Author Archives: admin

What does Genesis 19:4 mean? Were women in the crowd that surrounded Lot’s house?

Posted on by Posted in Genesis

What does Genesis 19:4 mean in the Matthew Bible (and King James Version) when it describes the evil people from Sodom who came from “all quarters” of the city and surrounded Lot’s house? Who made up this crowd of rioters, who were demanding that Lot deliver his guests, two men visiting the city, into their hands for rape and sexual assault?

But first, who were Lot’s guests? Lot did not realize it at the time, but they were angels who appeared as men. They had come to Sodom to destroy the city because of the wickedness of the people. At Lot’s invitation, these men-angels turned in to his house for refreshment and rest. What happened next is explained as follows in William Tyndale’s translation from the 1537 Matthew Bible:

Genesis 19:4-5 4But before they went to rest, the men of the city of Sodom compassed the house round about, both old and young, all the people from all quarters. 5And they called unto Lot and said unto him, Where are the men which came into thy house tonight? Bring them out unto us, that we may do our lust with them.

All the people of Sodom gather around Lot’s house.

To understand this event and the context of God’s judgement on the city, a question to ask is whether there were women among “all the people from all quarters” who surrounded Lot’s house. Tyndale’s translation allows for this possibility. In 16th century English, the word “men” could and frequently did include women, depending on the context. Also, “people” is a gender-neutral word. However modern Bibles, as will be seen, suggest or say outright that only males were involved. This would exclude half the population of the city.

The idea that the crowd of rioters in Sodom included both men and women is supported by two factors drawn from chapter 18 in Genesis:

(1)  In verse 18:21, the Lord speaks with Abraham to warn him about the coming destruction of Sodom. From the Matthew Bible we learn that the Lord was going to go down to the city to see if the people there had all together done evil according to the outcry against them; that is, if all of the people together were doing evil.  If so, it is reasonable to believe that the women of the city joined in with the men in all their evil-doing, including the attempt on Lot’s guests.

Genesis 18:20-21 in the 1537 Matthew Bible

I note here, however, that Genesis 18:21 in other Bible versions reads differently. Some speak of the people of Sodom doing altogether according to the outcry against them. I find this ambiguous.[1]  The AMPC interpretive translation reads, “I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether [as vilely and wickedly] as the outcry which has come to me.” The CEV reads, “I am going down to see for myself if those people really are that bad.” These versions put the emphasis on the nature or degree of the evil in which the people were involved.

However, the Matthew Bible reading emphasizes the number of the people – whether all of them “all together” were involved in the evil that was being done. And this certainly fits best with the next question that Abraham asks: “But what if there are fifty righteous? Or forty, or thirty, or twenty, or ten?” (Genesis 18:22-32). He does not ask, “But what if they are not really that bad?” He asks, “What if they are not all of them bad?”

(2)  Also, in chapter 18 the Lord promised Abraham that if there were only ten righteous people in the city, he would not destroy it. This shows that the concern was whether every person in the city, irregardless of sex, was corrupt.

The Hebrew word en-oshe in Genesis 19:4 may include both sexes, just as Tyndale’s English translation “men” formerly did. Therefore, nothing in the Hebrew nor in Tyndale’s translation limits the meaning to men alone. The correct sense must be derived from the context. And here the context, including chapter 18, indicates that both sexes were involved.

Martin Luther on the “distressing” meaning of Genesis 19:4

Martin Luther considered the question, what does Genesis 19:4 mean? He concluded that women were indeed among the rioters in Sodom, along also with the elders and governors of the city. He drew this in part from the meaning of the Hebrew idiom that Tyndale translated “old and young” in verse 4. In his lectures on Genesis, he explained:

This situation causes me to think that at that time there was a feast day, and that banquets were held throughout the city, for the entire city was in a frenzy. And though they did not all want to perpetrate the crime, they were nevertheless all involved in the endeavour and took pleasure in this raging of the citizens against the strangers. But he who commits a deed and he who gives his consent are in the same position.

… most distressing is [the phrase] “young and old.” [In Hebrew it] is a term for an age, and the Hebrews commonly use it when they speak of servants and maids. It denotes those who have reached the 20th, 24th, or 26th year, are now qualified by age to perform services, and now feel the passion of the flesh. All these join the citizens, the king, the counselors, the senators, and the aristocrats; Even old men are there, among whom sexual desire is dead, or who at least would have been able to check the frenzy of the rest because of their gray hair and their influence. And in order that you may understand the situation more clearly, the entire populace comes running at the same time from every corner of the city. To be sure, they could not all perpetrate this crime, but they were both delighted by the deed and gave their consent.[2]

Luther’s Hebrew studies were thorough and painstaking, and his judgement trustworthy. Given his exposition, and considering what chapter 18 says about the situation in Sodom, there should be no doubt that the people who surrounded Lot’s house included women, men, husbands, wives, maidservants, menservants, leaders, etc. This interpretation helps us understand that God’s judgement was just, and that not even ten righteous people were swept away with the evil.

