Category Archives: MB

This is Cranmer’s homily on common prayer and the sacraments, first published in the mid 1550s, and now gently updated. Article 35 of the Articles of Religion requires this homily (along with others) to be read regularly in the churches — “diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.” However this is not done today.

From the Homilies on Common Prayer and Sacraments and the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament

By Thomas Cranmer

Dear Christians: Among the many exercises of God’s people, none are more necessary than public prayer and the proper use of the Sacraments.

On prayer

In prayer we ask from God all such things as we cannot otherwise obtain.  In the Sacraments, God embraces us and offers Himself to be embraced by us.  Let us consider what prayer is and what a Sacrament is.

Saint Augustine teaches that prayer is the devotion of the mind; that is to say, returning to God through a godly and humble affection, inclining the mind towards God.  As for the Sacraments, he calls them “holy signs.” Writing about the baptism of infants, he says, “If Sacraments had not a certain likeness to those things whereof they are Sacraments, they would be no Sacraments at all.” From this likeness they receive for the most part the names of the things they signify.  By these words Saint Augustine allows the common description of a Sacrament: that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace, which sets before the eyes and outward senses the inward working of God’s free mercy, and seals in our hearts the promises of God.

As to prayer, in the Scriptures we read of three sorts. Two are private, the third is common [that is, shared by the congregation].

The first sort of private prayer Saint Paul speaks of in his first epistle to Timothy: “I will that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands without wrath or striving.”  It is the devout lifting up of the mind to God without speaking aloud the heart’s grief or desire.  We have examples of this: Anna, the mother of Samuel, in the heaviness of her heart, prayed in the temple, desiring to be fruitful.  She prayed in her heart; no voice was heard.  This way must all Christians pray…as Saint Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “without ceasing.”  Saint James writes, “The continual prayer of a just man is of much force,” or is very effective.

The second sort of prayer Jesus taught in the Gospel of Matthew: “When you pray, enter into your secret closet, and when you have shut the door, pray to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.” Cornelius, a devout man, said to Peter that when he was in his house in prayer at the ninth hour, there appeared to him one in a white garment.  This man prayed to God in secret and was rewarded openly.  So the first form of private prayer is mental, the other vocal.

The third form of prayer is public, or common.  Our Saviour Christ speaks of this prayer when he says, “If two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” By the histories of the Bible it appears that common prayer avails greatly before God, and must be esteemed among us who profess to be one body in Christ.

When the city of Nineveh was threatened to be destroyed within forty days, the Prince and the people joined themselves together in public prayer and fasting and were preserved.  In the prophet Joel, God commanded a fast to be proclaimed, and the people to say with one voice: “Spare us, O Lord, spare thy people, and let not thine inheritance be brought to confusion.”…When Peter was in prison, the congregation joined themselves together in common prayer, and Peter was wonderfully delivered.  Common or public prayer is of great force to obtain mercy and deliverance at our heavenly Father’s hand.

I beseech you, brethren, even for the tender mercies of God, let us be no longer negligent in this behalf: but as the people willing to receive at God’s hand such good things as in the common prayer are asked, let us join ourselves together, and with one voice and one heart ask all these things of our heavenly Father.

On the Sacraments

Turning to the Sacraments, you will hear how many there are, instituted by our Saviour Christ, to be continued and received by every Christian in due time and order, for the purpose our Saviour willed them to be received.  As for the number of those which should be considered according to the precise sense of a Sacrament – namely as visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, which are joined with the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and union in Christ – there are but two: Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

For although Absolution [Penance] has the promise of the forgiveness of sin, the promise is not joined with the visible sign, which is the laying on of hands.  For this visible sign is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be in absolution, like the visible signs are in Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Therefore Absolution, lacking the visible sign, is not a Sacrament like Baptism and Communion are.  And the ordering of Ministers lacks the promise of the remission of sin.  Therefore neither it nor similar things are sacraments in the same sense as Baptism and Holy Communion.

In a general sense, a sacrament may be anything by which a holy thing is signified.  The ancient writers gave the name “sacrament” not only to the seven Sacraments but also to other ceremonies, such as the oil, washing of feet, and the like, not meaning them to have the same significance as the first two named.  Saint Augustine, weighing the true significance and meaning of the word, affirms that the most excellent Sacraments of the Christians are few in number, and makes mention expressly of two: The Sacrament of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.  Although by the order of the Church of England there are certain other rites and ceremonies— the institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of children, and likewise for the Visitation of the Sick – yet no man ought to take these as Sacraments like Baptism and Holy Communion.  They are godly states of life, necessary in Christ’s Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity through the ministry of the Church; or for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ’s Church.

On the use of a known tongue (language)

Now let us see if the Scriptures or examples of the primitive Church allow any spoken private or public prayer, or any manner of Sacrament or other public rite, in an unknown tongue [or language], which is not understood by the Minister and people. To this we must answer, no.

As for Common prayer and the administration of the Sacraments, reason, if it ruled, would soon persuade us to have these in a known tongue. To pray commonly means that the people are asking one and the same thing, with one voice and agreement of mind.  But we do not need to flee to reasons and proofs.  We have both the plain and manifest words of Scripture and also the consent of the most learned and ancient writers.

St Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Let all things be done for edifying” [that is, for instruction and building up in understanding].  This cannot be done without prayers and administration of Sacraments in the language known by the people. When the trumpet blown in the field gives an uncertain sound, no man can tell what is piped.  When prayers are in a language unknown to the hearers, who will be stirred to lift up his mind to God?  Who in the administration of the sacraments will understand what invisible grace is to be wrought in the inner man?  Saint Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue unknown will be to the hearer a stranger and foreigner.” This, in a Christian congregation, is a great absurdity.  For we are not strangers one to another, but citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God.

From the time of Christ until Rome began to spread itself and impose on the nations of Europe the Roman language, there was no strange or unknown tongue used in the congregations.  St Justin Martyr, who lived 160 years after Christ, said of the administration of the Lord’s Supper in his time, “The head minister offers prayers and thanksgiving with all his power, and the people answer, Amen.”  These words plainly declare that not only were the Scriptures read in a known language, but also that prayer was made in the same.  Saint Ambrose says, “If you speak the praise of God in a tongue unknown to the hearers, there is no profit.”  Nothing should be done in the church in vain and to no profit.

On the benefits of the Lord’s Supper

[As for the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper], the great love of our Saviour Christ towards mankind appears not only in the dearly bought benefit of our redemption and salvation by his death and passion, but also in that he so kindly provided that this merciful work may be had in remembrance.  As a tender parent, our Lord and Saviour thought it not sufficient to purchase for us his Father’s favour again (which is the deep fountain of all goodness and eternal life) but also wisely devised the ways, [or means of grace,] whereby they might redound to our benefit and profit.

So our loving Saviour has ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his Passion, in the institution of his heavenly supper. In this we all must be guests, not onlookers, but feeding ourselves.  To this his promise beckons: “This is my body which is given for you,” and “This is my blood, which is shed for you.”  So then we must of necessity be partakers of this table.

But Saint Paul says, “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks his own condemnation.”  Therefore we must clearly understand that three things are requisite: First, a right and worthy estimation and understanding of this mystery; second, to come in a sure faith; and third, to have newness or pureness of life in order to effectively receive and possess the Sacrament.

We must be sure especially that this supper be ministered as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and as the good Fathers in the Primitive Church practised it.

Saint Paul blamed the Corinthians for profaning the Lord’s Supper. He demonstrates that ignorance of the thing itself and its true meaning was the cause of their abuse, for they came irreverently, not discerning the Lord’s Body.  What has been the cause of the ruin of God’s religion, but ignorance of it?  Let us try to understand the Lord’s Supper, so that we are not the cause of the decay of God’s worship or of idolatry, so we may more boldly have access, for our comfort.  We need not think that such exact knowledge is required that everyone must be able to discuss all the high points of doctrine. But we must be sure we understand that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony. It is not just a bare sign. It is not an empty figure of something that is absent. As Scripture says, it is the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the Annunciation of his death, and the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous embodiment and realization which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is wrought through faith in the souls of the faithful. By it not only do their souls live to eternal life, but they trust confidently to gain for their bodies a resurrection to immortality.

Holy Communion: Union between the body and the head

This result and union which is between the body and the head — that is, the true believers and Christ — the ancient Catholic Fathers both perceived themselves and commended to their people. Some of them were not afraid to call this Supper the “salve of immortality” and “sovereign preservative against death.” Others called it a “deifical Communion” [that is, a communion that is deifying, or makes us to be holy like God]. Others called it the sweet food of the Saviour, and the pledge of eternal health; also the defence of the Faith, the hope of the Resurrection; others still, the food of immortality, the healthful grace and conservation for eternal life, as we find in the writings of St Irenaeus, Origen, St Cyprian, St Athanasius.

All these things both the Holy Scripture and godly men have correctly attributed to this celestial banquet and feast.  If we would remember them, O how they would inflame our hearts to participate in these mysteries… always holding fast and cleaving by faith to the rock from which we derive the sweetness of everlasting salvation.  Here the faithful may see, hear, and know the mercies of God sealed, Christ’s satisfaction for us confirmed, the remission of sin established.  Here they may experience the tranquillity of conscience, the increase of faith, the strengthening of hope, the spreading abroad of brotherly kindness, with many other sundry graces of God.

That faith is a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies, we may assure ourselves.  As Saint Paul says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” As the bodily food cannot feed the outward man unless it be truly digested in the stomach, no more can the inward man be fed unless his food be received into his soul and heart in faith.  St Cyprian said, “With sincere faith we break and divide that whole bread.”  The food we seek in this Supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly reflection.

Thus, beloved, we see that when we gather to this table we must pluck up all the roots of infidelity, all distrust in God’s promise, so that we may make ourselves living members of Christ’s body; so that we receive not only the outward Sacrament but the spiritual thing also: not the figure, but the truth; not the shadow only, but the substance; and this not to death, but to life; not to destruction but to salvation… which thing may God grant us to do through the merits of our Lord and Saviour, to whom be all honour and glory for ever.  Amen.

