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

I’ve been thinking lately that there are two types of questions, genuine and rhetorical.

Genuine questions

The essential nature of a genuine question is that the asker does not know the answer. He or she is seeking to understand. This is the ‘sincere’ question.

I like a sincere question. If I don’t know the answer, it gets me thinking. I love it if it is from a non-believer about the faith, if only God gives me wisdom to answer well.

But the devil hates a genuine question. After all, it might lead to truth. He will shut down sincere enquiry wherever he can. A few times I have been shocked to see angry responses to good questions from pastors, the very people who should be encouraging them. When a sincere question touches a nerve, something is very wrong.

But the Lord promises that he who seeks, will find, for the kingdom of heaven is taken by that kind of effort. (I do not deny the sovereignty of God in salvation. But in part, he calls us to him by causing us to seek, and in part, I believe, the child of God knows that something is missing from his life, and cannot rest until he finds his father in the face of Jesus Christ.)

Of course, the devil will also lead the seeker astray if he can. We have all been led into error of one sort or another. None of us is perfect or understands everything, but the Lord is often merciful to deliver us out of error. He even uses error to teach – not only to sharpen our grasp of truth, but also to help us understand how fallible we are, and to foster compassion in us when we see others making the same mistakes.

Rhetorical questions

The essential nature of a rhetorical question is that the questioner knows the answer, or thinks he does. This is the ‘pointed’ question. It can be used for good or for ill. On the stage or in the classroom such questions may be well used, but my thinking is that in personal relationships they are best avoided.

A rhetorical question is asked for one of two purposes: to prove a point or to stimulate thought. It may provoke laughter when well used by comedians. Jesus used pointed questions to teach and to reprove. For example, he encouraged thought about the mystery of his incarnation as both Lord and son of David when he asked this question:

How then does David in the Spirit call him [Jesus] Lord, saying, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool? If David calls him Lord, how is he then his son? (Matthew 22:43-45)

He also used rhetorical questions to prove hypocrisy and insincerity:

Jesus answered and said to them, I also will ask of you a certain question, which, if you answer me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John: whence was it? from heaven, or of men?

Then they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we say from heaven, he will say to us, why did you not then believe him? But if we say it was of men, then we fear the people. (For everyone held John to be a prophet.)

And they answered Jesus and said, We don’t know.

And he likewise said to them, Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Matthew 21:24-27)

The Pharisees refused to answer Jesus’ question because they cared nothing for truth, but only for their own reputation and appearances. There was no answer that would make them look good, so they kept quiet. Jesus said to them, “You are of your father, the devil … there is no truth in him” (John 8:44).

Jesus used pointed questions against the Pharisees to show them (and us) who they really were. They of course hated him for it. After relating the parable of the unfruitful vineyard the wicked vinedressers, which they knew from Isaiah 5, he asked two questions:

Now when the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do with those husbandmen?

They said to him, He will miserably destroy those evil persons, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, who will render to him the fruit in their seasons.

Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the scriptures: The stone which the builders refused, the same is set in the principal part of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and will be given to the Gentiles, who will bring forth the fruits of it. And whosoever falls on this stone, he shall be broken; but whomever it falls upon, it will grind him to powder.

When the chief priests and Pharisees heard these similitudes, they perceived that he was speaking of them. And they went about to lay hands on him… (Matthew 21:40-46)

So Jesus offended many with some of his questions, and earned enemies. This he did for the sake of truth and judgment.

But pointed questions in the mouths of fallible humans can often be needlessly offensive. Sometimes our motivation, conscious or not, is to show our moral or intellectual superiority, which of course requires that the other be proved wrong or foolish. The other person will soon catch on, and if we make a habit of this, we will find ourselves unpopular. This I suppose could be called the ‘barbed’ question. Some people use barbed questions deliberately and even cruelly. Others are unaware they use them, or even think they are being ‘helpful’ – an unpleasant sort of nagging. Conversation with this sort of questioner can lead to strife. I hate to see children confused and entrapped by unfair, pointed questions from parents and other adults who lack empathy.

