisdom.

Chapter 5 of Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale was about the sending of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2:1-4. Coverdale began by setting forth the verses from Acts, which he took from the 1539/1540 Great Bible. He then explained the significance of the events described: why the pouring out of the Spirit happened when it did (on the fiftieth day after the death of Christ), why it happened where it did, and more. Below are excerpts from Coverdale’s lesson on Acts 2:1-4. I have updated some of the obsolete English, including putting “Holy Spirit” where he had “Holy Ghost.”

From Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale: His lesson on Pentecost:

Acts 2:1-4: When the fifty days were come to an end, they were all with one accord together in one place; and suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as it had been the coming of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they sat. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like fire, and they sat upon each one of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, even as the same Spirit gave them utterance.

Doctrine and Fruit

The evangelist makes mention here of “the fiftieth day” upon which this great wonder was done. In this there lies hidden a notable mystery. The Jews, from the day that they offered the Passover lamb, counted fifty days, and upon the fiftieth day was the Feast of Weeks. In this feast they kept holy day, offering unto God a willing sacrifice of the firstfruits, after they had cut them down. We begin to count from the resurrection of Christ, our Passover Lamb, who also was offered up. Upon the fiftieth day, when the fruits began now to be ripe and were ready to be reaped, the harvest also being great and the laborers few, then God sent his Holy Spirit to prepare and equip the disciples, so that from amongst the heathen they could gather fruit together unto the Lord.

And as beforetime, when the children of Israel were departed out of Egypt the law was given to the people on the fiftieth day, so it was fitting that upon the fiftieth day the Holy Spirit should be given to the disciples – which Holy Spirit is both an interpreter and fulfiller of the law.

The place where the Holy Spirit was given is Zion, for there Christ commanded his disciples to wait, and from that place the law of God should, according to the saying of the prophets, proceed forth into the whole world. Therefore, like aforetime the law was given on Mount Sinai, even so was the Spirit given up on Mount Zion.

Upon Sinai did God at that time, with some terrible things, declare his might and power, his plagues also, and vengeance, which would fall upon those who scorned his law; and therefore was there such fearfulness through lightnings, thunderings, and other such terrible things. Here there is heard a noise, mighty and vehement, but not horrible and fearful – in which wind is signified that the doctrine of the Spirit should speedily and with power break in through the world and bring fruit; and that no man would be so strong as to hinder the strength of it, even as the wind in its course can by no man be kept back.

Whereas fiery tongues do appear and are seen, it signifies the manifold speeches and instruction that the Spirit gives to Christ’s disciples. It also signifies the zeal and ferventness that he works in their hearts, making them altogether fire, and kindling them in such sort that even their words are fervent, and pierce afterwards into the hearts of others. All weakness, fear, and coldness he removes out of them, so that they are not afraid to manfully step forth before all the people, although not long before they dared not stay with, but fled from the Lord. Now they confess him to be the Savior of all the world, whom they before had denied.

Whereas the tongues were divided, it signifies the diversity of the gifts of the Spirit. Christ promised in Mark 16 that they would “speak with other tongues,” or with a new speech or language. This promise is now performed in them. … How else could the apostles have been instructors of the whole world, if the Spirit had not taught them the diversity of tongues?

… The tongues of Christian men ought to be adorned with gentleness and with the Holy Spirit, so that no foul or wanton talk proceeds out of their mouth. The tongues that pronounce and confess Christ the eternal Truth, and his sincere Spirit, must not lie, neither speak any unclean, hurtful, or venomous thing. For to all such speech the Spirit is an enemy. Therefore they are not fleshly, but fire in spiritual tongues, out of which the fire of the Spirit has consumed all moisture of worldly and carnal wantonness, and God with his own love has kindled them. …

… Immediately after the resurrection, he breathes upon his disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit, to show that he is the same One who at the beginning created our nature and sealed it with his Spirit, and that it is he who now, in the beginning of a new life, must by his Spirit renew and restore our decayed nature again…

[And] immediately after this, he ascended up into heaven, to show to them that he was the Lord of all things. [Then], out of the high and real throne, where he sits at the right hand of God his Father, Christ the eternal King sent down his Holy Spirit upon all flesh, so that we by him may obtain the old innocency and salvation again; and so that the image of God, stained and defiled by sin, can be restored to us; and so that we might thus become partakers of eternal life.