What does Genesis 19:4 mean according to modern Bibles?

However, modern Bibles indicate, more or less clearly, that only males were involved in the evil endeavour against Lot’s guests, as shown below. In Genesis 19:4 in the 1611 KJV, the word “men” could be understood inclusively. But in the NIV and other modern versions the translators were generally careful to use ‘people’ where both sexes were intended, so the word “men” (and certainly “man”) would naturally be understood to indicate males only:

Genesis 19:4 in later Bibles

1611 KJV: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.

NIV: Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.

CEV: Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house.

GW (God’s Word Translation): Before they had gone to bed, all the young and old male citizens of Sodom surrounded the house.

The GW translation expresses plainly the concept that only the “male citizens” of Sodom were involved in the attempt on Lot’s guests. However, this gives women an unwarranted pass, with implications not only for understanding what happened in Sodom, but, also, what is happening today. It also raises concerns in my mind about the present state of Hebrew scholarship. How well do moderns really understand the ancient Hebrew idioms, such as the one Luther discussed that is translated “young and old” in verse 4? When I see these kinds of developments in modern bibles it causes me to suspect that Hebrew scholarship was superior at the opening of Reformation, early in the 16th century, compared to today.[3]

The New Matthew Bible update of Genesis 19

The full text of chapters 1-25 of Genesis in the draft New Matthew Bible (NMB) can be viewed and freely downloaded here on the New Matthew Bible website. At Genesis 18:21 we kept Tyndale’s “all together,” and in verse 19:4 “men” was updated to “people,” so as not to appear to exclude women.

The NMB draft of Genesis 19:1-5 [4], including the preliminary chapter summary, reads:

Chapter 19

Lot received two angels into his house. The unclean lusts of the Sodomites. Lot is delivered and asks to dwell in the town of Zoar.

And there came two angels to Sodom in the evening. And Lot sat at the gate of the city. And Lot saw them and rose up to meet them, and he bowed himself to the ground with his face. 2And he said, See, lords, turn in I pray you, into your servant’s house. And stay the night, and wash your feet, and rise up early and go on your ways.

And they said, No, but we will stay in the streets all night.

3Then he compelled them exceedingly. And they turned in to him and entered into his house, and he made them a feast and baked sweet cakes, and they ate. 4But before they went to rest, the people of the city of Sodom compassed the house round about, both old and young – all the people from all quarters. 5And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who went into your house tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can do our lust with them.

* * * * *

When, as was the case in Sodom, great violence against morality and one’s neighbour is no longer a matter of shame, but all people — men and women, high and low, young and old — join in it, and even clamour for it, is not destruction approaching? The incident with Lot and the angels is instructive. If the Holy Spirit had not included it in the biblical narrative, we might not be able to understand how far all the people had fallen together, as a group – nor even, perhaps, that such a thing is possible.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, November 2, 2020

Endnotes:

[1] The Oxford English Dictionary shows an obsolete adjectival construction of all together as altogether (see entry A.1 under “altogether”) and confirms that it was used to indicate all the people of a place. This appears to be one of the abbreviated word pairs of Early Modern English, which I discussed in How to Read the 1537 Matthew Bible.

[2] Martin Luther, “Lectures on Genesis,” Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 3, pages 253-54.

[3] However, Luther sometimes complained that the Hebrew grammarians of his day only confused things by attempting to resolve the meaning of Hebrew idioms through grammatical analysis, when by definition idioms do not follow the normal rules. (See for example volume 6 of Luther’s Works, page 52f and again at 181f). He regretted that much knowledge of ancient Hebrew idioms was lost, but commented that the New Testament had assisted in recovering and elucidating the language of the Old Testament. He was hopeful that further studies would recover the lost meaning of Hebrew idioms, but I suspect he would be disappointed with the state of things today. One of the most grave and pernicious modern developments in Hebrew studies is the re-definition of sheol and hades, which has developed since the publication of the 1894 Revised Version (which gave new meanings in the marginal notes), and since new definitions were advanced in Strong’s Concordance. Strong was a member of the RV revision committee, and his Concordance is in widespread popular use. This issue is reviewed in the Appendix to Coverdale’s book, The Hope of the Faithful.

[4] A note to people who subscribe for New Matthew Bible Project updates: This is a slightly revised version of Genesis 1-25 since I first posted it. Further revisions are likely.

___________

In 2009 Ruth M. Davis, a retired lawyer with an undergraduate degree in languages and linguistics, founded the New Matthew Bible (NMB) Project. The Project is dedicated to gently updating the Matthew Bible for today. In 2016 the New Testament was published as The October Testament. Work on the Old Testament is ongoing. Ruth also published The Story of the Matthew Bible in two parts. Part 1 is about the making of the MB. Part 2 examines revisions to the Scriptures from the Reformation to the present time. There have been an infinite number of revisions,  great and small, but in Part 2 of The Story Ruth examines some of the most important, which are also little understood today.