For two years now I have been sharing comparisons of Old Testament translations on social media, especially the Proverbs. Quite often people respond with the question, “What does the Hebrew say?” They have before them several renowned translations, including the Matthew and Geneva Bibles, the KJV, and the NIV, but feel compelled to ask what the Hebrew says! Confusion arises because the translations disagree, creating a riddle. Sometimes they are so different, one wonders if they derive from the same Hebrew text. (And sometimes they do not. See note 1 below.)

Some moderns believe they are competent to pronounce on the correct translation with reference to their Hebrew dictionaries or seminary studies. I am content to let them be their own translators and debate the issues among themselves. However, I have studied languages. I know that even years of university study and great textbooks are not sufficient in themselves to make a good translator – much less when it comes to a dead language, and especially when it comes to the Bible, where faith and calling are prerequisites. Furthermore, all graduates are not equal. My father, a university professor, used to say that we must never forget that half of them were in the bottom of their class.

In the end the real question is, which Bible (or Bibles) can we trust? We cannot expect perfection, but must make a choice when translations disagree. They cannot all be true. If we care about truth, we are not indifferent to the problems they pose.

The confusion of commentaries

Often people try to solve translation riddles by wading through different commentaries. In my social media posts, conflicting “expert” opinions are offered as possible solutions. The truth is, the plethora of commentaries only increases confusion. A sensible reader will realize that bringing in ever more scholarly opinions will not solve the riddle either, because they also disagree.

In the early 1500s, William Tyndale lamented the same situation. There were so many commentators and expositors, he wrote, if you had but one book of each, they would fill a warehouse in London. And so he set out to give us a reliable English Bible, one the ploughboy could understand without resorting to scholars and clerics who would darken it with a thousand opinions. Myles Coverdale did the same. As we know, John Rogers then gathered the translations of these men together in the 1537 Matthew Bible, and even added helpful notes explaining Hebrew idioms, so we could know what the Hebrew said.

Did the Matthew men succeed in their mission to give us a true and clear Bible? Have all the later revisions really improved on their work? How can we judge? Lastly, can we confidently choose a trustworthy Bible from among those that disagree? I say we can, and, further, we need not learn ancient Hebrew to do so.

Witness X in the court of God’s word

I liken choosing a trustworthy Bible to juristic practice for choosing a trustworthy witness in a court of law. When a trial judge (or member of a jury) is faced with conflicting testimonies, he must choose between the witnesses. He cannot travel back in time to verify every fact, so he must choose the best witness(es) of the facts. This we must also do with our conflicting Bible translators, who are as expert witnesses in the court of God’s word. We cannot verify their understanding of ancient Hebrew, nor speak with the prophets and apostles to ask them what they meant. Therefore we must choose the most reliable witness or witnesses of the biblical testimony.

To evaluate trustworthiness a trial judge looks for certain things, including:

1. Forthcomingness. Is the witness direct and earnest to tell the full story?

3. Clarity. Is the witness clear? Clarity signals honesty, while confusion indicates error or deception. Clarify also indicates competence and clear-headedness.  A good maxim to remember is, Where there is confusion, there are lies.

3. Consistency. A truthful testimony is internally and externally consistent; that is, the witness will not contradict himself or externally verifiable truths. Here a good maxim is, It is given to liars to self contradict.

After the judge has chosen the truest witness, he will say, “When there is a conflict between witness testimonies, I accept the evidence of Witness X.” He does not expect perfection, but will give Witness X the benefit of the doubt. The necessity and wisdom of this approach is obvious. He has to make a decision, get on with his work, and close the case.

Where God’s word is concerned, there is also the subjective, spiritual test of voice recognition: the sheep know the Shepherd’s voice. Hearing is impaired, however, if the flock is asleep, or when the thief makes himself sound like the Shepherd by weaving truth with falsehood, or by “speaking fair,” as Tyndale would say.

Getting on with our work

Can we apply the juristic tests to Bibles to choose our Witness X? Yes. We can test the biblical testimonies we have received from the men who have taken their hand to the Scriptures, make our finding, and get on with it. We should refuse the role of translator, to which we are not called and for which we are not qualified, and instead accept the role of juror in the court of God’s word. To this, all reasonably intelligent adults who know the Lord are called and qualified by the Holy Spirit.

If we are sincere and not blinded by pride or prejudice, we can examine and fairly judge Bible translations for forthcomingness, clarity, and consistency. I’ve done a lot of this work already, and will explain my discoveries and analysis in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible. We can’t always prove right or wrong in translation. Too  much is a matter of opinion, too much is lost in the mists of time. But we can weigh the preponderance of evidence.

As well as clarity, etc., Christians will want to assess a Bible translator’s faith. This is not easy with committee Bibles unless there are notes and commentaries. The Puritan notes in the Geneva Bible reveal that they were zealous for their “true Church of prophecy,” and we can discern the influence of their post-millennial doctrine. We have ample material to assess the faith of the Matthew men, Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers, through their legacy of writing. Also we have an extraordinary testimony from Martin Luther, who influenced the Matthew Bible. These were some of the translators God ordained to open his word to the world in the Reformation. It is up to the reader to read what they wrote and judge their faith. I have done this, and I believe they gave a faithful testimony. And after ten years of daily work with the Matthew Bible and comparing it to others, I can confidently accept it as my Witness X.