I’m thinking that for the most part it is a good rule for us to restrict our questions to the sincere variety – unless we are like Tucker Carlson, on stage to make a point, or are teaching or debating a point in an appropriate setting. What do you think? (That’s a sincere question.)

(Scripture quotations are from the October Testament)

This is a foretaste of the Proverbs in the New Matthew Bible.

The Book of Proverbs is incredibly clear and easy to understand in the original 1537 Matthew Bible. Here we have updated only obsolete grammar and a few obvious obsolete words. This is not the final version, but it is obvious that the final version will be so close to this, we want to share it with you now.

The Scripture translation is Myles Coverdale’s. He used German Bibles (strong influence of Martin Luther) as his base, and first published this in 1537. John Rogers took it into the Matthew Bible, and wrote the chapter summaries and notes. He had various sources for his notes, which I explained in my book, “The Story of the Matthew Bible.”

Here is chapter 1 of this book of wisdom:

The Proverbs of Solomon

Chapter 1

The praise of wisdom. We may not hearken unto the voluptuous provocations and enticings of sinners. Wisdom complains her to be despised of all men, and prophesies destruction unto her despisers.

THE PROVERBS of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel: ²to learn wisdom, instruction,^a understanding, ³prudence, righteousness, judgement, and equity. ⁴That the very babes might have wit, and that young men might have knowledge and understanding. ⁵By hearing, the wise man shall come by more wisdom, ⁶and by experience he shall be more apt to understand a parable and the interpretation thereof, the words of the wise, and the dark speeches of the same.

 ⁷The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools^b despise wisdom and instruction.

⁸My son, hear your father’s doctrine, and forsake not the law of your mother, ⁹for that shall bring grace unto your head,^c and shall be a chain about your neck. ¹⁰My son, consent not to sinners, ¹¹if they entice you and say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood,^d and lurk privily for the innocent without a cause; ¹²let us swallow them up like the hell; let us devour them quick and whole, as those that go down into the pit. ¹³So shall we find all manner of costly riches, and fill our houses with spoils. ¹⁴Cast in your lot among us, we shall have all one purse.

¹⁵My son, walk not with them. Refrain thy foot from their ways. ¹⁶For their feet run to evil, and are hasty to shed blood. ¹⁷But in vain is the net laid forth before the bird’s eyes.^{e 18}Yea they themselves lay wait one for another’s blood, and one of them would slay another. ¹⁹These are the ways of all such as be covetous, that one would ravish another’s life.

²⁰Wisdom cries without, and puts forth her voice in the streets. ²¹She calls before the congregation in the open gates, and shows her words through the city, saying, ²²O ye children, how long will you love childishness? How long will the scorners^f delight in scorning, and the unwise be enemies unto knowledge? ²³O turn ye, to my correction; lo, I will express my mind to you, and make you understand my words.

²⁴Seeing then that I have called, and you refused it – I have stretched out my hand, and no one regarded it, ²⁵but all my counsels you have despised, and set my corrections at naught – ²⁶therefore shall I also laugh in your destruction, and mock you when the thing that you fear comes upon you: ²⁷even when the thing that you are afraid of falls in suddenly like a storm, and your misery like a tempest; yea when trouble and heaviness come upon you. ²⁸Then will they call upon me, but I will not hear. They will seek me early, but they shall not find me; ²⁹and that because they hated knowledge, and received not the fear of the Lord, ³⁰but abhorred my counsel, and despised my correction.

³¹Therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own way, and be filled with their own counsels. ³²For the turning away of the unwise shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall be their own destruction. ³³But whosoever hearkens unto me shall dwell safely, and have enough, without any fear of evil.