Ruth Magnusson Davis in her study early in the NMB Project, about 2013

 

KP’s what does Genesis 19:4 mean? The meaning of Genesis 19:4.

Ten Tips on How to Read Early Modern English

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

It takes practice, but it is not difficult to learn how to read Early Modern English (EME). And it is worthwhile to learn, because then we can read and enjoy the 1537 Matthew Bible.

Some people who own Hendrickson’s facsimile of the Matthew Bible (the beautiful one with the red cloth cover, see Recommended) say they have given up trying to read it. And truly, when we see the EME text for the first time, it looks like another language. However, once the Matthew Bible opens up to you – especially the Old Testament, which is a masterpiece of clarity – you will not want to read another version. Well, perhaps Myles Coverdale’s Bible of 1535, which I also love, or the Great Bible of 1539-1540. But for these Bibles we also need to know how to read Early Modern English.

The ten rules below address common features of EME that may cause difficulty to new readers. The pictures of EME text are from the book of psalms in my own copy of Hendrickson’s 1537 Matthew Bible. The psalms of the Matthew Bible were translated by Myles Coverdale, so the word choice and grammar were his, except for the introductory summaries, which were written by John Rogers. However, it was the printer and typesetters who were responsible for page layout and orthography.

What is orthography?

Orthography means a system of spelling and notation. Though the orthography of the early English Bibles seems very inconsistent to us, the typesetters followed certain, definite systems and practices that are easy to learn. Some of their apparent inconsistencies were space-management devices — forms of shorthand, as it were, used only where needed. Because the rag paper used by early printers was thick and the Bible is a long book, typesetters sometimes abbreviated words to shorten the text. On the other hand, sometimes they spelled a word out in full to justify the margins or simply if they did not need to save space.

Knowing the tricks of the printers’ trade as well as a few obsolete rules of grammar will give people a head start in learning how to read Early Modern English texts. I will refer frequently to the specimen text below, Psalm 83:1-5. This specimen includes the psalm title and Rogers’ introductory summary. In modern orthography the summary reads, “The holy people complaineth that all the borderers about them had conspired to destroy them, and prayeth that they may utterly be consumed and wasted, even as their old enemies were consumed and wasted.” Below I explain some of the rules the typesetters followed for the summary and the rest of the psalm:

Psalm 83:1-5 in the 1537 Matthew Bible, with John Rogers’ introductory summary

 

Ten rules of EME orthography and grammar

1. The symbol below, called a capitulum, was used to indicate a new section. However, it has no other meaning or significance.

A new section in the Bible might be a new book, chapter, or psalm. Also, capitulums were always inserted before Rogers’ introductory summaries, as above in Psalm 83. Perhaps this assisted to show that the summary was added to the biblical text. Because the capitulum served no necessary purpose, it eventually fell out of use.

2. Instead of a comma the 1537 Matthew Bible used a mark called a virgule suspensiva, which looks like a forward slash (/).  But sometimes a virgule suspensiva was used for a stronger pause, where now we would use a semi-colon or even a period or exclamation mark.

There are virgule suspensivas in every specimen of EME text in this article. If we update verse 1 of Psalm 83, it might read, “Hold not thy tongue, O God! Keep not still silence, refrain not thyself O God”:

Psalm 83:1

3. An old-fashioned form of ampersand (&) was used for the word and. Frequently it was used in combination with the virgule suspensiva (/&).

We see the /& combination in the introductory summary of Psalm 83 and in verses 2 and 5. However, and was also spelled out in full in the summary (“consumed and wasted”), and again in the psalm title where it was not necessary to save space (“A songe and psalme of Asaph”).

With modern spelling and punctuation, verse 2 reads, “For lo, thine enemies make a murmuring, and they that hate thee, lift up their head”:

Psalm 83:2

4. A line over the top of a vowel means that an M or N was dropped (mā = man, becōmeth = becommeth ). Also, special rules for from.

The lines above vowels that marked a missing M or N were called diacritics. Sometimes these diacritics were wavy. There are several in Psalm 83 above. In Rogers’ introductory summary, cōplayneth = complaineth, and in verse 3, coūcell = counsel. Dropping letters allowed the typesetters to justify the margins, or to avoid extending a sentence into the next line in order to save space.

In the first line of Psalm 83:4, shown below, dropping the M in from (frō) clearly helped fit the text into one line. If the typesetters had needed yet more room, they could also have shortened them to thē:

Psalm 83:4

______________

In some places, however, it appears that a diacritic was forgotten, as in Psalm 88 below. Should fro have been written frō in verse 14, “Wherefore hydest thou thy face fro me”?

Psalm 88:14-15

I do not believe “fro me” was a typesetting error in verse 14. For one thing, space did not require that the M be omitted. Also, the term “fro me” without a diacritic was repeated elsewhere. The Oxford English Dictionary shows that from Old English into the Early Modern Period the word fro was sometimes used for from. (Even today fro = from  in the phrase “to and fro.”) It seems, therefore, that “fro me” was a special word pair. In EME certain word pairs received special treatment: “shall be” was written “shalbe” and “will be” became “wilbe.” Therefore, from appears to have its own rules: (1) it may be written in full; (2) it may be shorted to frō where needed; (3) in combination with me, it is written fro me.