I should add, I would also be quite happy with Coverdale’s 1535 Bible — or Luther of 1534, or even Wycliffe’s Bible, if I could read the old German and middle English. I would base my decision on the trustworthiness of those men, like any good member of a jury is right to do.

Test the spirits, weigh the translations, decide for yourself

I don’t want anyone to just take my word for it. Subscribe for our upcoming blog posts, weigh the different translations, and decide for yourself. Given the great disagreement that exists between the biblical testimonies we have received, it is our responsibility to judge as best we can.

Notes:

(1) When the Puritans revised the Old Testament, in certain places they preferred LXX (Septuagint) renderings over the Hebrew text, as I explain in my paper on Exodus 21. We are not saying it is necessarily wrong to do this, but it is a relevant issue. As is demonstrated in my paper, modern resources may not reveal that a disagreement between translations results from a translator having departed from the Hebrew. Thus the lay researcher can never be sure he has the information he needs to judge the translations as “translations,” even if he were qualified to do so in the first place. However, the juristic tests may assist.

(2) To learn about the making of the Matthew Bible, read our book The Story of the Matthew Bible: That Which We First Received

(3) Find out about our gentle update of the Matthew Bible New Testament, called The October Testament, on our webpage , or purchase it here:  The October Testament on Amazon

Reading Luke chapter 3 today, it struck me that much in that chapter is an answer to Zionism. John the Baptist begins by teaching the people who are and who are not the true children of Abraham. He warns them not to consider themselves as such, but to understand that God is of power to create his own children of Abraham apart from them – out of the very rocks and stones even.

All scripture quotations below are from the October Testament, the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible. In Luke 3, John the Baptist is preaching to the people of Israel who had come to the Jordan River to see him, a strange man wearing only a girdle of skin, but speaking words of power:

Luke 3:7-9 Then he said to the people who came to be baptized by him, O offspring of vipers, who has taught you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth the due fruits of repentance, and do not begin to say in yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I say to you, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also is the axe laid to the root of the trees, so that every tree that does not bring forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire.

John calls the Israelites the offspring of vipers, and warns them that they must not consider themselves the offspring of Abraham unless they bring forth the due fruit of repentance. Repentance is the true and the good fruit, which identifies those who may call Abraham their father. Those who do not show it will be hewn down – including hardhearted Israel.

And the common people heard John’s message. The publicans and the soldiers wanted to know more. He answered and showed them that the true Israelite is merciful, honest, gentle, and abhors covetousness:

Luke 3:10-14 And the people asked him, saying, What should we do then? He answered and said to them, He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.

Then there came publicans to be baptized, who asked him, Master, what should we do? And he said to them, Require no more than that which is appointed to you.

The soldiers likewise enquired of him, saying, And what should we do? And he said to them, Do violence to no man, neither trouble any man wrongfully, but be content with your wages.

These qualities, not ethnicity, make one a child of Abraham, and prove one to be a true child of the promise, the Jew that is hid within, and a citizen of the Israel that belongs to God. For it was not said idly that God loves mercy, and not sacrifices or burnt offerings. Many scriptures attest to this, and that repentance is the fruit that characterizes the children of the kingdom:

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: I have pleasure in mercy, and not in offering. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.

*****

© Ruth Magnusson Davis 2018

The October Testament is William Tyndale’s New Testament as it was published in the 1537/1549 Matthew Bible. It contains also the commentaries of that Reformation Bible, which were written by Tyndale’s friend John Rogers. The whole work has been gently updated by Ruth Magnusson Davis, maintaining the truth, historic language, and beauty of the original. Ruth’s favourite edition of the October Testament, the hardcover case laminate, can be purchased through your bookstore, or with one click here from Amazon

by Ruth Magnusson Davis, founder and editor of the New Matthew Bible Project

I’ve been discovering that the 1537 Matthew Bible and the Geneva Bible treat sin differently. Sometimes the differences are obvious, sometimes subtle. In this blog post I look at Proverbs 22:8. The issue concerns the end, fruit, or consequences of sin.

The question is, where does sin take us? What are the consequences of doing evil – or of “sowing iniquity,” as Myles Coverdale put it in the Matthew Bible? Another way to ask the question is, what are the consequences that really matter? What would God have us to understand? Does wisdom teach us that sin leads to (1) personal destruction, or (2) a loss of personal authority, or (3) merely to useless anger? All three of these very different things are taught in various Bibles. Clearly they cannot all be correct translations.

Proverbs 22:8

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible (from Coverdale 1535): He that soweth wickedness shall reap sorrow, and the rod of his plague shall destroy him.

♦ 1599 Geneva: He that soweth iniquity, shall reap affliction, and the *rod of his anger shall fail.

   Geneva note: His authority, whereby he did oppress others, shall be taken from him.

♦ KJV: He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.

♦ NIV: Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity, and the rod they wield in fury will be broken.

♦ Complete Jewish Bible: He who sows injustice reaps trouble, and the rod of his angry outburst will fail.

♦ The Message: Whoever sows sin reaps weeds, and bullying anger sputters into nothing.

