Baruch House Publishing
  • Home
  • Books
    • All Books
    • The October Testament
    • Coverdale Books
      • The Hope of the Faithful
      • Fruitful Lessons upon the Passion, Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, and of the Sending of the Holy Ghost
      • Treatise on Death
      • A Sweet Exposition on Psalm 23
    • The Story of The Matthew Bible, Parts 1 and 2
    • True To His Ways
  • Blog
  • NMB Project
  • The Matthew Bible
  • Recommended
  • Contact
  • Bookstore
  • Cart

Category Archives: Ruth’s Picks

The Santa Claus Lie: Merry Santamas Ho Ho Ho

Posted on December 15, 2022 by admin Posted in Ruth's Picks

I wrote elsewhere about the Santa Claus lie in 2012, after hearing non-stop songs of praise, and even love, to Santa on secular adult radio during Christmas. Now this year I’ve noticed them again: “Santa baby, hurry down the chimney tonight!” “It’s the most wonderful time of the year, ho ho ho!”

In many respects now, Santa really is a counterfeit Jesus at Christmas. For example, besides songs of praise to him, people now (at least, where I live) rarely decorate their homes with nativity scenes, but with Santa scenes. I heard someone say that this is the “Santa Season.” I heard a personal testimony about a woman who, in her suffering, is comforted by thoughts of Santa. So sad, to think of such “tidings of comfort”! Then again, a man said he was looking forward to watching his favourite old Christmas story on film: “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.” Never mind that Christ conquered the devil! I have heard talk about the miracle of Santa, and never mind the miracle of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Then there is the intense focus of the promise of Santa to come: “Santa Claus is coming to town!” This mimics, and, as far as the world is concerned has quite replaced, the traditional Christmas focus on Christ who is to come.

The Christmas Advent season in the Church’s liturgical calendar is not only a time to remember Christ’s birth and first coming, or his first advent. It is also a time of preparation for his second or next advent, which will be as Judge at the Last Day. But in the popular consciousness, the preparation for Santa’s next advent counterfeits and has displaced all thought of Christ. From a popular Santa song:

Who comes around on a special night? Santa comes around on a special night … Who very soon will come our way? Santa very soon will come our way … Must be Santa, Must be Santa, Must be Santa, Santa Claus. (From the song Must be Santa)

Perhaps we should rename the season “Santamas”! As far as the world is concerned now, Santa is the reason for the season.

Santa comes in the sky with a shout, Ho Ho Ho!

The promise of Santa’s advent is a lie simply because no one named Santa exists or is coming. I realize that some people will say that the Santa story is only a fun and harmless fairy tale. However, Santa is not usually presented to children as a fairy tale figure, but rather as someone real, someone in whom they should believe. But, people will say, believing in Santa motivates children to be good. Consider the following well-known lyrics:

You better watch out, you better not cry, I’m telling you why … He’s making a list, he’s checking it twice … He’s gonna find out who’s naughty or nice … He sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake … He knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!  (From the song Santa Claus is Coming to Town)

But the gospel of Jesus, and believing on him, was meant to teach children to be good. Here it has been replaced by the gospel of Santa – and this in the very season set aside to remember Christ. This song also reveals another way that Santa counterfeits the Lord: both are all-seeing, and both know when you’ve been good or bad.

The fact that the gospel of Santa is given in the season named for Christ makes it pernicious: the jolly fat man has usurped Christ in popular lore and in nighttime children’s stories. Is Santa’s eagerly awaited advent from the North Pole really just a harmless story to teach children at Christmas? From a Santa preacher:

Santa Claus songs – some are very familiar! Have fun with them. Teach them to your children! The lyrics are right here for you! Sing a song of Christmas fun! Santa always makes me smile! Ho!Ho!Ho! Laugh a little and sing a lot! Your children will treasure the memories of singing with you. Sing as if nobody’s listening! Sing for the pure joy of singing! Have fun! (From the website squidoo.com/santa-songs, 2012)

Should we set children’s little hearts a-blaze with the joyful hope of Santa’s coming? But by this means, an infinitely worthy hope has been exchanged for a “fun” but vain one.

The Santa Claus lie has consequences

I remember how betrayed I felt on the day when, as a child, a boy at school told me that there was no such person as Santa. He mocked me for believing the Santa Claus lie. It rocked me: What! My parents had lied to me? When, as they had taught me to do, I wrote down my prayers for good things in a letter to Santa, burned it in the fireplace, and watched it go up the chimney to the North Pole in drafts of smoke, I was deceived? When I lay in bed on Christmas Eve listening for hoof beats on the roof, I was waiting for something that never could or would happen? When my sister and I watched the sky for the lights of a passing sleigh, we were living a lie?

Children write letters to Santa and send them up the chimney to the North Pole in drafts of smoke (as they believe).