Turning to verse 15 of Psalm 88, it shows how diacritical notation kept the verse to two lines instead of three. Written out in full, it says, “My strength is gone for very sorrow and misery, with fearfulness do I bear thy burdens.” This verse also manifests other features of EME. One is the frequent use of Y for I (mysery = misery). Another is the use of TH where now we use a D: burthens = burdens (or murther = murder). Also, the special form of the word with near the beginning of the second line in verse 15 was frequently used to save space, which brings us to the next rule.

5. The word with was abbreviated by printing a W with a tiny letter (T or H) above. The words that, the, thee were abbreviated by a Y with a tiny T or E above.

These were space-saving devices inherited from medieval times, when with was written wth and that was written yt. Thee and the were both written ye, and the proper sense was derived from the context.

In Psalm 83:5, wth  at the beginning of the second line and ye at the end were used to shorten the words with and thee. This kept the text to one line. In modern orthography this verse reads, “For they have cast their heads together with one consent, and are confederate against thee”:

Psalm 83:5

In verse 2 of Psalm 83, shown below, the Y-form stood for that. As we have seen, in modern orthography this line reads, “and they that hate thee, lift up their head”:

Psalm 83:2

But notice above that thee is spelt the. This takes us to Rule 6.

6. The one-E rule: In the 1537 Matthew Bible the words the and thee were both spelt with only one E (the). Generally speaking, words with an EE sound followed the one-E rule (fre = free,  se = see,  whele = wheel,  seke = seek, etc.).

In Psalm 83:2, which we saw just above, “they that hate the” = they that hate thee.

This spelling of thee seems strange to us, but it was perfectly consistent with the spelling of other English pronouns, such as me (which sounds like mee), ye (yee), and he (hee). Consistent spelling meant that the “rhyme” of Psalm 86:7 appealed to both eye and ear:

Psalm 86:7

In modern orthography, this is, “In the time of my trouble I call upon thee, for thou hearest me.”

However, not all EME texts followed the one-E rule as consistently as the 1537 Matthew Bible did. In other early 16th-century works I have noticed that the and thee were inconsistently spelt, and sometimes reversed.

________________

The single E to indicate the EE sound was mirrored also in other words, such as se. Psalm 89:47 reads, “What mā is he that lyveth, and shall not se death?” Here se = see:

Psalm 89:47-48

However, in Psalm 93:5 see = sea in “The waves of the see are mighty, and rage horribly [etc]”:

Psalm 93:5

Thus the apparently odd spellings of thee and see actually manifest consistency in the 1537 Matthew Bible, while they reveal a modern inconsistency (me, thee, see, ye, free, be).

7. Three kinds of Ss (called “allographs” of the S grapheme) were used in the 1537 Matthew Bible:

(1) The descending or long S. This allograph is relatively infrequent. If it followed an orthographic rule, I have not been able to determine it, though in the specimen text below (Psalm 88:18) it appears to be a space-saver.

(2) The “normal” S, such as we use now. The rule was to use this allograph only as a capital letter and at the end of a word.

(3) The f-like S, which was the most common. This looks like an f without the stroke on the stem. It was used everywhere the other allographs were not.

A normal S was used at the end of lovers in Psalm 88:18, shown below. (Here lovers means good and close friends.)  However, a descending S was used at the end of frinds (friends). In this verse we also see another example of the word pair fro me without a diacritic:

Psalm 88:18

The normal and f-like allographs were used abundantly in Psalm 81 below. The rule for normal Ss (only for capitals and at the end of a word) was consistently followed. Verse 1 reads, “Sing merrily unto God which [who] is our strength, make a cheerful noise unto the God of Jacob”:

Psalm 81:1-7

However, to have three allographs for S was more trouble than it was worth, and by the end of the eighteenth century only the modern form was in use.

8. Past participles of verbs ending in T sometimes dropped the letters ED at the end. (effect = effected, often spelt yfect. Also, the elect = the elected, or the chosen)

In the introductory summary to Genesis 1 shown below, creat = created at the end of the last sentence. However, midsentence in verse 1 created was written out in full:

Genesis 1, introductory summary and verses 1-2

When a past participle drops the [ed], it is called an absolute participle. Possibly the use of the absolute form was dictated, at least in part, by euphonics. It was more emphatic and pleasing to the ear to end the introductory summary with the stressed syllable (cree-ate). On the other hand, mid-sentence the full form was more rhythmic and pleasing (God cree-ate-ed heav-en and earth).