The Matthew Bible teaches that the man who sows wickedness will be plagued; that is, he will reap sorrow and troubles. These plagues will destroy him. This applies to everyone, high or low, weak or strong. ‘Plagues’ in the Scriptures are usually understood as trouble sent by God to punish sin.

The Geneva Bible, however, changes the message quite significantly. First, the ‘plague’ becomes a ‘rod of anger.’  Second, the rod is not wielded against the evil-doer, but it is his own. The evil man himself wields it. This takes God out of the picture as the one wielding a rod to plague the evil-doer.

According to the Geneva note, the rod of anger symbolizes the authority of the evil man. Thus the verse is made to apply to persons in positions of power or authority, and the consequence is merely that they will have their authority taken away. This abstracts the teaching from ordinary daily life and loses the message that evil-doing destroys a man. (I have a strong hunch that the Puritan interpretation is related to their post-millennial vision for the Church. The rod of anger to be destroyed is that of the Roman Antichrist. They believed they were prophets who, with God’s aid, would do this, and would restore the true Church to glory. They saw such prophecies everywhere in the Old Testament. However, that topic is for another time and place.)

In later Bibles the ‘rod of anger’ becomes not a man’s authority, but, more obviously, his anger. This is certainly a more intuitive understanding of the Puritan English translation, if moderns were guided in part by the English, which I suspect is the case. In the end, according to modern Bibles, a wicked person simply discovers that his anger gets him nowhere. The Message makes the evil-doer out as an impotent bully, which I think wrongly diminishes the powerful impact of sin on its victims.

All the revisions lose the idea that God punishes sin by visiting plagues upon evil-doers.

Does it matter? I think so.

In my last blog, I compared translations of Proverbs 10:16. The issue there was the agency of sin: in particular, human responsibility for working evil (or good). I cannot really criticize this revision, because the Puritans did not deny human agency. They simply followed the Hebrew literally, and it made no express mention of man as the agent of sin. But in the final analysis, the result has in modern Bibles been to diminish our understanding of the process and intentionality of people who work good and those who work evil. The post on Proverbs 10:16 is here.

It helps to have a bit of background. The Geneva Bible was a Puritan revision of the Bible translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. The early Puritans, to advance their vision for their Church, revised and annotated the original translations according to their “new light” – as they themselves said in their preface. This “new light” was their belief that they were the prophets foretold in the Old Testament who would restore the Church and lead it to glory. They taught about this restored Church in many of their notes. This partly explains why they departed from Tyndale and translated the Greek ‘ecclesia’ by ‘Church’ instead of ‘congregation.’ First they worked over Tyndale’s New Testament, which they characterized as immature and irreverent. Then they took the Great Bible as their base for the Old Testament and changed it also. More information about this fascinating and largely forgotten chapter in English Bible history is linked here.

Cite this article: Davis, Ruth Magnusson. “Comparing Proverbs 22:8 – Doctrines of Sin,” BaruchHousePublishing.com, etc.

** To purchase the OCTOBER TESTAMENT in Ruth’s favourite format, the “full size” hardcover, click here

I’ve been working through the Proverbs in the Matthew Bible, versifying them and preparing the text for the Old Testament of the New Matthew Bible. I’ve discovered many fascinating changes. See for example Proverbs 10:16, and how the meaning has been recast over the centuries.

My question: Have the changes impaired our understanding of responsibility for sin? Or our understanding of what evil people do?

Note: There is no verb in the Hebrew. It was up to the translator to determine the meaning.

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible (also Coverdale 1535 and 1540 Great Bible): The righteous laboureth to do good, but the ungodly useth his increase unto sin.

(“The ungodly useth his increase unto sin” means evil people use their wealth or influence for sin.)

♦ 1599 Geneva: The labour of the righteous tendeth to life, but the revenues of the wicked to sin.

♦ KJV: The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

♦ ESV: The wage of the righteous leads to life, the gain of the wicked to sin.

♦ NIV: The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death.

♦ The Message: The wage of a good person is exuberant life; an evil person ends up with nothing but sin.

See how in English, the verb evolved from useth for > tendeth to >  leads to > is> ends up with.

In the Matthew Bible, good and evil are done by people. In the Geneva Bible (apparently following the Hebrew more literally), responsibility is abstracted, and labour and revenues are personified as agents of good or evil. My best guess is that the verb ‘tendeth to’ was used in the obsolete sense “to turn one’s attention, apply oneself to do something.”  Thus it had the same sense as the Matthew Bible, but agency was abstracted, so it was the labour and revenues that applied themselves, rather than the people. I’m not saying that this is wrong. In early modern English, a reader would probably have understood the metaphorical manner of speech, and that it was the persons who were active in the deed, given the meaning of the verb. Coverdale, however, clarified the agency of man. In this he apparently followed Martin Luther, who in 1534 had in the first clause “der gerechte erbeitet zum leben.”

However, in modern Bibles the meaning changed again, until finally in the NIV and the Message we find that sin is earned by people, not done by them. This is misleading no matter how you look at it. I suspect the modern translations are actually a misunderstanding of the old English “tendeth to.” It is not the first time I have suspected that the moderns were guided by old English words that have changed in meaning, and which they did not therefore understand properly.