It was a bad shock to me. I had always trusted that my parents told me the truth, but my trust was shaken. When I got home from school that day, I looked around, and in the back of a closet found evidences of the lie: the usual Santa goodies stuffed in a box. Just to be sure (what should I believe?), on Christmas Eve, when Santa was supposed to come, I kept myself awake, and saw my father creep into the room and put a stocking on the end of my bed. I can still see it in my mind’s eye: at the same I both loved him and mourned the lie. (I still love him and mourn the lie when I remember it now.) I wondered if I should tell my younger siblings the truth, but if I did this, was I betraying Mum and Dad? I also wondered about telling my parents that I knew their secret. I did not want to participate in the lie by pretending that I still believed in Santa.

The plain fact is, there is no Santa Claus, and if you preach Santa to your children, you are lying to them. I hope no Christian parent does this. We are not to love and make lies (Revelation 21:27, 22:15). As Augustine said, we are not given a tongue and the gift of speech to fabricate falsehoods. At the very least, if they do not avoid the fiction entirely, parents should be upfront about the fact that there is no real Santa Claus. My parent did not do this; they erred. I forgive them. I know they did it of love. But still, the lie hurt me.

Lies have consequences, especially for an earnest and truthful child. But for all children, lying to them teaches them that lies are okay — and worse yet, to love lies. Further, this lie destroys the real meaning of Christmas and snuffs out the gospel of the Son of God.

The s-a-t-a-n anagram

And what about the eerie santa/satan anagram? Anagrams, or letters inverted to make new words, are said to be employed under Satanic influence. (Karl Marx made Oulanem out of Emmanuel.) The name Satan, with the inversion of a few letters, is easily altered to Santa.

How much should we make of this? I don’t know. I have not taken time to research it, except to check the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). The OED says only that the word “Santa” arose in the USA in the 18th century. It gave no other etymological information, and did not mention any link with Saint Nicholas. But in any case, it matters not who Saint Nicholas was, but what Santa has become. The OED ominously noted that Santa is “now virtually synonymous with Father Christmas.” Thus, since the 18th century, God the Father has been replaced by Father Christmas. And indeed, I heard a song on the radio titled “I believe in Father Christmas.” I looked up the lyrics to this song, and it was written by one Greg Lake in the 1950s,  with the deliberate intention to put Father Christmas for the Lord:

They sold me a dream of Christmas
They sold me a silent night
And they told me a fairy story
Till I believed in the Israelite.
And I believed in father Christmas
And I looked to the sky with excited eyes
Till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise

This song concludes with, “Hallelujah, Noel, be it heaven or hell, The Christmas we get we deserve.” The lyrics are confused and somewhat bitter.

This song was followed by another with the lyrics “You can say there’s no such thing as Santa, but as for me and Grandpa, we believe.” It put me in mind of that day in 1998 when I believed on the Lord Jesus, and was filled with the Holy Spirit, and stood up and said, “I believe!” And how blessed I am to believe — though now I receive mockery of a different sort. Regardless, my trust will never be shaken.

The rising up of Santa as the Father of Christmas – or rather, Father of Santamas – is due partly, of course, to the fact that we live in a post-Christian age. But this was hastened and abetted by the casting aside of the Church Calendar. First the Puritans rejected the Calendar. (They even, during their revolutionary parliament in England, outlawed any and all observance of Christmas, while at the same time they expressly set aside holidays for secular recreation! Maybe next Christmas I will blog on that.) Other breakaway groups also rejected the Calendar. However, the Calendar was good to help us live life with a daily consciousness of the gospel, and to hold before us the various seasons and remembrances of Christ and the New Covenant.

How badly have things progressed? I recently learned from a Facebook post that Disney staged an event that played on the Santa/Satan anagram, and which exhorted people to love Satan. I was told this was deliberate, but I doubt it:

A Disney production. Changing the letters in ‘Santa’ makes ‘Satan.’

Even if it was a mistake, this highlights the eerie Santa-Satan anagram.

Of course, loving Satan is obviously an atrocious thing to teach children. But still, loving Santa, while a less obvious evil, is a pernicious counterfeit for loving Jesus. Santa has indeed become a ubiquitous, counterfeit Lord and Father of Christmas, who should be loved, obeyed, remembered, sung to, and eagerly awaited. But who would want to fill our songs, our nighttime stories, our minds and hearts, with a loving, fatherly figure to replace Jesus, and to usurp the place of God the Father who sent him? Satan/Santa, of course.

Merry Santamas, ho ho ho!

Eleven Satanic counterfeits

Below are eleven Satan/Santa counterfeits in the gospel of Santa. There are more; for example, we might compare Santa’s reindeer, who carry him around to world, with the apostles who carried the message of Christ around the world. But for starters:

1. The Lord is all-seeing and all-knowing (Psalm 147:5) and is high in heaven (Eph 4:10).
— Santa is all-seeing and all-knowing, and high in the North Pole.