Some absolute participles remain in use today. The past participle of the verb manifest can be written both ways: it is correct to say both “His real character was manifest by his deeds” and “His real character was manifested by his deeds.” It is the same with the verb incarnate. However, with reference to Christ we speak of him almost exclusively as the Son of God incarnate (= incarnated [i.e., by the Holy Spirit]). I sometimes regret that we do not now speak of Christ incarnated, because the full participle is more meaningful. It clearly conveys the amazing action and event of the Incarnation: the Son of God was born into the flesh of man.

9. The preposition of = by in passive construction.

This is an essential rule of grammar for understanding Early Modern English. In the first example below, in modern orthography and putting by for of, it says, “Thou hast put away mine acquaintance [friends] far from me, and made me to be abhorred by them…” (Also, here we see a third fro me word pair):

Psalm 88:8

In the next example we would say, “God is greatly to be feared in the council of the saints, and to be had in reverence by all them that are about him.”

Psalm 89:7

This rule is so important, I will include also an example from the New Testament, speaking of baptism by John or by Jesus:

Matthew 3:13-14

Here we would say, putting by for of in both places: “Then came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized by him. But John forbad him, saying, I ought to be baptized by you: and comest thou to me? [etc].”

(Check out how we have gently updated the Gospel of Matthew and other Scriptures for the New Matthew Bible here.)

10. The terms like as and like unto usually just mean like.

In verses 11-14 of Psalm 83, we find like as, like unto, as, and like all used to express comparison in contexts where the simple word like (or as) could function alone. Coverdale may have used such a variety of expression for interest and poetry’s sake. Notice also the one-E rule followed in whele (= wheel) in verse 13 and seke (= seek) in verse 16:

Psalm 83:11-18

In modern orthography verses 13 and 14 read:

13 O my God, make them like unto a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind.
14 Like as a fire that burneth up the wood, and as the flame that consumeth the mountains.

Gently updating the English, these verses might read:

13  O my God, make them like a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind;
14  Like a fire that burns up the wood, and as the flame that consumes the mountains.

However, the expression like unto had fascinating nuances of meaning. People who enjoy deeper studies of language and grammar might like my article on how William Tyndale used like unto in the Scriptures and in his writing.

****************

With these rules in mind, I hope people will be encouraged to take up their facsimile of the Matthew Bible, practice reading it, and discover how well they can learn to understand it. It took me a little while, but I can now read it as fluently as I read modern text. I know you can too! It is true that the obsolete words will remain a barrier to a full and correct understanding. That is why the Matthew Bible must be updated. However, the spelling and orthography will no longer be an obstacle.

How to read Early Modern English: some words to know:

all way = always
commodity = benefit
fly = flee
lust = wish or desire
other = or
sometime = formerly
syth = since
then = than
wealth = welfare
which = who, with reference to people and to the divine Persons

*************

Copyright claimed by Ruth M Davis, 2021. For permission to republish, recopy, or use contact here. However, limited permission is given for people to print and use this article for personal use with their facsimile of the 1537 Matthew Bible.

KPs How to read Early Modern English; Understanding Early Modern English

 

The Four Kinds of Death and Life

Posted on by Posted in Ruth's Picks

I’ve been working with Myles Coverdale’s Treatise on Death to prepare it for publication as part of our Coverdale series of books. Coverdale translated this treatise from the German work of Otho Wermullerus, a Zurich scholar and theologian, circa 1550.

The Treatise on Death is divided into three parts, called the First, Second, and Third Books of Death.  Each book is then subdivided into “chapters,” which are really no more than short sections. Chapter one of the First Book discusses the four kinds of death and life mentioned in the Scriptures, including the kinds of blessed deaths experienced by the Christian, such as dying to (mortifying) the flesh. I have really appreciated these foundational definitions, so I wanted to share chapter one here. Each time I read this little chapter I find more to chew upon. The English is gently updated below:

From Myles Coverdale’s Treatise on Death

The First Book of Death

Chapter 1, Declaring what death is

The Holy Scripture makes mention of four kinds of death and life.

  1. The first kind is called natural. The natural life subsists as long as the soul remains with the body upon earth. The natural death is that which separates the soul from the body.
  2. The second kind of death is a spiritual, unhappy death here in the time of life, when the grace of God, because of our wickedness, is departed from us. By the means of this departing we are dead, separated from the Lord our God and from all goodness, though we still have the natural life. Contrary to this there is a spiritual, blessed life when we, through the grace of the Lord our God, live unto him and to all goodness. Saint Paul writes about this after this manner: “God, who is rich in mercy, through his great love with which he loved us even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us to life together in Christ.”
  3. The third kind of death is a spiritual, blessed death here in time when the flesh, being continually and increasingly over time separated from the spirit [of the regenerate person], dies away from its own wicked nature. Contrary to this there is a spiritual, unhappy life, when the flesh with its wicked disposition continually breaks forth and lives in all wilfulness. Against this life Paul exhorts us, saying, “Mortify therefore your members that are upon on the earth, fornication, uncleanness, unnatural lust, evil desires and affections, covetousness, etc.”
  4. The fourth that the scripture makes mention of is an everlasting life and an everlasting death. Not that the body and soul of man will after this time lose their substance and be utterly no more. For we believe certainly that our soul is immortal, and that even this present body will rise again. But since we ourselves grant that life is sweet and death a bitter herb, this word life, by a figurative manner of speech, means mirth and joy. However, the word death is used to mean heaviness and sorrow. Therefore eternal life is called eternal joy, and eternal death is called eternal damnation.