… Come, O Holy Spirit, replenish the hearts of thy faithful believers, enkindle in them the fire of thy love, thou that through manifold tongues hast gathered together all the nations of the heathen in unity of faith. O take all dissension and discord out of thy holy church, and make us to be of one mind in unfeigned love, without which we cannot please thee.

[From Myles Coverdale, “Fruitful Lessons,” c. 1540, in Writings and Translations of Miles Coverdale, editor George Pearson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), 387-388, 392-393.]

Baruch House will soon be re-publishing a facsimile of the Parker Society’s edition of  Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale. Though Coverdale’s English was remarkably modern compared to other writers of his time, our edition will include a glossary of words that are likely to cause difficulty. Below is a sneak preview of our cover.

Coverdale was co-translator of the 1537 Matthew Bible along with William Tyndale. The story of his amazing contribution to the English Bible is in our book, The Story of the Matthew Bible: That Which We First Received.  To purchase on Amazon USA, click here

Ruth Magnusson Davis, Feb 9, 2021

Jerome Bolsec’s Unhappy Christmas in Geneva, or, When It Is Wrong to Preach on Predestination, Even if It Be True

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

One ill-fated day in Geneva, in the autumn of the year 1551, a  man named Jerome Bolsec rose up at the conclusion of a religious meeting and objected to the preaching on predestination that he had heard that day. Some historians indicate that this occurred in John Calvin’s own church, however it was another man who delivered the sermon that day. The custom was to allow discussion about the sermon topic after the conclusion of the service.

Bolsec was a French refugee who had settled in Geneva and worked as a physician. However, he rejected Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, and he believed that it is wrong to preach on predestination as was done in Geneva. This day he could tolerate it no more. Apparently he thought Calvin was out of town, but in fact Calvin had just returned from a trip and was sitting at the back of the congregation. As the historian Mosheim put it, “[Bolsec’s] imprudence was great … It led him … to lift up his voice in the full congregation after the conclusion of divine worship…”[1]

The Geneva magistrates arrested Bolsec for his outburst and cast him into prison. Hoping to demonstrate the correctness of their doctrine and the unity of Swiss Protestants, they sent a letter about the Bolsec matter to the ministers at Basel, Zurich, and the canton of Bern. However, the responses were disappointing to Calvin. Doctrinal support was tepid, and the advice was to be lenient with Bolsec.

But the magistrates pursued their course. They charged Bolsec with attacking the religious establishment of Geneva and bringing scurrilous charges against its doctrine. The trial and prosecution proceeded, and on December 23, 1551 – just in time for Christmas – the physician was permanently banished from Geneva.

The gentlemen of Bern wrote that it is unnecessary and inadvisable to preach on predestination

It seems that the Bolsec matter, and the question of whether it is right or wrong to preach predestination, engendered much debate among the Protestant churches. Some time afterward, the ministers of Bern wrote:

There have been various disputes in the canton of Bern on the question of predestination. Many ministers have spoken against Calvin’s view, and accuse him of making God the author of sin. This caused the gentlemen of Geneva to send to Bern, and Calvin was one of the delegates.

But the gentlemen of Bern did not wish to take any part in these disputes. They said simply that they would exhort their ministers to speak with reserve on these matters. And they also exhorted the Genevans to speak but little, and with great circumspection, on the issues raised, like predestination, the knowledge of which is not at all necessary to salvation, and which are not good for anything but engendering doubts; that it is not to man to enquire into the secrets of God; that the more one digs, the more one finds the impenetrable; that they wish neither to affirm nor condemn the writings and doctrine of Calvin, but that they wish to deter people from disputing on these matters in their country.[2]

Following this, an edict was passed in Bern to restrict the preaching of predestination in the churches. [3]

Luther, Cranmer, and Tyndale accepted the truth of predestination, but indicated also that it is not a suitable topic for common preaching

The position of the ministers at Bern was similar to that of Martin Luther, who, though he did affirm predestination, discouraged enquiring into the hidden decrees of God. He urged people simply to cling to the revealed Jesus. Likewise Thomas Cranmer’s 1553 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, published less than two years after the Bolsec affair, said that it is wrong to preach predestination and election to the common people, because to hold these difficult doctrines before their eyes casts them into despair and doubt, and even into sin:

Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election, 1553 Articles of Religion of the Church of England: Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his own judgement, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ …

As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ … so for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil may thrust them either into desperation, or into a recklessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, although the decrees of predestination are unknown to us, we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.

