Author Archives: admin

The Table of Principal Matters in the Matthew Bible

Posted on by Posted in Principal Matters Series

“As the bees diligently do gather together sweet flowers, to make by natural craft the sweet honey, so have I done with the principal topics contained in the Bible.” (John Rogers, introduction to the Table of Principal Matters, 1537 Matthew Bible)

This is an introduction to the blog series, Principal Matters from the 1537 Matthew Bible. The purpose of the series is to make people familiar with the Table of Principal Matters in the Matthew Bible and to learn from the English Reformers. It will be a great series for Bible study groups to follow topic by topic each month, or for sermon outlines, to preach from the Scriptures.

  • What was the Table of Principal Matters?
  • What are the topics of the Table?
  • Seven foundational points
  • A picture of the first page of the Table, including the short, original introduction

What was the Table of Principal Matters?

The Table of Principal Matters was one of the features of the 1537 Matthew Bible that made it the world’s first English study Bible. It was a lengthy concordance, set at the beginning of the Bible, which reviewed topics of the faith in alphabetical order. Under each topic were short statements of doctrine with scriptures references for further study. A lot of care, thought, and labour went into its preparation.

The Englishman John Rogers compiled and published the Matthew Bible, which was so-called because it was presented to King Henry VIII as translated by “Thomas Matthew.” This was a pseudonym to conceal William Tyndale’s involvement in the translation, because the king had banned all Tyndale’s work. The real translators of the Matthew Bible were William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Rogers collated the work of these two men, added over 2,000 expository notes, and then put a church calendar, a review of the age of the earth, other notices, and the Table of Principal Matters, at the beginning of his amazing Bible.

The Table was not Rogers’ original work, but was taken and translated from the 1535 French Bible of Pierre Olivetan.

At our website, NewMatthewBible.org, is information about the Matthew Bible, about our project to update it, and a variety of interesting articles.

What are the topics of the Table of Principal Matters?

Some of the topics reviewed in the Table are Abomination … Abstinence … Adultery … Angels … Anointing … Antichrist … Beatitudes, or Blessedness …… Character or Mark (of Antichrist) … The Coming of Christ in the Flesh … The Coming of Christ unto Us … Free Choice or Free Will … Gifts … Hatred … Innocency … Kingdom … The General Judgment … Human Judgment … Providence … Prudence … Tribulation … The Word of God … Zeal.

This is just a small sampling; the Table had 237 topical entries in all. This series will review most of them, topic by topic, in alphabetical order following the Table. With about one post per month, it will be good for years to come (God willing). I’ll enhance each study by setting out the scriptures referred to, taken from the Matthew Bible.

Seven foundational points

To properly understand the Table of Principal Matters, we need to appreciate that the Matthew Bible is amillennial and non-dispensational.[1] It is therefore premised on the following foundational beliefs concerning the New Covenant and the kingdom of Christ:

(1) Jesus’ kingdom is now; his marvelous kingdom has come. There is no promise of a worldly kingdom yet to come in a future millennium (as many interpret Revelation 20 nowadays). The Lord’s kingdom came in power at Pentecost. It is spiritual and heavenly, in spirit and in truth in the power of the Holy Spirit. In his kingdom, Jesus reigns in the hearts and consciences of his people. Rogers wrote in his note on John 18:36, where Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world:

That is, my kingdom is not a worldly kingdom, which consists in strength, in armour, in men, in the sword, and in taking dominion over things of this material or worldly realm. But my kingdom is spiritual, and is in the hearts of the faithful, who are ruled not by the sword, but by the gospel.

(2) Under the New Covenant, the “people of God” means all believing people, Jew and Gentile. We are both as one in Christ Jesus because the middle wall of partition has been broken down (Eph. 2:14). There is no longer any difference Jew and Gentile, nor a special, favoured place for Israel:

Now there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither man nor woman, but you are all one thing in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)

One of the first Principal Matters topics is “Accepcyon” (that is, “Acception,” an obsolete word meaning “Partiality”). This entry shows how God is not partial to any man or nation, with Scriptures in support from both the Old and New Testaments.

But people may object that, under the Old Testament, the Jews had a special place and special promises. Indeed, but this was by way of example (1 Cor. 10:6,11), and to accomplish his purposes through them, but not out of partiality. For though he set his affection upon them, yet many were overthrown in the wilderness (1Cor. 10:5, Heb. 3:17). Rogers shows under the topic “Abrogation” how it was for its futility that the Old Covenant was abrogated; that is, completely done away with. It is written in Hebrews 7:18,  “The previous commandment is abrogated because of its weakness and unprofitableness.”

Paul addressed the question of the preferment of the Jews in Romans 3:

What preferment, then, has the Jew? Or what advantage from circumcision?  Surely very much. The word of God was committed first to them. What, then, if some of them did not believe? Does their unbelief make the promise of God without effect? God forbid. Let God be true and all men liars, as it is written: That you may be justified in your words, and should overcome when you are judged…. For we have already established that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, as it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one…. Without doubt, the righteousness which is good before God comes by the faith of Jesus Christ, to all and upon all who believe. There is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Ro. 3:1-4, 9-10, 22-23)

(3) In the Bible, the “last days” (or “latter days”) generally refers to the entire period from Christ’s first to second coming. Rogers clarified this point several times in his expository notes. Many Scriptures support this. Peter said at Pentecost that the pouring out of the Spirit indicated that the last days had then arrived, pursuant to Old Testament prophecies (Acts 2:17). In Hebrews, also written in the first century, we are told that “in these last days” God has spoken to us by his Son. Therefore, the things of the last days are now, and they include not only Christ’s kingdom, but also the kingdom of Antichrist and tribulation. “Tribulation” is one of the topics of the Table that we will see.