Of these different types of deaths we commonly have a perverse judgment. We abhor the death of the body, and hasten on apace to the unhappy spiritual death, which is yet in itself a thousand times more terrible than any bodily death. For when a man delights in his own wickedness, though he yet still lives upon the earth he is nevertheless dead before God, and the soul must continue damned forevermore.

In this book I treat of the natural death, which before our eyes seems to be a complete annihilation, and it seems that there is no help with the dead, even as when a dog or horse dies and God has no more respect to them. Yea, the world swims full of such ungodly people as have no other understanding. Otherwise, doubtless, they would conduct themselves differently towards God. In truth, death is not the annihilation of man, but a deliverance of body and soul. Therefore since the soul, being of itself immortal, does either out of the mouth ascend up into heaven or else from the mouth descend into the pit of hell, the body, losing its substance until doomsday, will then by the power of God be raised from death. It will then be joined again to the soul, so that afterwards the whole man with body and soul may eternally inherit either salvation or else damnation.

*************

Concerning the third, blessed kind of death, I (Ruth) see it as coming about in several ways. One is by our own effort, by continually denying the lusts of the flesh – whether pride, competitiveness, envy, malice, fornication (of mind or body), unforgiveness, etc. – taking every thought captive, guarding what we see, read, and hear, and, as Paul said, pummeling our members. This is what it is to mortify the flesh, as the author said. But another way this blessed death comes about is by suffering, which is imposed on us from without and against our will and choice. But all suffering comes by God’s permission and serves to destroy the flesh or sinful nature. Suffering humbles us and keeps us low. It also teaches empathy for others who suffer. Tyndale often wrote about the need for suffering, and he said that suffering is a sign that a person is a child of God.

Hopefully our edition of Coverdale’s Treatise on Death will be ready for publication in the fall of 2021. It will be a facsimile of an 1846 modern-spelling reprint by the British Parker Society.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, July 29 2021

Myles Coverdale on the Meaning of Psalm 23: God’s Word the Pasture of His Sheep

Posted on by Posted in Compare

What is the meaning of Psalm 23? What is its spiritual message? For many centuries it was understood that in this psalm David was not only praising God as his strong and faithful shepherd, but was also praising God’s word as the chief benefit we receive from his hand. Myles Coverdale wrote in 1537,

 Myles Coverdale

In this psalm David, with every Christian heart, gives thanks and praise to God for his most principal benefit; namely, for the preaching of his dear and holy word…. This same noble treasure does holy David praise and extol marvelous excellently, with goodly, sweet, fair, and pure words … [he] calls it goodly pleasant green grass, fresh water, the right way, a staff, a sheep-hook, a table, balm, or pleasant oil, and a cup that is always full.

However, this emphasis on God’s word has been completely lost since John Calvin’s new commentary, and since the Geneva Bible, following Calvin, made certain key changes to the original English translations of the psalm.

The first two verses, which set the stage for interpreting the meaning of Psalm 23, were translated differently in the three English Reformation Bibles – the Coverdale, Matthew, and Great Bibles – than in the 1560 Geneva Bible and later versions. Especially, they gave different imagery. In the Matthew Bible these verses, with John Rogers’ note on verse 2, read as follows:

Psalm 23:1-2, MB The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a *fresh water.

MB note: *This fresh water is the healthful water of the word of God.

John Rogers

John Rogers took the Matthew Bible translation of Psalm 23 from Myles Coverdale’s 1535 Bible, and he added several notes explaining how the shepherdly imagery signifies the benefits of the word of God, which, by its promises, instruction, and teaching, feeds and sustains God’s sheep with spiritual food and drink. The word is the grass and water of their pasture, and is their strength and comfort as they walk in the valley of the shadow of death that is this present life. Indeed, it is their very life.

Until more recent times, this was the traditional understanding of the meaning of Psalm 23. Cyril of Alexandria wrote in the 5th century that “the place of verdure (green pasture) means the ever-fresh words of Holy Scripture, which nourishes the hearts of believers and gives them spiritual strength.” Augustine and Martin Luther also held that Psalm 23 teaches about the place and work of God’s word in the life of a believer: it quickens us to life and brings us forth into the way of righteousness (v3); it is the table set before us in the presence of our enemies (v5); etc.