In the end, the clarity of the Matthew Bible proves its worth.
—————————-

For more information about the Matthew Bible, and about our project to update it, click on our “NMB Project” link above.
The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible is complete. We have published it as The October Testament. Purchase it with one click here: The October Testament: The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible

The historical details of the gospel stories matter. To fudge them, lose them, or distort them, changes the message of the Bible and takes away from God’s word.

New Testament teaching about the payment of tribute is such a detail. It has symbolic significance. ‘Tribute’ is not tax, but some modern translators have changed it to ‘tax’ or ‘taxes.’ Thus they have robbed us of the opportunity to understand the symbolism and, at the same time, enabled error.

What is tribute and why does it matter?

‘Tribute’ is a special levy paid by the ruler of a nation, or its people, to a foreign power. It is demanded as a sign of submission or for protection. It also sometimes refers to rent or homage paid by a vassal to his lord or sovereign. ‘Tax,’ however, is a different thing. We understand it as payment that is made to a (usually) domestic government without any element of homage; that is, it is not intended to meet any obligation of vassalage. See the primary definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary:

Tribute  1.a. A tax or impost paid by one prince or state to another in acknowledgement of submission or as the price of peace, security, and protection; rent or homage paid in money or an equivalent by a subject to his sovereign or a vassal to his lord.

Tax 1.a. A compulsory contribution to the support of government, levied on persons, property, income, commodities, transactions, etc., now at fixed rates, mostly proportional to the amount on which the contribution is levied.

Tribute presupposes subjugation or a duty of homage, and therein lies the rub.

When Jesus came to Israel, the Jews were required to pay tribute to Rome, their hated conqueror. Their fervent hope, their national hope, was that the Messiah would liberate them from this bondage. The coming Deliverer was expected to lead the restoration of Israel as a sovereign state in her promised homeland. This is classic Zionism, of course. It arises from a literal understanding certain Old Testament promises to the fathers as enduring promises of national or ethnic sovereignty (and fails to understand the enduring promise that was to the seed). The Jews believed that, as God’s chosen people, they must have their own political and geographic kingdom on this earth, this side of heaven.

Therefore the widespread hope of the Jewish people before Jesus’ first coming was for political emancipation and national sovereignty. It was wrong for them to be in a state of vassalage to a foreign power, because they were God’s people and the beneficiaries of his promises of nationhood. Political subjugation must end; tribute must end. This, they believed, was the substance of God’s promises to Israel.

And so the Jews did not want to hear from the Messiah that they should pay tribute to Rome. In fact, to say such a thing could land a man in trouble. It was traitorous, it was unpatriotic, it was unJewish; it was unlawful under Mosaic law and in light of the divine promises to Israel. The evil Pharisees and Sadducees tried to ensnare Jesus on this issue, as we learn from Matthew 22:15-21:

The Pharisees went and took counsel, how they might tangle him in his words. And they sent to him their disciples with Herod’s servants, saying, Master, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truly, neither mind any person, for you do not consider men’s estate. Tell us therefore what you think: is it lawful to remit tribute to Caesar, or not?

Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, Why do you bait me, you hypocrites? Let me see the tribute coin. So they brought him a denarius. And he said to them, Whose image and superscription is this? They said to him, Caesar’s. Then he said to them, Give therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and give to God that which is God’s.

The religious leaders hoped to trick Jesus into saying things that would earn him the wrath of the Jews or of the Romans. But he avoided the trap, and, by confirming that tribute was due to Caesar, showed that he was no Zionist. For the kingdom he came to inaugurate has nothing to do with worldly liberation, but spiritual; it is not of this world. This is the New Covenant, the promise of deliverance from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God and the life that is in Christ. Its citizens are the Jews that are “hid within,” the Israel of God. And so Jesus refuted Zionism.

In short, he is the conqueror, and he has won for us an everlasting kingdom. It is to him that we owe the homage that is of real consequence. He told us to pay tribute to Caesar, and so we do, knowing that we are pilgrims in a strange country. Our citizenship is in heaven, and we are looking for our heavenly country, whose maker and founder is God.

But such lessons cannot be built on the passage when the translators change ‘tribute’ to ‘tax.’ To do this takes away from the foundation a brick that enables us to understand the nature of the New Covenant. If I may mix metaphors, it then becomes easier to build straw upon the weakened foundation. Modern straw is that Jesus wants us to pay taxes and be good citizens. Yes, but no. And, more significantly, moderns have rebuilt the straw house of Zionism. They have fallen into errors that the English Reformers called “Jewish opinions” and “Jewish fables,” seeking an earthly kingdom for the citizens of the earthly Israel. These errors obviously become easier to fall into, and more difficult to refute, when the Scriptures that refute them are changed.

There are three Greek words translated ‘tribute’ by Tyndale (and also in the KJV) that have been variously translated by moderns. Strong, in his Concordance, certainly raises issues with his definitions. However, I have no doubt that the Greek was used idiomatically in these passages to refer to tribute payments, and Tyndale knew and understood this.