(4) I would add my own point (which I have not seen addressed in the notes of the Matthew Bible nor in the Table of Principal Matters), which is that most amillennialists believe the 1,000-year millennium of Revelation 20 is the “last days.” The number 1,000 simply signifies a very long period of time. In the Hebrew tongue, numbers were often used symbolically (as, for example, the number ‘7’ symbolizes fullness or completeness). Another way to put it is, the 1,000 years signify God’s patience.

(5) I would add also that, in Jesus’ kingdom, the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is the resurrection of the soul when the people of God pass from death to life upon hearing the gospel and believing on Jesus. The second, general resurrection is the raising up of the bodies of all people from their graves, and will take place at the second coming. For believers, who are blessed to have part in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6), the second resurrection, with union of soul and body and the promise of the entrance into the eternal life, is their hope. However, the hope for a future earthly dispensation when the Jewish nation will be exalted is the hope of Judaism.

(6) When Jesus returns, it will mark the end of his present kingdom in this earth and the end of time. It will bring the judgment, and the new heavens and earth will be ushered in, which will never pass away. Revelation 10:6 in Tyndale’s New Testament says that when Jesus returns, “there should be no longer time”; that is, time will be no more. The KJV has, “there should be time no longer.” In other words, time will not be for one minute longer, let alone a thousand years.

But many modern Bibles changed the translation. In the NIV, Revelation 10:6 reads, “There will be no more delay!” This is ambiguous. It could mean, no more delay till the end of the world. But it obviously (and more easily) supports the hope of a new age during which time will continue.

(7) The Reformers called the belief in a future, utopian, earthly kingdom a “Jewish dotage,” being derived from Judaic doctrine. In the 1553 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, Thomas Cranmer wrote about “Millenarii” (those who believe in a future millennial kingdom):

Heretics called Millenarii: They that go about to renew the fable of heretics, called Millenarii, [are] repugnant to Holy Scripture, and cast themselves headlong into a Jewish dotage.[2] 

A gospel that promises another kingdom, one other than the present kingdom of Christ, really is another gospel (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6-8). It denigrates from the greatness, reality, power, and wonder of Christ’s reign now – as all “other gospels” will do. It fractures our singular focus on the spiritual kingdom and its promises, to turn our eyes to another kingdom – a political one, so to speak – and to other promises.

When a person becomes familiar with the Matthew Bible, it washes the mind of the taint of strange doctrines. Over the years, many changes have been introduced to the original Scripture translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. These subtly or overtly contribute to weakening the truth that was purely set forth in the blood-bought Matthew Bible. Many of these are discussed in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible.

The first page of the Table, including the short, original introduction

Below is an image of the first page of the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible, including the introduction “To the Christen Readers.” This is a scan of my Hendrickson facsimile. The red numbers are my own, which I inserted for reference. Rogers also took the introduction from Pierre Olivetan’s 1535 Bible and translated it from the French.

The first page of the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible, with the introduction at the top.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, June 2022

________________________

Endnotes:

[1] Issues of the millennium are covered in more detail in chapter 27 of Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. See also my paper Christian Zionism: Rebuilding Jericho.

[2] Article XLI of the 1553 Articles of Religion was removed in 1563. Both pre- and postmillennialism have roots in Judaism. The concept of a future millennium is tied to a rabbinical interpretation of the creation week. The Jewish belief was that, after the fall, the world would continue for 6,000 years, and then there would be a millennium of rest, or Sabbatical millennium – a kind of earthly utopia. A Christianized form of this doctrine was known in the early Church as chiliasm, from the Greek chiliad or ‘thousand.’ Its adherents were called Chiliasts; they believed Christ would return and reign with the saints on earth for a thousand years. Some well-known Chiliasts were Irenaeus and Tertullian. Chiliasm was identified as a “Jewish fable” and put to rest in the 4th century, but was revived by the Anabaptists during the Reformation.

Dispensationalism began in early 19th-century England. It divides human history into seven dispensations or eras, from the era of innocence before Adam’s fall, through to Christ’s reign in a messianic kingdom during a future seventh and final age. The period from Moses to Jesus is considered the dispensation of Mosaic law.

 

Numbers 20 – Drawing Water from a Rock

Posted on by Posted in MB

It is wonderful to update the Old Testament of the 1537 Matthew Bible and see the meaning come alive.  I am now (June 16, 2022) almost finished the book of Numbers. At the end of this article is my full update of chapter 20. But first, a short discussion of two interesting features of this chapter.

The first concerns how Tyndale used a variety of words to draw out shades of tone and meaning. An example is in the passage where Moses draws water from a rock in the desert. Below is Tyndale’s original translation:

1537 Matthew Bible, Numbers 20:7-11

7And the Lord spake unto Moses saying: 8take the staff, and gather thou and thy brother Aaron the congregation together, and say unto the rock before their eyes, that he give forth his water. And thou shalt bring them water out of the rock and shalt give the company drink, and their beasts also.

9And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them: hear ye rebellious, must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11And Moses lifted up his hand with his staff and smote the rock two times, and the water came out abundantly, and the multitude drank, and their beasts also.

These verses contain words we no longer use in the same way that Tyndale used them. Especially, the expression ‘fetch out’ in verse 10 – “must we fetch you water out of this rock?” – is not quite right.