Common sense tells us that desperation, disbelief, offence, confusion, and more will be the results of preaching predestination to the masses. This is true especially in a national church such as Calvin’s was, and as was also the Church of England. To such churches a multitude of people from every walk of life came every Sunday – many of whom, according to Calvin’s own doctrine, were not among the elect. Even worse, in Geneva church attendance was compulsory, and many avowed unbelievers were forced grudgingly into the pews. In The Story of the Matthew Bible Part 2 I discuss the case of Jacques Gruet, an unbeliever who was beheaded after pinning a defiant note to Calvin’s pulpit.[4] What gratuitous folly it is to preach to such people that they cannot choose God, and therefore they are going to hell for eternity if they are not among the elect! This only pleases the devil.

The fact is that such preaching does not proclaim the gospel: it will not save a single soul. It will only work against the gospel, because it will cause people to condemn God or the church, and it will work desperation or recklessness, as Cranmer warned in Article 17, and it will engender needless disputes, as the gentlemen of Bern warned. Jerome Bolsec’s unhappy Christmas proves the truth of these things.

As Tyndale said in his prologue to Romans – which he took largely from Luther, and which therefore expresses also Luther’s mind – the question of predestination is for mature Christians only:

In [Romans 9-11] Paul treats of God’s predestination, by which is determined entirely whether we will believe or not believe, be set free from sin or not be set free, and by which our justification and salvation are taken completely out of our hands and put in the hands of God alone. And this is most necessary, because we are so weak and so uncertain. If it depended on us, there would of a truth be no one saved; the devil would surely deceive and overcome us…

But follow the order of this epistle. First, make Christ your study and concern. Learn what the law and the gospel are, and the office of both, so that you may in the one know yourself, that you have of yourself no strength but to sin, and in the other know the grace of Christ. And then see that you fight against sin and the flesh, as the first seven chapters teach you. After that, when you come to the eighth chapter, and are under the cross and suffering of tribulation, the necessity of predestination will be sweet, and you will feel how precious a thing it is.

For unless you have borne the cross of adversity and temptation, and have felt yourself brought to the very brim of desperation, yea and to hell’s gates, you cannot come to grips with the doctrine of predestination. For it will not be possible for you to think that God is righteous and just. Therefore the old Adam must be well mortified, and fleshly reason destroyed, before you can accept and drink such strong wine. Take heed to yourself therefore, not to drink wine while you are yet but a babe. For all learning is progressive, and has its time, measure, and age. In Christ there is a certain childhood in which one must be content with milk for a season, until he or she is stronger and able to eat stronger meat.[5]

If the doctrine of predestination is not for young believers, it is assuredly not for the general congregation. The wise person will be as humble and circumspect as the gentlemen of Bern in approaching such deep mysteries.[6] However, we are commanded to preach freely to all creatures the joyous message of the mercy and grace that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, and that will assuredly please God.

R Magnusson Davis, Christmas 2020

*********

[1] John Lawrence Mosheim, translator Archibald Maclaine, An Ecclesiastical History: Ancient and Modern, from the Birth of Christ, to the Beginning of the Present Century: In Which the Rise, Progress, and Variations of Church Power are Considered… By the Late Learned John Lawrence Mosheim, D.D., 1768. In Five Volumes. Volume IV, p.125 ff.

[2] This is my (Ruth’s) translation from the old French as given in Richard Laurence, An Attempt to Illustrate Those Articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists Improperly Consider as Calvinistical, 4th edition (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1853), p. 243. For what it is worth, I believe Laurence misunderstands Article 17 of the Articles of Religion, though his historical review is interesting.

[3] Ibid p. 244.

[4] See Appendix E of Story Part 2.

[5] Tyndale’s prologue can be viewed here on the New Matthew Bible Project website.

[6] I have not even attempted to enquire how Calvin differed from Luther and others in the substance of his doctrine. Regardless, the conclusion about whether it is right or wrong to preach on predestination holds true.

When All the People Are Evil: The Example of Sodom

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

Chapter 18 of the book of Genesis contains the incredible story of when the Lord and his angels visited and spoke with Abraham. At that meeting, the Lord warned Abraham about the pending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I was fascinated to see how William Tyndale’s translation of verse 21 made the meaning come alive. However, first it is necessary to understand his obsolete English!