Other Bible passages that teach about tribute and the Lord’s kingdom

That the payment of tribute or suchlike is not a concern of the Israel that belongs to God (whether Jew or Gentile) is reiterated in other passages. The question of the lawfulness of tribute arises in Mark 12:14 and Luke 23:2. Jesus also used the issue to teach about the freedom of God’s people at Matthew 17:24-27:

And when they had come to Capernaum, men that collected the poll money came to Peter and asked, Does your teacher pay tribute? He said, Yes. And when he had come into the house, Jesus spoke first to him, saying, What do you think, Simon: from whom do the kings of the earth take tribute or poll money? From their children, or from others? Peter answered, From others. And Jesus said to him, Then the children are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea and cast in your hook, and take the fish that first comes up. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a coin. Take it, and pay for me and you.

We may learn from this that the children of the Lord’s kingdom are free, even though they should pay tribute to Rome. Theirs is another kingdom, and theirs is another king, one who is not “of the earth.” (But some moderns have changed ‘tribute’ to ‘temple-tax’ here, which to my mind confounds the message even further, the temple being as much beloved by the Jews as Rome was hated.)

The apostle Paul also taught that tribute should be paid to Rome at Romans 13:7:

Give to all persons therefore that which is due to them: tribute to whom tribute belongs, custom to whom custom is due, fear to whom fear belongs, honour to whom honour pertains. Owe nothing to anyone, but to love one another. For he who loves another, fulfils the law.

Pay your earthly dues, says Paul, be they tax (‘custom’) or tribute, but, moreover, concern yourself with the dues of the everlasting kingdom, whose currency is love. We may pay homage to Caesar or to any earthly lord without murmuring, understanding that all power and all authority is ordained by God. We know also that what ultimately matters is the homage due to God, and this we may pay in our hearts anytime, anywhere, freely. For our Zion is a spiritual mount.