*****

The Notes (by John Rogers)

1. a) 1:1 ‘Instruction’ is that which the scholar learns under his master, whether it be knowledge or manners.
2. b) 1:7 What ‘fool’ commonly signifies in the Proverbs, see in chapter 12.
3. c) 1:9 Grace for crown.
4. d) 1:11 Of this in Micah.vii.a. (To labour to shed blood, or to lie in wait for blood, is to make people’s lives laborious and miserable, by threatenings, murder, and violence. Proverbs 1.b.)
5. e) 1:17 In vain is the net laid, etc; that is, it is a vain thing to lie in wait for they whom God defends, since those who lie in wait shall rather perish than they.
6. f) 1:22 How and in what signification to take “scorners” in the Proverbs, is explained after in the ix,d. (c9, note (b): Scornful or mocking persons, according to David Kymhi, are those who are subtle and crafty to hurt others, and who are ready to defame others, and to reveal and tell secrets, and so to break concord and unity. And those also who make a mock at the word of God and despise it, and who repute it for foolishness, as after in the xiiii,a. xix,d. & xxii,b.)

Everywhere I turn I see big semantic and doctrinal changes introduced in the Geneva Bible, when the Puritans took the Scriptures in hand and revised them.

Take Malachi 2:13-16. Both the Matthew and Geneva Bibles mention altars covered with tears. Both say there is a problem in Israel: the men despise their wives, and the Lord rebukes them for this sin. But who is weeping, and why? See what has changed since the Reformation.

1537 Matthew Bible:

13 Now have ye brought it to this point again, that the altar of the Lord is covered with tears, weeping, and mourning: so that I will no more regard the meat offering, neither will I receive nor accept anything at your hands.

14 And yet ye say, wherefore [why]? Even because that whereas the Lord made a covenant betwixt thee and the wife of thy youth, thou hast despised her: Yet is she thine own companion and married wife.

15 So did not the one,* and yet had he an excellent spirit. What did then the one? He sought the seed promised of God. Therefore look well to your spirit, and let no man despise the wife of his youth.

16 If thou hatest her, put her away, sayeth the Lord God of Israel, and give her a clothing for the scorn, sayeth the Lord of hosts. Look well then to your spirit, and despise her not.

MB note: “the one” is Abraham.

The meaning is clear. The women weep because their husbands despise them. Malachi holds up Abraham as an example of a man with an excellent spirit toward his wife, and exhorts the men to guard their own spirits. However, if a man hates his wife, he may put her away, to spare further injury and grief – but he must “give her a clothing for the scorn. ‘Clothing’ means a covering. The men must take steps to ‘clothe’  ‘cover’ the hurt and dishonour their wives have suffered.

But this changed significantly in the Geneva Version. Here it is not the wives who weep:

1599 Geneva:

13 And this have ye done again, and [a]covered the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with mourning: because the offering is no more regarded, neither received acceptably at your hands.

14 Yet ye say, [b]Wherein? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast transgressed: yet is she thy [c]companion, and the wife of thy [d]covenant

15 And did not [e]he make one? yet had he [f]abundance of spirit: and wherefore one? because he sought a godly [g]seed: therefore keep yourselves in your [h]spirit, and let none trespass against the wife of his youth.

16 If thou hatest her, [i]put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, yet he covereth [j]the injury under his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore keep yourselves in your spirit, and transgress not.

Geneva notes (they had ten, I put two only here):

Malachi 2:13 Yet cause the people to lament, because that God doth not regard their sacrifices, so that they seem to sacrifice in vain.

Malachi 2:16 He thinketh it sufficient to keep his wife still, albeit he take others, and so as it were covereth his fault.

In the Geneva Bible, it is the people who are weeping, because the Lord does not regard their meat offerings. How plausible is this? And then, unlike the Matthew Bible where the concern is for the women, in the Geneva Bible it is for the man. The note on verse 16 even says the husband may comfort himself with a new wife, and in this manner somehow cover his fault. It defies common sense and justice.

The Geneva Bible thus changed the  meaning from covering the hurt of the woman to covering the “fault” of the man. At Genesis 20:16, the Geneva Bible also changed the meaning of a  “covering” to protect Abraham’s wife Sarah. See Sarah’s Covering. This is a pattern in the Geneva Bible.

In Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible I will examine the differences more closely.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, May 2018. Revised October 2019.

Here is the original translation of Psalm 2 as we received it in the 1537 Matthew Bible, before it went on to be revised in the Great Bible, and then more so in the Geneva and King James versions.