In 1537 Coverdale published an essay, A Sweet Exposition on Psalm 23,[1] which he translated from Martin Luther. The quotation in my first paragraph above is from this essay. I have been studying it to prepare for publishing as part of the Coverdale series of books, and I have found it very strengthening for my faith – which, of course, was precisely Coverdale’s hope for it. I therefore want to share some excerpts here, so others may also be strengthened, especially in these troubling times. Below are a few passages from the Sweet Exposition containing Coverdale’s (and Luther’s) teachings on Psalm 23. I have lightly updated the English just for this blog post.

Myles Coverdale (with Martin Luther) on the meaning of Psalm 23

The fruits of God’s word for those who believe

As for the people of God, or the holy congregation of Christ, the prophet calls it a green meadow. For it is a pleasant garden, adorned and beautified with all manner of spiritual gifts. The pasture or grass therein is the word of God, whereby consciences are strengthened and refreshed…. This is now the first fruit of the word of God: that the Christians are so instructed thereby that they increase in faith and hope, and learn to commit all their doings to God. And whatever they have need of, either in soul or body, they look for it at his hand.…

This is the second fruit of God’s word: It is to his faithful people not only pasture and grass, by which they are filled and strengthened in faith, but it is also to them a goodly, cold, fresh water, where they take refreshing, comfort, and encouragement….

With these words “You anoint my head with oil and fill my cup full,” the prophet wishes to describe the great, rich comfort that those who are faithful have by the word of God, so that their consciences are quiet, glad, and at rest in the midst of all temptations and troubles – yea even in death.

Our true riches are the word of God

This lesson should we learn; namely, to let the world boast of their great riches, honor, power, etc. For these are insecure, uncertain, and transitory wares, which God casts into the dungeon. It is a small matter for him to give an ungracious person, who blasphemes and dishonors him, for his reward, a kingdom, a dukedom, or any other benefit and good upon the earth. These worldly goods are his draff and swillings, with which he fills the hogs’ bellies, whom he is disposed to kill. But to his children, as David says here, he gives the right treasure. Therefore we should not, as the dear children and heirs of God, boast about our wisdom, strength, or riches, but of this: that we have the precious pearl, even that worthy word, by which we know God our loving Father and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.

This is our treasure and inheritance, which is sure and everlasting, and better than all the goods of the world. Whoever has this, let him suffer others to gather money together, to live luxuriously, to be proud and high minded; but though he himself be despised and poor in the sight of the world, yet let that not tempt him. Rather, let him thank God for his inexpressible gift, and pray that he may abide by it. It makes no matter how rich and glorious we are here on earth; if we keep this treasure, we have plenty of riches and honor…

May the God of mercy grant us grace so that we also, after the example of David, Paul, and other holy men, may count our treasure, which is even the same that they had, as great, and may magnify it above all the goods upon earth, and heartily give God thanks for it, that he has deigned to give it to us above many thousands of others.

Why we should cleave to the word

If you continue to cleave fast to the word, then you will suffer neither the deceitfulness of the devil, the displeasure and madness of the world, nor your own infirmity and unworthiness to overcome you through trials, but will go on boldly and say, “Whether the devil, the world, or my own conscience take part against me ever so fiercely, yet I will not give it overmuch thought. It must and shall be thus, and whoever is a sheep of the Lord cannot remain untried. Let it go with me as it may – yea, whether they seethe me or roast me, yet this is my comfort: that my shepherd has given his life for me. Besides this, he has also a sweet and loving voice, with which he comforts me and says I shall never perish, nor shall anyone pluck me out of his hand, but I will have everlasting life.

“This promise will be faithfully kept with me, whatever becomes of me. And though sometimes a sin or other impediment will chance by reason of my infirmity, yet he will not therefore cast me away; for he is a loving shepherd who looks to the weak sheep, binds up their wounds, and heals them. And to the intent that I should be the surer of this and not doubt, he has left me here the holy sacrament, for a sign that it is so indeed.”

Even so did the prophet do. He was not always happy, neither could he at all hours sing, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.” He was sometimes in great straits, yea all too many, so that he could not feel the righteousness, comfort, nor help of God, but just sin, the wrath of God, fearfulness, despair, the pains of hell, etc., as he himself complained in many psalms. Nevertheless, he turned from his own feelings and took hold of God by his promise concerning the Messiah, who was then yet to come, and said in his mind, “However it stands with me, yet this is the comfort of my heart: I have a gracious and merciful Lord, who is my shepherd and whose word and promise strengthen and comfort me. Therefore, I shall lack nothing.”

These teachings are wonderfully strengthening and encouraging for the faith. However, they have been completely lost today.

The Geneva Bible changes and John Calvin’s teaching

John Calvin

The loss of the traditional doctrine can be traced back to the Geneva Bible and John Calvin. The Geneva Bible changed the imagery of verse 2 from feeding in a pasture and being led to a fresh water, to resting in a pasture by still waters. In addition, it removed all teaching about the word. The notes said nothing about God’s word – not at verse 2 or anywhere.

If readers want to compare the Matthew and Geneva Bibles, the full translations of Psalm 23 with all the notes are set out my paper posted here. The issues are also briefly discussed in chapter 16 of Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible.

