Category Archives: Compare

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

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

Posted on by Posted in Compare

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

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

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

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

Three other early English Bibles read like the Matthew Bible:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Geneva revision

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

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

GNV note: *Meaning as well servants as cattle.

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

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

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

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

Genesis 12:5 in modern Bibles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Magnusson Davis, November 2020.

Luther on the Meaning of “Heaven” in Genesis 1

Posted on by Posted in Compare

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

1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of Luther’s comments:

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

Modern translations of shawmah-yim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Matthew Bible

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

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

R.M.D., October 2020

______________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Posted in Compare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Geneva Bible: Robbing Sarah’s covering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The KJV and modern Bibles

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~

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

~~~~~~~

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October 2019.

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

Comparing Bibles: 1 Peter 1:13, Grace Now or a Future Hope?

Posted on by Posted in Compare 1 Comment

 

Here we compare translations of 1 Peter 1:13 from Wycliffe in 1380 to the present. William Tyndale’s translation is based on the understanding that we receive grace when we are redeemed through faith, and then we await our entrance into eternal life. Therefore we trust on present grace and hope for the life to come. Eternal life is the object of our hope. Others say we hope for future grace; in particular, we set our hope on grace to come when Jesus returns. Here grace is the object of our hope.

At first I intended this only to be a simple comparison. But it grew into more. I experienced joy in the Holy Spirit studying Tyndale’s translation in The October Testament, as I entered into the mystery of the revelation of Christ that we receive through his word, and what it is to be in him now through faith, in this, the age of grace and fulfilment of prophecy. In the end, I felt obliged to express some concerns about the NIV and Geneva commentaries, which change the message and, at least as far as I am concerned, lose the joy.

Tyndale and the Reformation Bibles: The declaring of Jesus Christ brings grace

At 1 Peter 1:13 in the Matthew Bible, Tyndale had (with context):

13Wherefore gird up the loins of your minds, be sober, and trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you by the declaring of Jesus Christ, 14as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves unto your old lusts of ignorance: 15but as he which called you is holy, even so be ye holy.

From this we learn that the grace we are to trust on is brought when Christ is declared; that is, when he is preached. The old English ‘declaring’ was a broad word, and carried the senses of speaking forth, telling, and revealing. When Christ is preached, he is revealed, and we believe, and receive grace now. This is salvation by faith unto eternal life. In his 1534 prologue to 1 Peter, Tyndale summarized the first chapter as follows:

Tyndale: In the first he [Peter] declareth the justifying of faith through Christ’s blood, and comforteth them with the hope of the life to come, and sheweth that we have not deserved it, but that the prophets prophesied it should be given us, and as Christ which redeemed us out of sin and all uncleanness is holy, so he exhorteth to lead an holy conversation [a holy life]: and because we be richly bought and made heirs of a rich inheritance …

By the declaration of Christ, who is the enduring word (1Pe 1:25), he is revealed and comes (or is brought) to those who hear. This is a secret revelation to the elect, for the wind blows unseen where it will (Joh 3:8). The word planted within is an immortal seed (1Pe 1:23), and is the seed of eternal life, which is our “rich inheritance.” Rogers explained in a note on 1 Peter 1:3 that “a living hope is that whereby we are certain of everlasting life.”

Post-Reformation Bibles: The second coming will bring grace

In v.13 in later Bibles, the coming of grace and the revelation of Christ are not through ‘declaring’ him, but will happen at a later time or event. In modern Bibles, this event is identified as the second coming. I compared the NIV Nestle text with Jay Green’s Received Text, and no MS variation explains the difference. It is purely a matter of interpretation. See what happened over the years:

1 Peter 1:13

In Wycliffe 1380 Hope ye into the grace that is proffered to you by the showing of Jesus Christ. [In old English, ‘showing’ = preaching, revealing by telling]

Matthew Bible 1537/1549 Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you by the declaring of Jesus Christ. (Also 1535 Coverdale & 1539 Great Bible)

Geneva 1557 & 1560 Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Also Bishops’ Bible 1568)

Rheims 1582 Trust perfectly in that grace which is offered you, in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Geneva 1599 Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

KJV 1611 Hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

RV 1895 Set your hope perfectly on the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (RV Marginal note: Gr. is being brought.)

RSV 1946 Set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jerusalem Bible 1968 Put your trust in nothing but the grace that will be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Living Bible 1971 So now you can look forward soberly and intelligently to more of God’s kindness to you when Jesus Christ returns.

NKJV 1982  Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

NIV 1984  Set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.

NIV 2016 Set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