In modern use, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), to fetch means to go in quest of something and to bring it back.[i] But Moses was not going anywhere to get something and bring it back. He was commanded to work a miracle right there, on the spot. What, then, was the meaning of ‘fetch out’ in this passage? The answer lies in a sense that the OED describes as “now rare”: to draw from or out of a source. In modern English, we would say ‘draw out.’ That this was the sense in Numbers 20 is confirmed in Strong’s Concordance, which gives the meaning of the Hebrew word as ‘bring out.’ But ‘bring’ is a general word, while ‘draw’ is the word we normally use in the context of obtaining water from a well or a spring (like ‘fetch’ was used in the past).

The KJV also had ‘fetch out’ in verse 10, as did the 1540 Great Bible. However, most modern Bibles, including the NIV and ESV, have ‘bring out.’ (In fact, this revision was introduced in the 1560 Geneva Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible[ii].) The NIV reads,

NIV: He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?”

Sarcasm: Draw water from a rock!

The NIV translation is clear, and I certainly cannot say that it is wrong. In verse 8 of Numbers 20, Tyndale (and the KJV) used ‘bring out’ to translate the same Hebrew word. But Tyndale did not use a different word in verse 10 for no reason. If we follow his lead and update ‘fetch’ to ‘draw,’ in my view it highlights the sarcasm of Moses’ outburst, and his unbelief: What, was he to draw water from a rock, as a person might draw water from a well?

Actually, Moses’ attitude is difficult to understand here, because he had already seen God perform such a miracle. In Exodus 17:6, Moses struck a rock and brought water forth from it. However, something about his mindset in this situation dishonoured the Lord and indicated unbelief, as we learn later in chapter 20. Hence his sarcasm.

I gently updated verse 10 in the New Matthew Bible as follows:

And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear, ye rebellious! Must we draw you water out of this rock?

Many artists depict the rock Moses struck as very large, with a stream falling out into a pool that people drew water from.

The water of strife in Numbers 20

In Numbers 20 we see another wonderful feature of the Matthew Bible: how the meaning is given clearly in verses where later bibles lost meaning through unnecessary transliteration of the Hebrew.

An example of this is at verse 13. From Tyndale’s translation, we learn that the water from the rock that Moses struck (or perhaps the place itself) was called “the water of strife.” It was so called because the people of Israel strove with the Lord. The 1535 Coverdale Bible and the 1540 Great Bible also referred to “water of strife.” John Wycliffe’s bible, circa 1380-84, had “the waters of against-saying,” which is wonderfully descriptive.[iii] However, beginning with the Geneva version, this became instead “waters of Meribah,” a name that tells us nothing. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible here, as have most modern English versions.

Tyndale’s translation of Numbers 20:12-13, as I have updated the verses for the New Matthew Bible is below. Verse 12 informs us that Moses did not believe the Lord’s words about drawing water from a rock – even though, as mentioned, Moses had already seen the Lord perform this very same miracle:

12And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, Because you did not believe me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them.

13This is the water of strife, because the children of Israel strove with the Lord.

The water of strife is referred to again in this chapter, where the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron about Aaron’s appointed death. Below are verses 23-26 as I have updated them:

… the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, close by the border of the land of Edom, saying, Let Aaron be put unto his people. For he shall not come into the land that I have given to the children of Israel, because you disobeyed my mouth at the water of strife. Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up into Mount Hor; and strip Aaron out of his vestments, and put them upon Eleazar his son. And let Aaron be put unto his people and die there.

For interest’s sake, below also is the Wycliffe translation of this passage (with updated spelling):

Wycliffe’s bible, Numbers 20:23-26: … the Lord spake to Moses and said, Aaron [shall go] to his peoples, for he shall not enter into the land which I had [promised] to the sons of Israel, for he was unbelieveful to my mouth at the waters of against-saying. Take thou Aaron, and his son with him, and thou shalt lead him to the hill of Hor; and when thou hast made naked the father of his cloth, thou shalt clothe with it Eleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered [to his people], and shall die there.

How severe the law was! Moses was a wonderful servant of God, but at the water of strife he lost his faith and his temper. He disobeyed God by striking the rock in a display of unbelief and frustration, instead of simply telling it to give forth its water. And what a price he and Aaron must pay for that: neither of them would see the promised land. No wonder the apostle Paul described the law as “a yoke … that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).

Aaron dies in Mount Hor, and his priestly office is transferred to his son Eleazar.

I hope later to write another blog post showing more examples of how the Matthew Bible avoided unnecessary transliteration, and how this made the scriptures come alive. But for now, following is my complete, gentle update of Numbers 20 for people who are interested.

Numbers 20: The complete chapter

This is the first draft of Numbers 20 for the New Matthew Bible. John Rogers’ chapter summary is also shown. Rogers added descriptive summaries at the beginning of every chapter in the Matthew Bible, as was the practice of the time:

Chapter 20 (draft)

Miriam dies. The people murmur. They have water even out of the rock. Edom denies the Israelites passage through his realm. The death of Aaron, to whose office Eleazar succeeds.

And the whole multitude of the children of Israel came into the desert of Zin in the first month, and the people dwelt at Kadesh. And there Miriam died, and was buried there. 2Moreover, there was no water for the multitude, because of which they gathered themselves together against Moses and Aaron. 3And the people fought with Moses and spoke, saying, Would God that we had perished when our brethren perished before the Lord! 4Why have you brought the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, so that both we and our animals will die here? 5Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to bring us into this ungracious place, which is no place to sow seed, nor of figs nor vines nor of pomegranates, and neither is there any water to drink?

6And Moses and Aaron went from the congregation to the door of the tabernacle of witness and fell upon their faces. And the glory of the Lord appeared to them. 7And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 8Take the staff and gather the congregation together, you and your brother Aaron, and say to the rock, before their eyes, to give forth its water. And you will bring for them water out of the rock, and will give the company drink, and their beasts also.