Hardly anyone knows about the Matthew Bible. It was the joint work of 3 men: William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, and John Rogers. They strove not only to give God’s word to the English people, but to give it clearly. Psalm 2 illustrates this loving intent. Here is the first English translation from the Reformation, and to my mind, the very best. See how truly relevant this Psalm is for today (and, of course, for all times).

I put Rogers’ marginal explanations of who was speaking in square brackets [like this] for ease of reference. His other notes are at the end.

The .ii. Psalme

They that know not God are moved against the kingdom of Christ with wonderful intents, but in vain: yet runneth their rage through the whole world. The only way to health is to commit thyself to Christ.

1 [The Prophet] Why do the heathen grudge? Why do the people imagine vain things?
2 The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers are come together against the Lord and against his Anointed.
3 [The Enemy] “Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us.”
4 [God] Nevertheless, he that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn. Yea, even the Lord himself shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath(a), and vex them in his sore displeasure:
6 Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 [The king Christ] As for me, I will preach the law, whereof the Lord hath said unto me, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
8 “Desire of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance; yea, the uttermost parts of the world for thy possession.
9 “Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron(b), and break them in pieces like an earthen vessel.”
10 [The Prophet] Be wise now therefore, O ye kings. Be warned, ye that are judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice before him with reverence.
12 Kiss the Son(c), lest the Lord be angry, and so ye perish from the right way. For his wrath shall be kindled shortly: blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Matthew Bible notes (written by John Rogers, which he gathered from a variety of sources in the Reformation):

(a) “To speak unto them in his wrath” is to ordain and determine to destroy them. Jeremy.xviii.a.

(b) “The rod of iron” for a sure and unbowable dominion, as it is said Psalme lxxviv.e and Esay xiiii.b.

(c) “Kiss the Son.” So readeth the Hebrew. It is a figurative speech, in which, by the sign, is understood that which is signified thereby. For by the kiss of the king’s hand, even so nowadays in many regions do the subjects testify that they will be in the faith and power of the king. He calleth him ‘Son’ because he before brought in the Father, saying, “Thou art my Son.” The Greek readeth, “Receive instruction,” or, “Be learned [taught],” meaning thereby that they should submit themselves unto the king Christ, and receive his instruction and chastening.

(For note (c), remember that when John Rogers wrote, kings and queens governed countries.)

(Source: 1537/1549 Matthew Bible. Verse numbers added.)

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March, 2018

In 1536, by the permission of King Henry VIII, England lawfully received her first whole English Bible, that of Myles Coverdale. Then in 1537 came the Mathew Bible, a synthesis of the translations of Coverdale and William Tyndale, containing also notes and study helps prepared by John Rogers. But the Roman Catholics complained loudly about these versions. Lord Thomas Cromwell, vice-regent to King Henry, then commissioned Myles Coverdale to revise the Matthew Bible. He hoped to resolve some of the complaints of the conservatives and finally establish an English version in the Church.

Coverdale was the obvious choice for this work. He was intimately familiar with the Matthew Bible and had more experience in Scripture translation than any other Englishman at the time. And he worked quickly. The revised version was printed in England in April 1539. It assumed the place of “the Byble of the largest and greatest volume” proclaimed for use in the churches, and thus became known as the Great Bible. In 1540 it also earned the epithet Cranmer’s Bible, because of a preface that Thomas Cranmer wrote to the second edition.

Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible

Cranmer’s preface to the 1540 Great Bible was entitled “A Prologue or Preface made by the most reverend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Metropolitan and Primate of England.” It was very Protestant in tone. Part of its interest lies in the picture it gives us of how Englishmen were receiving vernacular Scriptures at the time. Reactions were mixed.

Cranmer addressed two sorts of people. First were those who were “too slow and need the spur,” who refused “to read or hear read the Scripture in the vulgar tongue.” These were the Roman Catholic faithful, who still resisted an English Bible. Cranmer marvelled that they would “be so mad as to refuse in darkness, light; in hunger, food; in cold, fire. For the word of God is light … food … fire.” He understood that at the first people had drawn back because English Scriptures were new and strange, but, he said, “Such as will persist still in their wilfulness, I must needs judge not only “foolish, froward, and obstinate, but also peevish, perverse, and indurate.” The worst of these peevish souls actively discouraged their fellows from reading or learning the Scriptures, as if it were a bad thing.