ESV 2016 Set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So then, in later Bibles, we look to the future for grace. In the Living Bible, it is not even grace anymore. As the verse evolved, there was more than a change in verb tense. The preposition ‘by’, which denotes instrumentality, morphed to ‘at’ in the KJV, denoting place, time, or event. Then ‘at’ became ‘when’. Also starting with the KJV, ‘trust’ became ‘hope’. The versions that speak of hoping ‘on’ future grace are a bit confusing, because in English we do not speak of hoping ‘on’ a thing that we trust will be given later. Rather, we hope ‘for’ it. Therefore it is fair to characterize the later versions as saying we are to hope for future grace – which is in fact how the commentators put it below, and explains why some versions changed the wording to ‘set hope on.’

The Geneva Influence

Though it looks as if the KJV began the shift from present to future grace, in fact, the early English Puritans introduced it in their Bible notes:

1 Peter 1:13 in the 1560 Geneva Bible Wherefore kgird up the loins of your mind: be sober, and trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, by the lrevelation of Jesus Christ.

Note k: Prepare yourselves to the Lord

Note l: Until his second coming.[1]

The 1560 Geneva notes say we are to prepare ourselves for the Lord until the second coming. I do not say this is wrong, but it changes the message. Then the 1599 edition, in a set of six new notes, conflated grace with “full salvation”, such that salvation is not by grace, but is grace, and is the second coming. This is an unbiblical soup. Though the Puritans retained the present perspective in the Scripture, their (muddled) notes put grace in the future:

1 Peter 1:13 in the 1599 Geneva 1Wherefore 2gird up the loins of your mind: be sober, 3and trust 4perfectly on the grace 5that is brought unto you, 6in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Note 3: He setteth forth very briefly, what manner of hope ours ought to be, to with, continual, until we enjoy the thing we hope for: then, what we have to hope for, to wit, grace (that is, free salvation) revealed to us in the Gospel, and not that, that men do rashly and fondly promise to themselves.

Note 6: He setteth out the end of faith, lest any man should promise himself, either sooner or later that full salvation, to wit, the later coming of Christ: and therewithal warneth us, not to measure the dignity of the Gospel according to the present state, seeing that that which we are now, is not yet revealed. [2] (Emphasis added. Other notes in endnote.)

The Puritans had the earlier Bibles at hand, but for reasons best known to themselves, reinterpreted v.13. It would be interesting to explore this further. Jesus’ first coming was for salvation by grace, which is abundantly testified by many Scriptures, as “The grace of God that brings salvation to all men has appeared” (Tit 2:11). The second coming will be for the final judgment (M’t 25:31-46, etc). Did the Puritans wrongly conflate the two comings at this verse? In any case, they divided the revelation of Christ from present grace, and perhaps due to their influence, the KJV changed v.13 to make grace a future thing.

Modern treatment

Verse 13 gradually evolved, so that the Living Bible boldly changed the Greek to the “return” of Christ. In 2016, the NIV committee added the words “at his coming” to clearly articulate the prevailing interpretation. But what ‘grace’ are they talking about, and what ‘coming’? The NIV Zondervan commentary acknowledges a “beginning of grace” in the present time, but says it is not the main point:

1 Peter 1:13 in the NIV 2016 Set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

NIV Zondervan commentary: The main emphasis of v.13 is on putting one’s hope wholly in the final consummation of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. At the present time, we enjoy only a beginning of that grace (cf 1Jn 3:2-3). This longing for the unveiling of Jesus at his second coming permeates the NT.[3] (Emphasis added.)

So grace now is not the main thing? We have a “beginning” of it, but not the “abundant grace” that the apostle Paul speaks of everywhere: “Where there was much sin, there was more abundance of grace” (Ro 5:20; see also 5:17)? Nor is there any mention anywhere in the Zondervan notes of eternal life as the substance of our hope. As for the second coming, of course all believers long for it, but by emphasizing it, and making it the time of grace, do we lose the Gospel, and all understanding of the revelation of Christ through the word?

I thank God for Tyndale. His translation and exposition raise no doubts or questions in my mind. He is perfectly consistent with everything the Scriptures say. Needless to say, the New Matthew Bible restored his translation:

1 Peter 1:13 in the NMB 2016 (The October Testament) Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought to you by the declaring of Jesus Christ.

So many issues are raised by this! I wish I could explore more. But space and time are limited. One thing I can say: I thank God for the grace I have received, on which I trust, as I hope for my rich inheritance in Christ, whom I know now by faith.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, June, 2017

 

Endnotes:

[1] Geneva Bible (1560), 1st printing, 1st edition (Arizona: facsimile by The Bible Museum, 2006). Missing the preface and possibly other preliminary pages, but presumed an accurate facsimile as to the balance.

[2] Geneva Bible (1599), Tolle Lege Press edition (White Hall, WV: Tolle Lege Press, 2006). The full set of notes on 1 Peter, verse 1:13, were:

Note 1: He goeth from faith to hope, which is indeed a companion that cannot be sundered from faith; and he useth an argument taken of comparison: We ought not to be wearied in looking for so excellent a thing, which the very Angels wait for with great desire.

Note 2: This is a borrowed speech, taken of a common usage amongst them: for by reason that they wore long garments, they could not travel unless they girded up themselves: and hence it is that Christ said, Let your loins be girded up.

Note 3: See article.

Note 4: Soundly and sincerely.

Note 5: An argument to stir up our minds, seeing that God doeth not wait till we seek him, but causeth so great a benefit to be brought even unto us. [No need to seek to find?]

Note 6: See article.

[3] Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: An Abridgment of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 1 Old Testament, Vol. 2 New Testament. Consulting Eds. Kenneth L Barker and John R Kohlenberger III, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), p. 1045.