9And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear, ye rebellious! Must we draw you water out of this rock? 11And Moses lifted up his hand with his staff and struck the rock two times, and the water came out abundantly. And the multitude drank, and their beasts also.

12And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, Because you did not believe me, to sanctify mea in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them.

13This is the water of strife, because the children of Israel strove with the Lord. And he was sanctified upon them.

14And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom to say, Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardship that has happened to us – 15how our fathers went down into Egypt, and how we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and how the Egyptians dealt ill with both us and our fathers. 16Then we cried out to the Lord, and he heard our voices and sent an angel, and has brought us out of Egypt. And behold, we are in Kadesh, a city hard by the borders of your country. 17Let us go in good fellowship through your country. We will not go through the fields nor through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells, but we will go by the highway, and neither turn to the right hand nor to the left until we are past your country.

18But Edom answered him, See that you come not by me, lest I come out against you with the sword.

19And the children of Israel said to him, We will go by the beaten way. And if either we or our livestock drink of your water, we will pay for it. We will do no more than pass through by foot only.

20But he said, You shall not go through.

And Edom came out against them with a mighty people and a strong hand. 21And thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his country. And Israel turned away from him.

22And the children of Israel removed from Kadesh, and went to Mount Hor with all the congregation. 23And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, close by the border of the land of Edom, saying, 24Let Aaron be put unto his people. For he shall not come into the land that I have given to the children of Israel, because you disobeyed my mouth at the water of strife. 25Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up into Mount Hor; 26and strip Aaron out of his vestments, and put them upon Eleazar his son. And let Aaron be put unto his people and die there.

27And Moses did as the Lord commanded. And they went up into Mount Hor in the sight of all the multitude. 28And Moses took off Aaron’s clothes and put them upon Eleazar his son, and Aaron died there at the top of the mount. 29And Moses and Eleazar came down out of the mount. And all the house of Israel mourned for Aaron thirty days. ~~~~~