The second sort of person Cranmer addressed in his preface were those who were “too quick and need more of the bridle,” and who, by “inordinate reading, undiscreet speaking, contentious disputing, or otherwise by their licentious living, slander and hinder the word of God most of all other, whereof they would seem to be the greatest furtherers.” These people proclaimed themselves defenders of the Scriptures, but with evil living, or with constant disputing and wrangling, only hindered its progress. The churches were sometimes scenes of needless strife.

Proclamations to aid the going forth of the Scriptures

The risk of contention had been foreseen by the authorities. In a draft 1536 injunction to the clergy (never proclaimed), in which Cromwell had directed the churches to obtain copies of Coverdale’s 1535 Bible, he had warned against untoward disputing:

Every parson or proprietary of any Parish Church within this realm, shall on this side the Feasts of St. Peter ad Veneula next coming, provide a book of the whole Bible, both in Latin, and also in English, and lay the same in the quire, for every man that will to read and look therein, and shall discourage no man from the reading any part of the Bible, either in Latin or in English; but rather comfort, exhort, and admonish every man to read the same as the very word of God, and the spiritual food of man’s soul … ever gently and charitably exhorting that, using a sober and modest [be]havior in the reading and inquisition [searching] of the true sense of the same, they do in no wise stiffly or eagerly contend or strive one with another about the same.

But despite such exhortations, people were, it seems, forever arguing. Six years later, in 1542, we have from King Henry a proclamation in which he bemoaned the widespread discord. He said he had always

intended that his loving subjects should have and use [enjoy] the commodities [blessings] of the reading of the said Bibles … humbly, meekly, reverently, and obediently, and not that any of them should read the said Bibles with high and loud voices, in time of the celebrating of Holy Mass, and other divine services used in the Church; or that any [of] his lay subjects reading the same, should presume to take upon them any common disputation, argument, or exposition of the mysteries therein contained; but that every such layman should humbly, meekly, and reverently read the same for his own instruction, edification, and amendment of his life.

Cranmer on how people ought to receive the Scriptures

But to return to Cranmer’s 1540 preface. Here we find the archbishop earnestly contending for the people’s right to have the Scriptures in English, and urging them to take advantage of this opportunity. In support of his arguments, he quoted from the writings of early Church father St. John Chrysostom. By quoting this revered teacher, an archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th century, Cranmer was showing that vernacular Scriptures and Bible study by the laity were not new things. They were not 16th century innovations by the Reformers, as the Roman Catholics alleged. The early patriarchs had also thought it important for ordinary people to oft read and study the Bible. It is interesting to see what Chrysostom wrote (and how his words to ancient peoples remain relevant always):

“What sayest thou, man?” sayest [Chrysostom], “Is it not for thee to study and to read the Scripture because thou art encumbered and distracted with cares and business? So much the more it is behoveful for thee to have [the] defence of Scriptures [than monks and cloistered men, seeing] how much thou art the more distressed in worldly dangers … Thou art in the midst of the sea of worldly wickedness, and therefore thou needest the more of ghostly succour and comfort. They sit far from the strokes of the battle, and far out of gunshot, and therefore they be but seldom wounded. Thou that standest in the forefront of the host and nighest to thine enemies, must needs take now and then many strokes and be grievously wounded, and therefore thou hast more need to have thy remedies and medicines at hand … briefly, so divers and so manifold occasions of cares, tribulations, and temptations besetteth thee and besiegeth thee round about. Where canst thou have armour or fortress against thine assaults? Where canst thou have salves for thy sores, but of holy Scripture?”