©Ruth Magnusson Davis, Baruch House Publishing

~~~

A longer (4 page, still short!) version of this paper, with references and also a discussion of how modern Bibles changed Revelation 10:6 to support premillennialism, is here: Tribute Is Not Tax: Scripture Changes, Doctrine Changes

Needless to say, the October Testament (the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible) kept the word ‘tribute.’ We did not change it. Purchase the only ‘modern’ New Testament that is not: The October Testament: The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible

Please note, the author is not anti-Semitic. Politically, she is pro-Israel. She simply believes that in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, but all are as one. She also does not dismiss the possibility that there will be an influx of Jews into the kingdom of Christ at the end of the age. It is possible, but does not change anything written here.

Scripture quotations are from the October Testament, 2018 edition.

Exodus 21:7-11 prescribes rules for the treatment of Hebrew girls or young women sold into indentured service by their fathers. Aside from financial considerations, it appears ancient fathers had good reason to do this: it was a way to find a husband for their daughters. In Exodus we learn that during a girl’s term of service the master might betroth her to a future husband. It seems he had not only the authority to do this, but also the duty. We discover that these Jewish masters sometimes promised to give or betroth the girls to their own sons. Finally, we learn what should happen if a young maiden was not given a husband, or if, when she had been promised to the master’s son, he took (or was given) another wife.

William Tyndale’s translation

Verses 1-11 in Exodus 21 have to do generally with the proper treatment of servants when their term of indenture comes to an end. Verses 1-6 cover menservants, limit the period they shall serve, and give special consideration to situations when the master gave the manservant a wife during his term of service, and, also, if the couple had children.

Verses 7-11 deal with girls sold into servitude by their fathers. Verse 7 says specifically that this is a different matter. No time of service is stipulated, and there is no mention of children. If her master found a husband for her, the maid would presumably remain in the master’s household until her season of betrothal ended. Then the wedding would occur and her status would change as appropriate in the circumstances. The main focus of the verses is what to do if the master did not like the girl and so did not give her a husband.

Here is Tyndale’s translation from the 1537 Matthew Bible:

1 ¶These are the laws which thou shalt set before them.

2 If thou buy a servant that is an Hebrew, six years he shall serve, and the seventh he shall go out free paying nothing.

3 If he came alone, he shall go out alone: If he came married, his wife shall go out with him.

4 And if his master have given him a wife and she have borne him sons or daughters, then the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone.

5 But and if the servant say, I love my master and my wife and my children, I will not [do not wish to] go out free.

6 Then let his master bring him unto the gods [judges and princes] and set him to the door or the doorpost, and bore his ear through with a nawl [sic], and let him be his servant forever.

7 ¶If a man sell his daughter to be a servant: she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, so that he hath given her to no man to wife, then shall he let her go free: to sell her unto a strange nation shall he have no power, because he despised her.

9 If he have promised her unto his son to wife, he shall deal with her as men do with their daughters.

10 If he take him another wife, yet her food, raiment, and duty of marriage shall he not minish [reduce or withdraw].

11 If he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out free and pay no money.

So then, verses 7-11 discuss the master’s responsibility to a maiden who has come under his care and authority through an arrangement with her father. There was an expectation that the master would find a husband for the girl. If this did not happen, she must go free.

However, if the master had promised the girl to his son, he stood in loco parentis; that is, as an in-law, he stood in the place of a father to her and must treat her as his own (v9), as adopted into the family through marriage. But if the marriage to the son fell through, then what? In such a case, he had a continuing obligation to provide for her the three things set out in v10 – food, raiment, and duty of marriage – as a father would for a daughter. (We will explore what ‘duty of marriage’ means below.) However, in some circumstances it might not be feasible for the master to provide these things, or he might neglect or refuse to do so. If so, again she must go free.

Because he despised her

In v8, I believe Tyndale used ‘despise’ in the obsolete sense, “to treat with contempt in word or deed” (OED online). It meant that the master had spoken or acted against the girl, contemned her, rejected her. Why did despising her oblige the master to let her go free? The essence of his obligation was to advance her interests, especially her opportunity for marriage. This meant he should care well for her and represent her as worthy, but he had demonstrated that he could not or would not. In modern legal terms, he had repudiated the agreement. Therefore it must be treated as at an end. He might wish now to sell the maid away to strangers, but this he may not do.

But if there had also been an arrangement between the master and the girl’s father that the girl would marry the master’s son, the master still stood in loco parentis, pursuant to his promise. Verse 10 makes clear that his fatherly obligation continued. However, if he did not meet this obligation, v11 applied. His right and authority was terminated, he could not sell her, and she must be allowed to go out freely.

Duty of marriage: a home or shelter

Verse 10 requires the master not to diminish the provision of food, clothing, and “duty of marriage” to the maiden. What is ‘duty of marriage’? It is a general term. ‘Duty’ is old English for ‘that which is due.’ ‘Of marriage’ means by reason of marriage; that is, belonging to or arising out of the married state. In this context it must refer back to v9, which says betrothal to the son (which was considered as binding as marriage) obliges the master to care for the girl as his own daughter. Therefore she should have her food, clothing, and also this vague ‘duty’ or due, by reason of the promised marriage to the son.

The Hebrew translated ‘duty of marriage’ is one word: ‘ownah.’ According to Strong, it derives from a root word meaning ‘to dwell together.’ It has to do with living in the same household. In ancient times many households, especially those of wealthy men, were large, with many generations and extended family members dwelling together as a group, if not under one roof, then in a household encampment or caravan. Therefore in this context ‘duty of marriage’ means generally all that the girl was entitled to as an in-law dwelling with the family. But if the master fails or refuses to provide food, clothing, and a proper home, the girl shall go out free, as though redeemed. (This is further discussed in my long version of this paper, linked at the end.)

Duty of marriage: sex … or?

However, some interpreters consider ‘ownah’ or ‘duty of marriage’ to refer to conjugal relations; that is, sexual relations, such as were proper only between a husband and wife. This arises out of a different translation of v8 as changed in the Geneva Bible:

Exodus 21:8 in the Matthew Bible If she please not her master, so that he hath given her to no man as wife, then shall he let her go free: to sell her unto a strange nation shall he have no power, because he despised her.

Exodus 21:8 in the Geneva Bible If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he cause to buy her: he shall have no power to sell her to a strange people, seeing he despised her.

Instead of saying the master had given the daughter to no man, the Geneva says he had betrothed her to himself. Various suggestions of seduction and illicit relations between the master and the maidservant have arisen out of this. However, the main thing to note here is that this change does not follow the Hebrew. It follows an alternate rendering suggested by Jewish scribes in a marginal note on v8 in the Masoretic text.

Pastor Sam Powell explains:

It is fascinating. In the Hebrew text, there are certain places where the ancient scribes, for whatever reason, thought that there should be some changes in the text. But they had such a respect for God’s word, they wouldn’t dare change the text itself. So they made their “edits” in the margin, as notes to the reader. These became known as the qere (to read) as opposed to kethib (as written). The kethib was the exact consonants, as they were written. The qere were the marginal notes on how to read it. I believe that the kethib is inspired, and the qere you take with a grain of salt, as it were.

In Exodus 21:8, the kethib is lo’, which means ‘not.’ And that clause would be “whom he has not betrothed” – pretty much the way Tyndale has it. But the qere reading (in the margin) is low, pronounced the same, but with different consonants. It means ‘to him,’ rather than ‘not,’ so the translation would be “which he betrothed her to him” which is what the Vulgate, Septuagint [LXX], and all the English versions have from Geneva on down. Geneva was following the lead of the LXX, I believe. They did a lot.

So it depends on one consonant: lo’ or low. The Hebrew gives us “which he did not betroth her”; the other gives us “which he betrothed her to himself” If you take the consonants as written, Tyndale was right. (Private correspondence, May-June 2018)

We see therefore that Tyndale followed the Hebrew, the kethib, at v8. However, the Geneva revisers departed from the Hebrew to follow the qere. This changed everything, because later Bibles followed suit. It has led to a great deal of confusion about how sexual relations might be “due” if the parties never married.

For people interested in a closer study, and to see the full 1560 Geneva text, Martin Luther’s 1534 translation, and also that of the French Reformer Pierre Olivetan in 1535, see my longer pdf version of this paper linked below. It also includes John Calvin’s commentary on the passage and more explanations of the Hebrew from Pastor Powell: Long paper, Exodus 21

Many changes the Puritans made to the Scriptures are discussed in other articles on this blog. See for example: On Psalm 23

Learn also about the Puritan condemnation of the translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale here: Puritan Rejection of Matthew Bible

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, June 2018