Verse 12, note (a): To sanctify is here to show and declare to be holy, as in M’t 6:13.

~~~~~

Ruth Magnusson Davis, June 2022.

Note, for more of the NMB Old Testament, Genesis 1-25 is in downloadable pdf format here.

[i] See the online OED under ‘fetch,’ verb. This online resource is only accessible to subscribers, so I have not linked it. Apparently, the former meaning of ‘fetch out’ could indicate a greater degree of sarcasm than we can now appreciate; it was sometimes used to suggest that the thing to be drawn out was very remote.

[ii] The base of the Geneva Old Testament was the Great Bible, whereas the Geneva New Testament was a direct revision of William Tyndale’s work. For a history of the English bible, with a focus on revisions introduced in the Geneva and Revised versions, see Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. Many of the revisions were more significant than the items discussed here. Part 2 of The Story sets them out in black and white, with complete citations and references.

[iii] Or, “again-saying,” in the sense “gainsay,” which means to speak against (literally, to back-say).

Is It Wrong to Celebrate Easter? The Easter Ishtar Myth Debunked

Posted on by Posted in General

Is it wrong to celebrate Easter because it is really an ancient pagan festival in honour of an idol named Ishtar? No. This is a myth of recent origin. In fact, there is no written record in Old or Middle English that connects Easter with Ishtar.  The extant writings show that Easter was always, from the beginning of the English language, a Christian festival, and was associated with the concept of the Christian Passover.

Easter is pure to the pure

We are free to observe Easter if we so choose. What matters is that our hearts and intent be right (Ro.14:5-6). On Easter Sunday, I sing in my heart and praise God for what he has won for me through the passion and resurrection of his Son. That is what counts.

But moderns who war against Easter say it is a pagan feast in honour of a heathen goddess named Ishtar (or Astarte or Ashtoreth, other names of this alleged idol). I do not have Ishtar in my heart when I praise God for his Son, but they say that the etymology of the word ‘Easter’ proves it is pagan, because the word derives from Ishtar’s name. This is false, as I will show. But even if it were correct, it would be irrelevant, because God looks on our hearts, not on the etymology of our words. Indeed, he abhors strife about words (1 Ti. 6:4). Further, to the pure, all things are pure (Titus 1:15). Thus Easter is pure to those who are pure.

This should be enough to answer the warriors against Easter. But to engage them on their own battleground, their arguments are considered below.

The misguided war on Easter

When I entered into Google the question, is it wrong to celebrate Easter? – the top result was as shown in the screenshot below[i]:

This pretty well sums up the typical, modern objections to Easter, which are made not only by the Jehovah Witnesses, but also some evangelicals. But every statement is false. Further, inside the Vanguard News article is the common allegation that Easter is Ishtar worship. It says that Noah’s son Ham married a woman called Ashtoreth, or Ishtar, which name (it asserts without evidence or references) is transliterated in English as ‘Easter.’ It goes on to say that Ashtoreth “made herself ‘the Queen of Heaven;’ the goddess of fertility, and became an object of worship.”

Since the Vanguard article was number one in the Google rankings, I will answer it here.

First, concerning the alleged “surreptitious merging” of Christianity and paganism: this appears to be a partial truth falsely presented. I have read (though I have not researched it) that under the Roman empire, perhaps partly in an attempt to help convert the pagan peoples without coercion, certain holidays (but not Easter) were observed coincidentally with theirs. This was not done with a “surreptitious” purpose to pull a fast one on the Christians and hoodwink them to convert them to paganism. The idea is absurd. However, Easter has always been observed around the time of the Jewish Passover, on the Sunday after the Paschal full moon, being the time of Jesus’ passion. It is a moveable feast based on the Old Testament feast, which was in turn based on the lunar cycle. The date varied depending on the calendar used, but there can be no question of compromise with pagan festivals.

Second, as will be seen below, the word ‘Easter’ is in fact scriptural. It existed in Bibles for centuries – and, yes, even in “true” Bibles. Especially in true Bibles.

Third, while etymology is not an exact science, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most reliable, thorough, and unbiassed authority, ‘Easter’ most likely derives from a Germanic base meaning ‘east.’

Fourth, according to the records of written English going back to the beginning, there was no association of ‘Easter’ with Ishtar, nor is there evidence of transliteration from ‘Ishtar.’

Fifth, what this and every other article that wars against Easter will not tell you, is that the real ancient meaning of ‘Easter’ was ‘Passover.’ This is why it is scriptural. The early Bibles, in both the Old and New Testaments, called the Passover ‘Easter.’ The word ‘Passover’ did not enter the English language until the 16th century. ‘Easter,’ and also the word ‘Paske’ (seen below), were used instead.

When Easter meant Passover

In past centuries, to say ‘Easter’ was the same as to say ‘Passover.’ This is difficult to imagine now because the semantics have changed so much, but, in fact, the two words were often used interchangeably. John Rogers, editor of the Matthew Bible, made this clear in one of his notes on the book of Numbers, as we will see. This semantic connection with the Passover lent meaning and significance to the word ‘Easter,’ which is now sadly lost. It could mean either the Jewish Passover, which was also called the “Jewish Easter,” or Easter as the Christian Passover, depending on the context. Also, Jesus was often called the “Easter lamb,” meaning the Passover lamb. ‘Easter’ was, therefore, a word that brought to mind the great Passover: the pure, shed blood of the precious Lamb, which saves from death and delivers from bondage.

If the semantic equivalence of Easter with Passover had not been lost, perhaps it would not be so easy now to ask, is it wrong to celebrate Easter, because that would be like asking if it is wrong for Christians to keep their Passover. How could it be wrong to remember the Lamb of God who died for us? And what place could Ishtar have in such a remembrance? None at all, of course. And she never did have any place in the Easter/Passover remembrance, as will be seen.

Easter in Bible history

A good way to understand how the ancients used the term ‘Easter’ is to see how it was previously used in the Bible. Below is how it was used in a West Saxon Gospel (c. the 6th-7th century), and also in the three Reformation Bibles,[ii] to mean ‘Passover’ in Mark 14:1. For context, I’ve shown also the King James Version below. The older quotations are in original spelling:

Mark 14:1

OE West Saxon Gospels æfter twam dagum wæron eastron.

Coverdale 1535 after two dayes was Easter.

1537 Matthew Bible After two dayes folowed ester.

1540 Great Bible After two dayes was Easter.

KJV 1611 After two days was the feast of the Passover.

See also the following, from Reformation Bible translations:

Coverdale 1535, Ezekiel 45:21 Vpon ye xiiij. daye of the first moneth ye shal kepe Easter.

Tyndale 1535, Matthew 26:18-19 My tyme is at hande; I will kepe myne ester at thy housse.