It all hinges on a word or two

The meaning of the word altogether is the issue. See Genesis 18:21 in the New King James Version:

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it.”

The NKJV kept the word altogether as it had been used in the 1611 KJV. In accordance with modern English, this verse is now understood as if the Lord were saying that he would see if the sin of the city was entirely according to the outcry against it. Many modern versions paraphrase:

NIV: I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.

NLV: I will now go down and see if they have done as much wrong as the cry against them has told Me they have.

According to the modern translations, the Lord was speaking about the nature or extent of the Sodomites’ sin. Then follow Abraham’s plaintive questions: Would the Lord spare the city if there were fifty righteous people in it, or forty-five … or even only ten?

However, Tyndale’s translation in the Matthew Bible gives another meaning at verse 21. My first clue was the different spelling. In the MB it says “all together,” not “altogether.” This does not mean that the nature or extent of Sodom’s sin was in question, but, rather, the extent of the people’s involvement: were they all guilty, all involved together? Every one of them? Understood this way, Abraham’s questions now follow quite logically: But Lord, what if there are in fact fifty, or even ten righteous?

Here is how the passage reads in the Matthew Bible:

And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceeding grievous. I will go down and see whether they have done all together according to that cry which is come unto me or not…. But Abraham stood yet before the Lord, and drew near and said, Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? If there be fifty righteous within the city, wilt thou destroy it, and not spare the place for the sake of fifty righteous that are therein?

After Abraham’s questions the Lord answered, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, I will spare all the place for their sakes [etc.]” In other words, if the people were not all together evil, the Lord would not destroy the city.

Understanding the obsolete English usage

In older English, all together was sometimes merged to make one word: altogether. The same was done with shall be, which was sometimes merged to make shalbe. This usage is now obsolete, but it was still current when the KJV was made. Therefore, it is possible that the meaning “all together” was in the minds of the KJV translators. But, in any case, modern readers who are unaware of the obsolete use – or modern translators who are guided by the old English, perhaps more than they would like to admit, and who are also unaware of the obsolete use – can only understand verse 21 as paraphrased in the NIV and NLV.

The online Oxford English Dictionary confirms the obsolete meaning of the merged form altogether, with examples showing how it was used:

Altogether: Acting at the same time or in unison.

Quotations:

1616 (W. Shakespeare Comedy of Errors) “Then altogether they fell upon me.” (= all together)

1787 (Gentleman’s Mag.) “On the Coryphæus it depended..that the chorus altogether should symphonize.” (= all together)

1820 (S. Urban Gentleman’s Mag.)  “They went altogether to the stable in Cato-street.” (= all together)

These quotations make it perfectly clear that the correct meaning is derived simply by spelling out the constituent parts in full.

Both the modern and the Matthew Bible renderings of Genesis 18:21 may be plausible, but Tyndale’s is more fitting because Abraham’s questions flow more naturally in the context. To my mind, this is just one more example of the value and importance of mining the Matthew Bible for its treasures, which lie buried beneath almost five centuries of linguistic change.

R.M.D.

****

See how beautifully Tyndale translated the New Testament, and how our update of the older English makes the meaning come alive in The October Testament, the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible.

Who Were the “Souls” with Abraham When He Left Haran (Genesis 12:5)?

Posted on by Posted in Compare

John Rogers’ note on Genesis 12:5 helps the reader understand who the “souls” were that made up the convoy of Abraham’s household when he left Haran with Sarah and Lot, in the time that they set out for Canaan. However, Rogers’ understanding, which is also that of the Wycliffe, Coverdale, and Great Bibles, has been changed since revisions made in the Geneva Bible.

Genesis 12:5 in the Matthew Bible, which is William Tyndale’s translation, says:

And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, with all their goods which they had gotten, and souls which they had begotten in Haran. And they departed to go into the land of Canaan.

I always understood these “begotten souls” to be people born in Abram’s (i.e. Abraham’s) household; that is, his servants, herdsmen, shepherds, etc. They grew, married, and bore their own children, thus steadily increasing the size of his house.

Three other early English Bibles read like the Matthew Bible:

Wycliffe 1380: And he took Sarai his wife, and Lot, the son of his brother, and all the substance which they had in possession, and the men which they had begotten in Haran.