Cranmer then turned to instruct those who like to opine and dispute about the Scriptures. For this he quoted St. Gregory Nazianzene, also a 4th century archbishop in Constantinople. Nazianzene wrote, “It is not fit for every man to dispute the high questions of divinity; neither is it to be done at all times, neither in every audience must we discuss every doubt; but we must know when, to whom, and how far we ought to enter into such matters.” There follows a discussion of how to judge fitness of topic, time, or audience. The high questions, he says, are generally for “such as be of exact and exquisite judgments, and such as have spent their time before in study and contemplation, and such as before have cleansed themselves as well in soul as body, or at the least endeavoured themselves to be made clean.” Not only long study, but also purity of heart and flesh, are necessary for a clear vision of the high things.

And so the king’s subjects were expected to humbly and gratefully receive the gift of God’s word in their own tongue, and to avoid presumption in disputing of the Scriptures.

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

© 2018, Ruth M. Davis, Editor, New Matthew Bible Project, www.newmatthewbible.org

Learn about Cranmer and his often-forgotten role in bringing England the Scriptures in her own language in this great book:The Story of the Matthew Bible: That Which We First Received

See our longer and fully referenced version of this paper at:  https://goo.gl/2Kki5k

May be copied and used at no charge, with credit to the author and mention of the New Matthew Bible Project.

Almost 500 years ago, William Tyndale had a prophecy for the last age of the earth. Do we see it being fulfilled now? He found this prophecy in the 3rd chapter of Peter’s second epistle. I will let him explain in his own words. Here is the entire prologue. It is not long:

Tyndale, 1534 prologue to 2 Peter (as gently updated in The October Testament): This epistle was written against those who thought that Christian faith might be idle and without works, when yet the promise of Christ is made to us upon the condition that henceforth we should work the will of God, and not of the flesh. Therefore he exhorts them to exercise themselves diligently in virtue and all good works, thereby to be sure that they have the true faith, as a person knows the goodness of a tree by its fruit.

Then he commends and extols the gospel, and wants the people to hearken to it only, and not at all to men’s doctrine. For as he says, no prophetic scripture came by the will of man, but by the will of the Holy Spirit, who alone knows the will of God. Neither is any scripture of private interpretation; that is to say, no scripture may be otherwise expounded than agreeing to the clear places and general articles of the faith, the covenants of God, and all the rest of the scripture.

And therefore in the second chapter he warns them of false teachers that would come, and who, through preaching confidence in false works to satisfy their covetousness, would deny Christ. Whom he threatens with three terrible examples: the fall of the angels, the flood of Noah, and the overthrowing of Sodom and Gomorrah. And he so describes them with their insatiable covetousness, pride, stubbornness, and disobedience to all temporal rule and authority, and with their abominable whoredom and hypocrisy, that a blind man may see that he prophesied it of the pope’s holy men and clerics, who devoured the whole world with their covetousness, living in all lust and pleasure, and reigning as temporal tyrants.

In the third chapter, he shows that in the latter days the people, through unbelief and lack of fear of the judgment of the last day, will be even as Epicures, wholly given to the flesh. Which last day shall yet surely and shortly come, he says, for a thousand years and one day is with God the same thing. And he shows also how terrible that day will be, and how suddenly it will come. Therefore he exhorts all to look earnestly for it, and to prepare themselves for it with holy conduct and godly living.

Finally, the first chapter shows how it would go in the time of the pure and true gospel, the second how it would go in the time of the pope and men’s doctrine, and the third how at the last people will believe nothing, and not fear God at all.  (W. T., 1534)

The above is taken from The October Testament, first published in 2016 by Baruch House Publishing. The October Testament is the New Testament of William Tyndale (his final revision) as it was published by John Rogers in the Matthew Bible, complete with original commentaries, and all gently updated. The Matthew Bible was first published in 1537. Few people are aware that it formed the basis of the King James Version (though that awareness is growing).

Baruch House added back into the October Testament some of Tyndale’s prologues that Rogers (presumably for space or political reasons) had omitted from the Matthew Bible: this is one of them. So we are doubly blessed.

Tyndale’s words require no elaboration.

P.s. – note from Ruth: here is a link to my favourite edition of the October Testament – the hardcover

©Ruth Magnusson Davis, November 2017

******

Information about The October Testament is linked from our “Books” page above.