Tyndale 1535, 1 Corinthians 5:7 Christ oure esterlambe is offered up for us.

Tydnale 1535, Acts 20:6 We sayled awaye from Phillippos after the ester holydayes.

‘Passover’ can be substituted in every quotation above for ‘Easter.’ For moderns, this makes the verses meaningful, but this is only because Easter has lost its association with the Passover. Even worse, to some people, due to the war on the semantics of ‘Easter,’ the word makes them cringe. Semantics are sharp arrows in Satan’s quiver. He has used them to such effect that Tyndale’s “ester holy dayes” have become Ishtar’s unholy days.

The Scripture texts above show that the Vanguard article spoke untruly about  ‘Easter’ in English Bibles. I did a computer search of Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament and found that he used ‘Easter’ (or ‘ester’) twenty-eight times. Coverdale used ‘Easter’ and ‘Passover’ interchangeably in the Old Testament of his 1535 Bible, though he usually favoured ‘Passover.’

Chapter 9 of the book of Numbers in the 1537 Matthew Bible was Tyndale’s translation, and it deals with the Passover. John Rogers’ chapter summary here reads, “The Easter or Passover offering of the clean and unclean.” This shows that both words means the same. Verse 13 in chapter 9 and Rogers’ note on it, with updated spelling, were as follows:

Numbers 9:13, Tyndale/ Matthew Bible But if a man… was negligent to offer Passover, the same soul shall perish from his people, because he brought not an offering unto the Lord in its due season.

Note a: In like manner it is with us in our spiritual Easter or Passover. Whosoever does not reverently believe the redemption of mankind, which was thoroughly finished in offering the true lamb of Christ, and amends not his life, nor turns from vice to virtue in the time of this mortal life, shall not belong to the glory of the resurrection, which shall be given to the true worshipers of Christ, but shall be rooted out from the company of the saints.

Thus, with the coming of the New Covenant and the Christian Easter celebration, there was a deep, reverent, spiritual connection between the old and the new feasts. This meaning was clearly explained in the Matthew Bible, but has now been entirely lost. In place of this reverent understanding and appreciation, Easter has been virtually blasphemed by those who do not understand.

More falsehoods from warriors against Easter

The Vanguard article contained even more elaborate falsehoods about Easter in the Bible, as seen in the screenshot below:

To answer this, in the first place, the word ‘Easter’ was not “smuggled” into Acts 12:4 in the KJV, but was kept there. The KJV was based on the Bishops’ Bible, which in turn was based on the Great Bible, and both these versions used ‘Easter’ in this place:

Acts 12:4 in the 1540 Great Bible, 1568 Bishops Bible, and 1611 KJV: He put him in prison … intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Therefore, ‘Easter’ was not “smuggled into” the KJV in some nonsensical plot to trick the Christians into worshipping Ishtar.

Clearly, the Vanguard statement, “the word Easter only appears in the King James Version of English Bible translations,” is false. Even the Geneva Bible (GNV) used ‘Easter.’ The GNV was produced by staunch Puritans, who were the first party to make open war on Easter.[iii] (Their war ended by outlawing Easter in 1647, after they had seized power in England.[iv]) Perhaps, therefore, keeping ‘Easter’ in their Bible was an oversight. But they used it in their chapter summary on Deuteronomy 16. Coverdale and Rogers also had ‘Easter’ here:

Chapter summaries, Deuteronomy 16

Coverdale 1535: The feast of Easter, Whitsunday, and of tabernacles.

Matthew Bible 1537: Of Easter, Whitsuntide, and the feast of tabernacles.

GNV 1560 and 1599: Of Easter. 10.Whitsuntide, 13. And the feast of tabernacles.

By keeping ‘Easter’ here, the Puritans showed that they knew their readers would understand Easter and Passover as one and the same thing. However, my search of the online version of the 1599 Geneva Bible on biblegateway.com indicated that, except in this place, the Puritans removed ‘Easter’ from the Bible.[v] My search of the KJV shows that they removed it everywhere except in Acts 12:4, and used ‘Passover’ instead. The modern Bibles that I searched do not use ‘Easter’ at all. Nor would I expect them to, since the word has now lost its connection with the Passover.

The true etymology of ‘Easter’

Etymology: The branch of linguistics which deals with determining the origin of words and the historical development of their form and meanings. (Oxford English Dictionary)

As mentioned, it is difficult to understand how the ancients understood Easter because the word has now been emptied of its association with Passover. However, it is important to grasp, partly in order to see how the modern warriors against Easter misrepresent its etymology.

To research questions about English words – their origin, historical development, and meanings – the Oxford English Dictionary online (OED) is the most thorough and dependable resource. For each word, the OED gives all the meanings in which it has ever been used. It shows only two meanings for ‘Easter,’ and both go back to Old English:

Easter (online Oxford English Dictionary):

Entry 1. The most important and oldest of the festivals of the Christian Church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ and observed annually on the Sunday which follows the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Also (more generally): Easter week or the weekend from Good Friday to Easter Monday, Eastertide.

Entry 2. = Passover. Now only in Jewish Easter or with other contextual indication.

Below, the English quotations in the screenshot from the OED show that people used ‘Easter,’ in a variety of spellings, to mean ‘Passover.’ Since only subscribers can access the online OED online, I give the information here by way of screenshot:

 

People might wonder why Wycliffe’s 14th century Bible is not represented in any of the Bible quotations. It is because, instead of ‘Easter,’ he used ‘pask’ or ‘paske,’ a Middle English form of the Latin pascha, which in turn is derived from the Hebrew pesach, or Passover. In the 1398 quotation, “ester’ = pascha, and in the 1450 quotation, ‘eastren’ = Paske.

We see, therefore, that from the earliest age of the English language until the 16th century, people used Eastren/eastrum/ester/pask/pascha/ etc., in the sense ‘Passover.’ Pascha has retained this meaning, but ‘Easter,’ unfortunately, has not. The word ‘Passover’ only entered the English language in the Early Modern period (i.e., in the 16th century). The OED shows the first use of ‘Passover’ in Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s Bible translations. The ancients never used it, nor could use it, since the word was unknown to them. Therefore, they used ‘Easter’ or ‘Paske’ instead.

Below is the first part of OED entry 1 under ‘Easter.’ It shows quotations from eOE (early Old English). Again, there are many variant spellings, including ‘estran,’ ‘eastron,’ Eastrena,’ ‘eastrum,’ ‘ester,’ etc. Further, though I cannot include all the quotations, I did review them, and none show ‘Easter’ used with reference to Ishtar or any other idol:

The true etymology of ‘Ishtar’

I decided to search ‘Ishtar’ to see if something was missing under the ‘Easter’ entry in the OED. Maybe, somewhere else, there might be evidence that at least some ancient peoples used ‘Easter’ in reference to Ishtar?