There can be little doubt that John Calvin’s teaching was the source of the new translation and interpretation in the Geneva version. In his commentary on the meaning of Psalm 23, Calvin said David was praising God for his “liberal” supply of temporal benefits, including “splendid riches,” “princely pleasures,” and “royal wealth,” but he never said anything about God’s word as a benefit or blessing. In fact, Calvin taught that David used not the word, but his worldly benefits and riches as “ladders” to ascend to God; David used his riches, said Calvin, to attain to God by “calling them to remembrance” and by “exciting himself to gratitude” for them. This new doctrine is summed up in his own words in both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of his commentary on Psalm 23:

Calvin on verse1: [W]e ought the more carefully to mark the example which is here set before us by David, who, elevated to the dignity of sovereign power, surrounded with the splendor of riches and honors, possessed of the greatest abundance of temporal good things, and in the midst of princely pleasures, not only testifies that he is mindful of God, but calling to remembrance the benefits which God had conferred upon him, makes them ladders by which he may ascend nearer to Him. By this means he not only bridles the wantonness of his flesh, but also excites himself with the greater earnestness to gratitude, and the other exercises of godliness …

On verse 6: It is, therefore, certain that the mind of David, by the aid of the temporal prosperity which he enjoyed, was elevated to the hope of the everlasting inheritance.[2]

Thus Calvin saw in temporal riches a way to ascend “nearer” to God, and even to the eternal hope. However, nowhere in his entire commentary did he mention or acknowledge that God calls us unto him by his word. In effect, he suggested that it is through our riches that we enter into the kingdom of heaven – in complete contradiction, of course, to Jesus, who said it is very hard for a rich man to enter into heaven (M’t. 19:24). Needless to say, riches are false ladders to God. Calvin also taught a false remembrance. He did not mention the remembrance of faith that Christ ordained: “This is my body broken for you; do this in the remembrance of me,” but taught the crass remembrance of worldly benefits.

Further, contrast Calvin’s teaching about ascending to God by the ladders of worldly benefits with what the apostle Paul said about God’s immediate presence with us by his word:

Romans 10:6-8 The righteousness that comes by faith speaks this way: Say not in your heart, who shall ascend into heaven? (which is nothing else than to fetch Christ down), or, who shall descend into the deep? (which is nothing else than to fetch Christ up from death). But what does the scripture say? The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart. This word is the word of faith that we preach.

Calvin did not preach the word of faith with us now, but worldly riches and benefits to ascend to a distant God. Consistent with this, he also wrote in the very first sentence of his commentary on Psalm 23, “God, by his benefits, gently allures us to himself.” Again, he did not say that by the word God calls us to him. Neither did he mention that the devil allures us with worldly riches. He warned against “insolence,” or being “elated above measure” with riches, but said a certain “relish” for them was lawful. He never cautioned against covetousness, nor did he advise the rich of their duty to share with the poor and needy.

According to Calvin, the meaning of Psalm 23 is that we should be grateful for worldly things, and especially for an abundance of them. He even taught that our wealth should be the measure of our gratitude. On verse 5 he wrote, “[L]et each of us stir up himself to gratitude to God for his benefits, and the more abundantly these have been bestowed upon us, our gratitude ought to be the greater.” I do not know if Calvin intended to suggest that rich people have higher ladders to God than poor people do; however, I am confident that all who have God’s word as their treasure, whether rich or poor, are equally close to him, equally grateful, and equally rich. As Coverdale said above, we all have the same treasure, and may all alike magnify it.

Calvin defeated the traditional understanding of Psalm 23. However, with the republication of Coverdale’s Sweet Exposition, hopefully people will learn to appreciate it again as it was appreciated and understood before Calvin, so we may all join with David in praise of God’s word, and may say with Cyril, Augustine, Coverdale, Luther, Rogers, and countless others down the ages:

In this psalm David, with every Christian heart, gives thanks and praise to God for his most principal benefit; namely, for the preaching of his dear and holy word.

*******************

Ruth Magnusson Davis, July 2021.

KPs What is the meaning of Psalm 23? The message of Psalm 23.

[1] Coverdale’s essay expounding the meaning of Psalm 23 actually referred to it as “Psalm 22.” This was the old numbering system employed in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate Bible. I have used the modern numbering for modern readers. The original title of Coverdale’s essay was A very excellent and swete exposition upon the two and twentye Psalme of David. It can be found in the Parker Society Volume, Remains of Myles Coverdale (or Myles Coverdale), linked here. The history of the numbering of the psalms will be reviewed in the Appendix to A Sweet Exposition of Psalm 23.

[2] I do not wish to link to Calvin’s commentary. This quotation and others in this post are from the biblehub platform. People may search and find Calvin’s full commentary there or on any internet Bible commentary platform. A more in-depth discussion of Calvin’s commentary on the meaning of Psalm 23 will be contained in the Appendix to the Baruch House publication of Coverdale’s Sweet Exposition on Psalm 23.

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.