The paperback can be purchased on Amazon here: The October Testament: The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible

In the years 1536-1539, the battle for the Bible was finally won in England. The soldiers in the front line of this battle were William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, John Rogers, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer. Between them, and with the hard won cooperation of King Henry VIII, these men gave us three whole English Bibles: Coverdale’s of 1535, the 1537 Matthew Bible, and the 1539 Great Bible.

The story of these men and their work is woven together in my book, The Story of the Matthew Bible, due out in early 2018. One of the things I looked into was the question, which of these Reformation Bibles was the first authorized English Bible? I was frustrated by the disagreement I found among historians. Some assert firmly that it was the Matthew Bible, and others say only the Great Bible was ever truly authorized. So which was it, and why the confusion?

The Matthew Bible

Many of my readers will know that in 1537 the Matthew Bible arrived in England from Antwerp, where it had been illegally printed. This Bible contained the combined translations of Tyndale and Coverdale, compiled and annotated by John Rogers. The name ‘Matthew’ derives from the title page, which stated that the Scriptures were translated by ‘Thomas Matthew,’ a fictitious name used to conceal the involvement of William Tyndale, whose works were banned. A copy of the Matthew Bible was given to Archbishop Cranmer. He examined it, and wrote to his friend Thomas Cromwell, Vice-Regent to King Henry, asking him to seek the King’s consent for it to go forth. When the King granted his approval in the summer of 1537, it was a historic day for England.

Coverdale’s Bible

But the fact is that the year before, early in 1536, the King had approved Coverdale’s Bible. This was also a whole Bible, containing the New and Old Testaments along with the Apocrypha. Coverdale translated it mainly from Martin Luther’s German version. When Henry permitted it to be bought, sold, and used in the Church, this was also a big day – a huge day, in fact. Now, after centuries of darkness, and all the vicious persecutions of Lollards and Lutherans, England received the word of God lawfully in her own tongue.

However, Coverdale’s accomplishment is often overlooked. For example, take the famous story about Tyndale’s last words before he was garrotted and killed in Brussels, in October 1536. His last prayer was, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” It is commonly held that this was a prayer for English Scriptures, and was answered the next year when the King received the Matthew Bible. However, when Tyndale was killed, Coverdale’s Bible had already been circulating for months. Therefore, either Tyndale did not know that his prayer had already been answered, or it has been misunderstood.

The Great Bible

Not long after the reception of the Matthew Bible in England in 1537, Henry desired a new Bible in order to appease the conservatives, who were complaining loudly about the existing versions. As a result, Cromwell commissioned Coverdale to revise the Matthew Bible. This revision, commonly known as the Great Bible, was published in 1539. It established vernacular Scriptures firmly in the Church.

How did the King authorize the different Bibles?

The inscription on the title page of the 1537 Matthew Bible, shown above, tells us that it was “Set forth with the kinges most gracyous lycēce,” or, in modern spelling, “Set forth with the King’s most gracious licence.” But did this licence mean the Matthew Bible was “authorized,” and if so, was it the first so to be?

I discovered that the answer lies in how the noun ‘licence’ and the past participle ‘authorized’ were used in the early 16th century. A little more research into the title pages of the three Bibles also assisted to answer the question.

Licence: In the early modern English period ‘licence’ meant simply ‘leave’ or ‘permission.’ Nowadays, therefore, we would say the Matthew Bible was “set forth with the King’s most gracious permission.” But as we know, the King had already granted permission for Coverdale’s Bible to go forth, and the title page of a 1537 (third) printing of Coverdale’s Bible also states that it was set forth with the King’s licence.

Authorized: (1) In an old, specialized sense, authorized meant “set up as authoritative, endowed with authority.” This is a rare use now. (2) A second, more common meaning is “sanctioned by authority,” which simply means permitted. This, of course, is the same thing as ‘licensed,’ and explains the confusion.