Coverdale 1535: So Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, with all their goods which they had gotten, and souls which they begat in Haran, and departed.

Great Bible 1540: And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had in possession, and the souls that they had begotten in Haran.

Wycliffe’s translation most clearly shows that the “souls” were people in Abraham’s house (‘men’ = ‘people’ generally in Old English). Rogers agreed with Wycliffe and clarified in a note:

MB note on Genesis 12:5: Souls here are taken for his servants and maidens, who were very many, as you may see in Genesis 14:14.

And what about Genesis 14:14? It describes how Abraham rescued Lot from the heathen kings, and confirms that his servants were indeed born in – that is, begotten in – his house:

When Abram heard that his brother was taken, he harnessed [armed] his servants born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and followed till they came at Dan.

Of course, the servants that Abraham armed for battle would have been males. Three hundred and eighteen is a lot of them. Many would have had their own wives and children, thus making Abraham’s household very great indeed.

This, then, was the understanding of the Lollard and Reformation Bibles. But with the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translation and the commentary were changed – not greatly, but nonetheless they did bring a different message.

The Geneva revision

The Geneva Bible was the work of early Puritans in Geneva. Under the oversight of John Calvin they took and greatly revised William Tyndale’s New Testament as well as the Old Testament of the Great Bible. Below we see what they did at Genesis 12:5. Their revision was introduced in the 1560 edition and retained in 1599. Note, in Early Modern English the term “cattle” meant all livestock and beasts of pasture, including oxen, camels, sheep, and goats:

Genesis 12:5, GNV: Then Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they possessed, and the *souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they departed, to go to the land of Canaan.

GNV note: *Meaning as well servants as cattle.

The Geneva version changed the meaning from souls born in Abram’s household – a natural increase – to souls acquired by him. This suggests buying and selling. That this did occur at times is certain: the buying of servants is referred to in Genesis 17. So I do not and cannot say that it is wrong. But the emphasis is different. Further, the identity of the “souls” was changed to include oxen, camels, and goats along with the servants, which somewhat demeans the servants.

Some might point to the fact that the Hebrew usually translated “beget” in the Old Testament (yaw-lad) is a different word than was used in Genesis 12:5 (aw-saw). They will point to the narrow definition of aw-saw in Strong’s However, Hebrew scholar Gesenius, though he does not acknowledge the strict sense “beget,” says aw-saw can mean that which is produced by the body. In any case, both Strong and Gesenius were among the higher critics who rejected several traditional doctrines and teachings of Christianity, and they are not always reliable (see my paper What Happened to Hell?). Further, I have many times observed that William Tyndale’s insight into the polysemy (many meanings) of ancient Hebrew and Greek words was superior to those of later scholars. If he were here, I know he could defend his translation.Therefore, while “gotten” is no doubt a defensible translation (the KJV also has it), so is “begotten.” Further, “begotten” is consistent with Genesis 14:14.

Lastly, it is true that “begotten” formerly had the sense “acquired” or “gotten.” However, this was obviously not how Rogers understood it, since he explained in his note that it referred to servants “born in” the household, as stated in Genesis 14:14.

Therefore, in good conscience I will maintain the original translation and commentary in the New Matthew Bible, to the effect that the “souls” of Genesis 12:5 were human beings, and that they were truly “begotten” in Haran.

Genesis 12:5 in modern Bibles

No modern Bible that I have seen has recovered the understanding of the Reformation Bibles in this verse. A sampling:

NIV: He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan. (ESV and HSBC similar.)

CEV: Abram was seventy-five years old when the Lord told him to leave the city of Haran. He obeyed and left with his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and all the possessions and slaves they had gotten while in Haran.

TLB: He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and all his wealth – the cattle and slaves he had gotten in Haran – and finally arrived in Canaan.

Therefore, it appears that the New Matthew Bible will be alone among modern Bibles in keeping the distinction between possessions gotten and souls begotten in this verse:

NMB: And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, with all their goods that they had gotten, and *souls that they had begotten in Haran. And they departed to go into the land of Canaan.

NMB note: *Here souls are taken for his servants and maidens, who were very many, as you may see in Genesis 14:14.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, November 2020.

Luther on the Meaning of “Heaven” in Genesis 1

Posted on by Posted in Compare

Genesis 1:1-8 deals with the first two days of creation and the formation of heaven and earth. In the 1549 Matthew Bible[1] these verses, gently updated,[2] read:

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

2 The earth was without form and empty, and darkness was upon the deep water, and the Spirit of God moved upon the water.