In the OED, information for each word includes all its variant and historical spellings. When a person searches any spelling, old or new, they will find the word. Notwithstanding, just to be sure, I searched ‘Ishtar’ in a variety of spellings, including ‘Ish’tar’ and ‘Ish-tar.’ I also searched Astarte and Ashtoreth. But there were, in fact, no entries for any of these words. However, the OED did show ‘Ishtar’ used in eight quotations. I checked these and found that they did not date from ancient times, but only from 1862 – and again, there was no evidence that ancient people used ‘Easter’ in the sense ‘Ishtar.’ Indeed, in this connection is only used by moderns who want to demonize Easter.

Below, for the record, is a screenshot of my OED search results for ‘Ishtar’:

The screenshot indicates that the OED robots found the word ‘Ishtar’ in only 8 quotations or texts. As I mentioned, the earliest of these is 1862.

The origin of ‘Easter’: A Germanic root meaning east

According to the OED, the weight of evidence is that ‘Easter’ derives from a Germanic base meaning ‘east.’ The German Ostern (formerly ostera, ostarum, etc.) and Old Dutch Oster are derived from the same base.

Some have noted that the east is important in Christian practice and traditions, and they posit a historic connection with ‘Easter.’ Following ancient tradition, many churches place their altars in the east end of the church (or in the “liturgical east” if it is not in fact facing east). When the Israelites were journeying through the wilderness, only Moses, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons, the anointed priests, were permitted to camp on the east side of the Tabernacle (Numbers 3:38). The wise men who sought the infant Jesus followed a star that they saw in the east. Some understand Matthew 24:26, which prophesies of the coming of the Son of man as lightning that comes from the east, to be a reference to the Second Coming. Revelation 7:1 speaks of the angel coming from the east having the seal of the living God; this would be a reference to Jesus. The daystar that rises in our hearts (2 Peter 1:19) rises in the east. Anglican ministers who lead their congregations in prayer, pray toward the east. Thus, symbolically considered, the east is holy; it has always had a special significance in Christian practice.

Below is a screenshot from the OED online discussing the origin of ‘Easter’:

 

The OED discusses one alternative theory about the origin of ‘Easter,’ which arises from a comment made by Bede. He mentioned an Anglo-Saxon goddess called ‘Eostre’ or ‘Eastre’ (not ‘Ishtar’). Feasts for this goddess were apparently held about the same time as Easter. However, the OED and most scholars discount the idea that the word ‘Easter’ is derived from the name of this goddess, as there are no records to support a connection with the development of the word ‘Easter.’ And finally, the OED did not mention ‘Ishtar’ as a possible root of ‘Easter.’

This review shows that the etymological arguments of the opponents of Easter are baseless. There is zero evidence to connect Easter with Ishtar. One wonders if any idol ever really existed under this name. However, even if she did, and even if Ishtar worship was practiced by the ancients, it is irrelevant to the history of the Christian Easter. Someone pointed me to an Encyclopedia Britannica article giving the history of Ishtar and describing her worship by ancient people, as if this disproves my conclusion. However, even if the goddess did exist of old, the fact is irrelevant because the records do not link her with Easter at all, and further, the name Ishtar has only recently been ascribed to her. The whole Ishtar-Easter connection is make-believe.

What has been lost

When the people of Tyndale’s generation, not to mention also the people of ancient times, crossed the threshold of their church doors for an Easter service, they understood it to be their Passover remembrance. The clear connection of Easter with Passover is a sad loss. Among other things, this has meant the loss of a sense of community with Christians who went before – who, with a faithful mind, celebrated Easter, as their Passover. We must not think that Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, Luther, or others knew no better than to ignorantly celebrate a heathen goddess! I once read a modern writer who commented that we needed to forgive Tyndale for using ‘Easter’ in his New Testament. What division this causes, and what a dishonour to God’s faithful servant and martyr!

Conclusion: the final answer to the question, is it wrong to celebrate Easter?

The written records, going back to the earliest age of the English language, show that the word ‘Easter’ (or ester, eastron, etc.) was ONLY ever used to mean the Christian holiday and the Passover, and that it was NEVER used in any connection with Ishtar, nor with any pagan idol. Therefore we never need to ask, is it wrong to celebrate Easter, out of concern for any pagan origins or associations. The evidence against the Easter-Ishtar allegation is conclusive: it is false. It is a modern myth.

When we keep Easter/Passover/Pascha, we are simply remembering our Saviour, and how he won our exodus from our Egypt and deliverance from bondage to Satan, while we walk to the promised land. It is just as the Jews kept their Easter, to remember their deliverance from bondage while they walked to the promised land. If it sounds strange to speak of the Jews keeping Easter, it only proves how much meaning the word has lost. It was not strange to our ancestors. We should put the Passover back in Easter!

Ruth Magnusson Davis, May 2022

KW: Is it wrong to celebrate Easter?  The most complete answer NO to the question, is it wrong to celebrate Easter, considering the true etymology of the words ‘Easter’ and ‘Ishtar.’

___________________________________

Endnotes:

[i] This and the second screenshot of the Vanguard article were taken on April 24, 2022. I do not want to link to the article, which would only help maintain its high Google ranking.

[ii] The Reformation Bibles are Coverdale of 1535, the 1537 Matthew Bible, and the 1539-1540 Great Bible.

[iii] An open war on Easter began with the Puritans and has continued with the modern Ishtar myth. But this is not to say that there was never any kind of covert war against Easter before. That surreptitious war is by Satan, of course, who will use any means possible, covert or overt, to defeat the Christian Passover. Covertly, he robs it of the reverence it is due (as by changing semantics), loads it with superfluous, secular, or impious observances, or whatever. The true celebration and exaltation of Christ our Passover Lamb and Saviour is a feast and festival that Satan despises.

[iv] The Puritans warred on Easter from the 16th century until they finally overthrew the English king and seized control of the English parliament in the mid-17th century. Then, in an ordinance of June 8, 1647, they outlawed Easter and Christmas. When the Puritans came to America, they again outlawed these feasts by an ordinance of 1659, and people who breached the laws were imprisoned or fined. The Puritans argued that Easter was Romish and superstitious. A link to the full text of the 1647 Puritan ordinance in England is posted at https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/p954 .

[v] I searched the 1599 Geneva Bible on biblegateway.com on April 21, 2022, and found only this single use in Deuteronomy. I also manually checked several verses in the 1560 GNV and found no use of ‘Easter’ other than in Deuteronomy. I cannot confirm that ‘Easter’ was removed everywhere else from the 1560 version, but it is likely.

