Author Archives: admin

“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.

The preposition “on” is also important. People will have noticed that to say we believe on Jesus unto salvation reinforces the concept of being one with him in a concrete way, while to believe in him for salvation is quite a different thing. But that is a topic for another post!

“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 dared to rise up at the conclusion of a religious meeting and object to the preaching of predestination that he had heard. Some historians indicate that this occurred in John Calvin’s own church, however it was another man who delivered the sermon that day.

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

William Tyndale on the Mark of the Beast

Posted on by Posted in William Tyndale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyndale strangled before being burned in Vilvoord, in 1536.

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

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

Ruth Magnusson Davis, September 2020.

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

 

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

Posted on by Posted in Zionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel 9:26

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel 9:27

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

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

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

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

How Christian Zionism and modern Bibles reinterpret Daniel 9:27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Ibid.

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