3 Then God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and divided the light from the darkness,

5 and called the light the day, and the darkness the night. And so of the evening and morning was made the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament(a) between the waters, and let it divide the waters apart.

7 Then God made the firmament, and parted the waters that were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament; and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament heaven. And so of the evening and morning was made the second day.

According to St. Jerome, because of its great difficulty the ancient Hebrews would not allow anyone under the age of thirty to read the first chapter of Genesis. (I do not mean to suggest that this is a good thing; it is never good to withhold truth or the word of God.) Martin Luther observed that, though the language of Genesis is simple, it speaks about matters of the utmost importance and very difficult to understand. He said the theologians hardly agreed about anything in Genesis 1 except that the world was made from nothing. He rejected Augustine’s position that the days of Genesis 1 were allegorical: he believed in a literal six-day creation event (as I also do), and that the phrase “in the beginning” means at the beginning of time. (The Matthew Bible contained two charts that gave the history of time and the earth from two different young-earth perspectives. See here.)

In this post I draw from Luther’s lectures on Genesis.[3] As he said, some things we can only dimly understand, such as the formlessness of the earth at the beginning of the first day. Other things must remain in the realm of mystery, such as the nature of the waters that are above the firmament.[4] However, there is one question about which Luther was firm and clear: the meaning of “heaven,” which translates the Hebrew word shawmah-yim. Luther said the Holy Spirit uses the term “heaven” in the Scriptures differently than astronomers or philosophers do in their writings, and we must keep to the diction of the Scripture.

The meaning of “heaven” in the language of the Holy Spirit

While Scripture sometimes refers to heaven as the dwelling place of God and the angels (e.g. 1Ki. 8:39-49, 2Ch. 6:21), the first book of Genesis deals with the creation of the physical universe. Luther explained that in Genesis 1:1-2, before the physical world and heaven were fully formed, the words “heaven,” “deep water,” and “water”[5] were used for the same thing; namely, for the dark abyss of water that overlay the mass of the earth beneath. Luther imagined this deep water as an “ooze” or “mist.”[6]

During the first creation day, earth and heaven were unformed masses. Verse 6 tells us that in the second day, the ooze or mist of deep water above the earth was parted to create the firmament, which God called heaven. Rogers explained in a note:

MB note on Genesis 1:6: Firmament, or heaven. Psalm 136:5 and 8:3. It is a Hebrew word and signifies thrusting forth or spreading abroad.

Luther repeatedly stressed that this “firmament” or “heaven” means and includes the entire area above the surface of the earth. It is not limited to the skies above us, but includes the air we breathe and where small birds hop on the ground, the upper atmosphere where the clouds are and where great birds fly, and the heavens where the moon, sun, planets, and stars orbit.[7] Luther called the entire area of heaven the “upper structure” (p.33). However, in some passages only certain parts of the upper structure are meant. For example, where the Bible speaks of heaven being shut so that it does not rain, it is referring to the atmosphere below the clouds. Then again, where it speaks of the lights in the firmament of heaven, it means the upper spheres of outer space.

Some of Luther’s comments:

  • It is plain that, in Holy Scripture, the air in which we live is called “heaven” because Scripture speaks of “the birds of the heaven.” Likewise, it says that the heaven is shut up when it is not raining; likewise, it says that the heaven rains. All this happens in the air, not in the spheres of the moon or of the other planets.
  • Moreover, in the term “heaven” is included all that the philosophers divide into the eight spheres [i.e. the skies and outer space].
  • Just as a philosopher employs his own terms, so the Holy Spirit, too, employs his. An astronomer, therefore, does right when he uses the terms “spheres,” “apsides,” [etc.]. By way of contrast, the Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture know nothing about those designations and call the entire area above us “heaven.” Nor should an astronomer find fault with this; let each of the two speak in his own terminology.
  • But let me add this for the sake of the less learned: that what we call the “horizon” often occurs in Scripture under the designation “heaven.” Hence the entire firmament is called the heaven of heavens, wherein are included the heavens of all human beings; that is, their horizons. In this way we have here another heaven than those people have who are in France or in Italy. [8]

Modern translations of shawmah-yim.