The title page in the fourth edition of the Great Bible, printed in 1541 (earlier editions were silent), says it was “ auctorised [authorized] and apoynted by the commaundement of oure moost redoubted prynce and soueraygne Lorde, Kynge Henrye … ” Without doubt, “auctorised” was used here in the old, specialized sense. Nowadays we might say it was commissioned and appointed for use in the Church.  Only the Great Bible was authorized in this special way. However, it is also fully correct to say that the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were authorized, if we mean only that they had received authoritative sanction. In fact, they were not only sanctioned, but in 1538, both Cromwell and Cranmer issued injunctions requiring English Bibles to be placed in church lecterns, and directing clergy to read them, and also to encourage the people to read them. Parish records reveal that both Bibles were purchased after these injunctions were issued.

In conclusion, Coverdale’s 1535 Bible was the first authorized English version in the common sense, but in the special sense, the honour must go to the Great Bible. However, this does not diminish the significance of the Matthew Bible. Coverdale used it as his base for the Great Bible, and in this way it proved the dominant translation, and its Scriptures were largely preserved.

To avoid confusion, given the double meaning of ‘authorized,’ it might be best to simply avoid the word. We may describe Coverdale’s and Rogers’ Bibles as licensed, which is understandable, though archaic, and the Great Bible as the first to be commissioned for the Church. But in the eyes of God, man’s sanction, permission, or commission count for nothing, except when he uses it, as he did in the early Reformation, so that the people could freely have his word again.

*****

©Ruth Magnusson Davis, November 2017

May be copied and distributed without charge, provided no alterations are made, with credit to:

Ruth M. Davis, Founder and Editor, New Matthew Bible Project, www.newmatthewbible.org, www.octobertestament.com

Subscribe for updates on this website, and we will let people know when The Story of the Matthew Bible is published. In it, we answer many more questions. Follow me on Twitter for more blog posts like this.

In a post on my Facebook timeline, I recently compared Psalm 107:21 in different Bible versions. The Matthew Bible (and also KJV) spoke of giving God praise. The Geneva Bible spoke of “confessing before” God, and the NIV of giving God thanks. Now those are three quite different things. But I was too tired to think about it, except that it seemed to me that “praise” engaged the heart more. It seems to reach higher somehow. I have sometimes felt, when truly praising God, that only then are my thoughts pure, and it is when I love God the most. So I preferred the MB, but couldn’t explain it any better than that.

See again:

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: O that men would praise the Lord, and the wonders that he doth for the children of men.
(=Praise God and praise what he does for men.)

♦ 1599 Geneva: Let them therefore confess before the Lord his loving kindness, and his wonderful works before the sons of men.
(= Acknowledge (or express) God’s kindness before him, and what he does before men (?) )

♦ 2016 NIV: Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for mankind.
(= Thank God for his love and what he does for men.)

After posting these verses without comment, I went to bed, opened a little book that I recently found in a thrift store, and there was a whole chapter discussing praise. I found there a most interesting and relevant comment, which I would like to share:

Praise to God [is] one of the exalted [path]ways on which the soul approaches the Eternal. “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me,” that is, by this one attitude and act the soul attains that which has rightly been called “the chief end of man.” …There is thus greater wealth of riches attached to the offering of praise than to any other exercise of the human spirit. It also affords to man the opportunity of doing something as a requital to God for all that has been done for him in redemption….

There is that in the offering of praise to God which possesses for the true Christian a special attraction. It is an opportunity for the going forth of the heart to an object outside self. Prayer may so easily become the means of obtaining from God some blessing that is needed for life – our own, or for others. Even thanksgiving may become little more than animal gratitude for blessings received. But true praise is the drawing out of the soul to that which is wholly external to the self. It is the appreciation of what God is in Himself, and of his wonderful works. “He is thy praise and thy God,” said Moses to Israel (De 10:21). The Psalms abound in the thought of God Himself being the object of praise; so also the prophets.”(1)

Praise matters in and of and for itself. I think it loses something, in understanding and practice, to substitute it with confessing, or, especially, giving thanks. It seems to lose the fullness of the knowledge of that exalted pathway to the Eternal. (Perhaps I am being a little too harsh on the Geneva here, but I think it would have been best to keep ‘praise’.)

(1) Canon R.H.A. Haslam, An Highway Shall Be There (Toronto, Canada: Evangelical Publishers, 1948), pages 79-80.