The early Puritans made many changes to the Bible based on sometimes radical ideology. Some of the most significant and little-known changes are reviewed in The Story of the Matthew Bible: Part 2, The Scriptures Then and Now.

________________

Is It Wrong to Celebrate Easter? Copyright Ruth Magnusson Davis, May 2022. Permission granted to use short quotations for reviews or for information, with credit. Contact for other permissions concerning Is It Wrong to Celebrate Easter?

Israelites Required to Live in Booths for Seven Days during the Feast of Tabernacles

Posted on by Posted in History MB

What were the “booths” that the Israelites were required to live in during the Feast of Tabernacles, as commanded in Leviticus 23? And what was the point of such a strange command?

In William Tyndale’s translation, as it was taken into the 1537 Matthew Bible, Leviticus 23 reads as follows (gently updated):

Leviticus 33-34 & 39-43; the Israelites required to live in booths for seven days:

33And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, 34Speak to the children of Israel and say: The fifteenth day of the same seventh month shall be the Feast of Tabernacles, seven days unto the Lord. …

39Moreover, in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, after you have gathered in the fruits of the land, you shall keep holy day unto the Lord seven days long. The first day shall be a day of rest, and the eighth day shall be a day of rest. 40And you shall take for yourselves the first day, the fruits of goodly trees, and the branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and shall rejoice before the Lord seven days. 41And you shall keep it holy day unto the Lord seven days in the year. And it shall be a law forever unto your children after you, that you keep that feast in the seventh month. 42And you shall dwell in booths seven days: all that are Israelites born, shall dwell in booths, 43that your children after you may know how that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: for I am the Lord your God.

A clue to understanding this passage lies in the former meanings of two words: “booth” and “tabernacle.”

The meaning of the word “booth”

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), from the 13th century until Tyndale translated the books of Moses, the primary meaning of the word “booth” was

A temporary dwelling covered with boughs of trees or other slight materials.[1]

We may be 100% certain that this was how William Tyndale used the word, because in a table of definitions appended to his 1530 Pentateuch he wrote that “booth” meant “a house made of boughs.”[2]

The meaning of the word “tabernacle”

Interestingly, the word “tabernacle” also once meant, not only a tent, but also a temporary dwelling made of branches or boughs.[3] Understanding this, the Leviticus passage most naturally indicates that the Israelites were required to gather branches, boughs, and willows (v40), and proceed to make booths of them to dwell in for seven days (v42.) The seven days of living in these booths was meant to be a time of rejoicing and enjoying the fruits of the trees (v40), as well as an occasion to remember and show how the Israelites lived in temporary shelters after they first departed from Egypt (v43).

The booths of the Israelites: branches, boughs, and willows from the brook

One of the quotations given under the OED definition of “booth” speaks of “temporary booths, made of intertwisted palm, olive…and willows from the brook.” This sounds very much like the booths that the Israelites were required to construct and dwell in while they celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles.

But some commentators distinguish the branches, boughs, and willows referred to in verse 40 from the materials that the Israelites were to use for building their booths. They say that the boughs and branches were to be taken into the temple and waved before the Lord. Bible commentator Matthew Henry observes that this is how the Jews interpreted the passage. However, he suggests these verses may refer to using branches and boughs both in praise and worship and for the construction of booths. In the context, this makes good sense. Henry wrote,

The Jews make the taking of the branches to be a distinct ceremony from the making of the booths. It is said, indeed (Nehemiah 8:15), that they made their booths of the branches of trees, which they might do, and yet use that further expression of joy, the carrying of palm branches in their hands, which appears to have been a token of triumph upon other occasions (John 12:13 ), and is alluded to, Revelation 7:9. The eighth day some make a distinct feast of itself, but it is called (John 7:37) that great day of the feast; It was the day on which they returned from their booths to settle again in their own houses. They were to rejoice before the Lord during all the time of the feast. (Emphasis original)[4]

In any event, the Israelite people were certainly required to gather boughs and branches together to make their booths, in which they were to live and sleep and rejoice for seven whole days. Thus the Feast of Tabernacles might also be called, in a paraphrase, the Feast of Houses Made with Boughs. Sometimes it is called the Feast of Booths.

Modern-day Jews build a booth for the Feast of Tabernacles, or Succoth as they often call it.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, April 2022

___________________

Interested in other words used in the Bible? One of the most important — because the whole New Testament revolves around it — is the word “sin” in such phrases as “Christ was made sin for us.” This was a Hebrew idiom, and it meant that Christ was made a sin offering for us. William Tyndale taught this in notes in his New Testament. In the Matthew Bible, John Rogers used the same notes. See our blog post on this important topic here

Baruch House published the world’s only history of the Matthew Bible, in two volumes. Check it out on Amazon:  The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 1.

___________________

ENDNOTES:

[1] Oxford English Dictionary online (OED), sv booth, noun. Entry 1.a. This meaning of “booth” continued to be current for another 300 years or so, after which time it fell out of use.

[2] See David Daniell’s modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s Old Testament at page 90.

[3] OED, sv.tabernacle, noun. Entry 1.a. It also meant a tent, which is how we usually understand it in biblical context.

[4] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Genesis to Deuteronomy (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company, undated edition marked “Revised and Corrected”), 540.

KW  Israelites required to live in booths for seven days

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 him. In an essay that he translated from Martin Luther, 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 (discussed below), and since the Geneva Bible, following Calvin, made certain key changes to the original English translations of the psalm. Modern Bibles have followed the Geneva revisions and commentaries, and this has led to a widespread re-interpretation of  Psalm 23.

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, A Sweet Exposition on Psalm 23,[1] the essay that he translated from Martin Luther. The quotation in my first paragraph above is from this work. 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.

POSTSCRIPT April, 2022. We have now published Coverdale’s translation of Luther’s work on Psalm 23. It is available here on Amazon.com.

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