However, increasingly scholars have changed the translation of shawmah-yim to indicate only the upper spheres. It is common now to find Genesis 1:1 translated as below:

NKJV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The New King James Version changed “heaven,” which the KJV had, to “the heavens.” However, “the heavens” indicates only the upper spheres. My Oxford Dictionary of Modern English gives the following definition:

The heavens: the sky as the abode of the sun, moon, and stars.[9]

Therefore the NKJV, and all the modern Bibles that adopt this translation, contradict Luther. They agree more closely with Strong’s Concordance:

Strong, shawmah-yim: The sky (as aloft; the dual perh. alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve).[10]

Strong says that, as the “sky aloft,” shawmah-yim may “perhaps” refer to the upper atmosphere where the clouds are, but he would only be definite about its reference to the “higher ether,” or outer space. However, in Genesis 1:26, 28, and 30, the MB and many other Bibles translate shawmah-yim as “air” in the phrase “birds of the air,” which shows that shawmah-yim is not generally understood as limited to the higher ether.

People will have to decide between the Matthew Bible (and the older versions that retain “heaven”) and modern Bibles that have “the heavens.” For many reasons, especially as set out in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible (due for publication before the end of 2020 if things go as planned), I trust Luther and the Matthew Bible. On the other hand, I have learned to be cautious about the modern translations, and also about Strong. I discuss Strong’s unorthodox treatment of the Hebrew sheol (hell) in my paper on Hell, and show how he and modern scholars have significantly changed foundational doctrine.

The New Matthew Bible

In the interest of clarity, in the NMB I am planning to add Luther’s teaching to Rogers’ note on Genesis 1:6. It is important to establish at the beginning of the Bible the full sense of “heaven,” and to counteract modern influences. My comment will be in square brackets, which readers of the October Testament will recognize as the format used there. Below is the note I am currently considering:

John Rogers note on Genesis 1:6: Firmament, or heaven. Psalm 136:5 and 8:3. It is a Hebrew word and signifies thrusting forth or spreading abroad. [Luther>In the Scriptures heaven means the entire expanse of air, sky, and outer space that extends from the surface of the earth upward: the horizon. It may also refer to any part of this expanse; e.g., birds of heaven means the birds of the air, while stars of heaven refers to the upper spheres.]

R.M.D., October 2020

______________

[1] There are small differences between the 1537 and 1549 Matthew Bible. I use the 1549 version.

[2] In verse 2, I updated “void” to “without form,” which is also how the KJV had it. “Void” was used here in an obsolete sense meaning formless or featureless. Also, I updated “the deep” to “the deep water,” to make it clear. In English “the deep” literally meant “the deep water,” which appears to accord well with Luther and the Hebrew. In verse 6, “asunder” was also updated to “apart.”

[3] Luther’s lectures on Genesis comprise volumes 1-8 in the American edition of Luther’s Works. Here I draw from pages 3-48 in volume 1.

[4] At page 31 Luther wrote, “it cannot be denied that, as Moses says, there are waters above the heavens; but I readily confess that I do not know of what sort those waters are. Scripture mentions them nowhere else except in this passage and in the song of the three lads [Daniel 3:60 in the LXX]. We cannot establish anything certain concerning all similar matters, such as the heaven in which the angels and God dwell with the blessed.”

[5] Luther’s exact words were, “water and abyss and heaven are used in this passage for the same thing.” (LW, Vol. 1, p.9) He also explained that the Hebrew noun for “heaven” is derived from the word “water,” and therefore denotes something watery, or which has a watery nature (Ibid., p.23). His understanding was that if there were no sun, which dries the air, the atmosphere would be much wetter than it now is.

[6] Ibid., 6, 8, 24.

[7] One question that remains in my mind is whether the mysterious waters above the firmament (v.7) could in some contexts be included in the term “heaven.” Unless I have misunderstood, Luther is inconsistent in that usage. The Scripture might also use the term inconsistently, with the reference to be derived from the context.

[8] LW, Vol. 1, pages 29, 29, 47-48, and 31 respectively.

[9] I use the Canadian edition of the Oxford Modern English Dictionary. I should note that Tyndale, in his Old Testament glossary, indicated that “firmament” meant “the skies.” My guess is that he meant it in the sense that Luther described it as “the horizon.” In this sense it is the “visible arch” called the skies but does not exclude the air in which we move and live.

[10] I have the popular Welch’s edition of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

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