2. Jesus can walk through walls and upon water, and he ascended up to heaven in the air. (Luke 24:36, M’t 14:26, Eph 4:10).
— Santa has supernatural powers to move through obstacles: he goes down chimneys, and through walls in homes that have no chimney. He can also fly in the air.

3. Jesus is God, and is therefore everywhere at once.
— Santa is everywhere at once all around the world on Christmas Eve.

4. In the past, children were taught about, and to believe in, Jesus.
— Children today are taught about and believe in Santa.

5. God is Father to Christ, for whom Christmas was named.
— Santa is “Father Christmas.”

6. God’s children make their prayers and requests to him, whom they cannot see.
— Children make their requests to Santa, whom they cannot see.

7. Believers everywhere anticipate the advent of Christ.
— Children everywhere anticipate the advent of Santa.

8. Christ is exalted in Christianity.
— Santa is exalted in pop culture.

9. The faithful sing songs and melodies to the Lord (Eph 5:19).
— People sing to Santa.

10. Christ will come again and descend from the sky (Rev 1:7).
— Santa will come again and descend from the sky.

11. The Lord knows who has been good and who has been bad, and will reward accordingly.
— Santa knows who has been good and who has been bad, and gives gifts accordingly.

Thus several points on the counterfeit gospel of Santa. But one thing that is missing from the Santa gospel is any serious concept of judgement for being bad, whereas the Bible warns in grave terms that Jesus as Judge will reward each according to his deeds (M’t 16:27; Ro 2:6; Rev 20:13 and 22:12). But never mind, and ho ho ho!

The Santa idol

It is not an exaggeration to say that Santa is something of a modern-day idol or image:

Santa Claus is one of my favorite heroes! He reminds us all of the joy of giving! (“Joan 4”, an adult, commenting on the website squidoo.com/santa-songs, 2012)

I love Santa songs. When I was a kid (5-6) we had to sing a song to Santa, and I was worried that Santa maybe didn’t like my song… so Mom, to calm me down, told me all kinds of stories about Santa who loved all the kids and all the songs in the world. (Comment from “Michey,” an adult, ibid.)

In the last song we see another soft counterfeit: the good news of Santa is that Santa so loves the children of the world that… etc. But the Gospel of John tells us that God so loves the world, he sent his only Son (John 3:16). Also, Jesus showed a special love for children, saying that his disciples should allow them come to him, for the kingdom of heaven is made of such (Matthew 19:14). But if children are taught about Santa instead of about Christ, they cannot come to him.

Santa with children.

 

Jesus with children.

We know that Satan desires to destroy the knowledge of Christ and the true worship. Therefore, he is happy to see anyone or anything besides Christ put in his stead. In praising Santa, adults praise an idol, even if Santa is just a fun and atheistic idol to them. I say “atheistic” because adults do not believe Santa is real, nor call him a god in so many words. But for children, Santa is real. The gospel of Santa fills their minds and hearts, and teaches them to lift up their thoughts to this image:

In the United Kingdom children write letters to Santa, or Father Christmas … Santa, Santa, high in the sky (from learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org, 2012)

My parents were Irish, so when they taught us to write letters to Santa, they were following this tradition of the UK.

Satan, the father of lies, is worshiped through lies. Since the 18th century the Santa lie, a secular gospel, has displaced the true gospel at Christmas time: everywhere is the promise of Santa! Therefore, the jolly Father Christmas is not as benign a figure as we might think. Innocent children are beguiled and look forward to his coming again with gifts in his hand. Meanwhile, they do not learn of God’s son Jesus, by whom only we can know the true Father, and who brings the true gifts in his hand to those who believe on him, and who is coming again:

… in whom even now, though you see him not, yet you do believe, and rejoice with joy inexpressible and glorious, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:8-9)

The Four Kinds of Death and Life

Posted on July 29, 2021 by admin Posted in Ruth's Picks

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

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

From Myles Coverdale’s Treatise on Death

The First Book of Death

Chapter 1, Declaring what death is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Magnusson Davis, July 29 2021

Martin Luther Was Not Antisemitic: A Defence

Posted on May 7, 2021 by admin Posted in Ruth's Picks

This blog post is my short answer to the question, was Luther antisemitic? I answer, “no.”

Luther has been accused of prejudice and hatred toward Jewish people, and even of inciting Nazism. These charges arise especially out of his small book, On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543. I will quote here some of the things he said in that book. I have also written a longer answer to the question, was Luther antisemitic, with more quotations – the worst as well as the best – in this paper, which is also linked again below.

Three main points in Luther’s defence are:

1) He rejected any form of ethnocentric prejudice, let alone hatred. He insisted that all peoples are as one, descended from the same ancestors, and that love requires impartiality. On this ground he condemned the ethnocentric prejudice of the Jews themselves. He also stated clearly that the Jews must never be personally harmed, as is discussed below.

2) Luther did, however, oppose the anti-Christian teachings and practices of Judaism.

3) Luther’s opposition to Judaism was based on a thorough knowledge of ancient and contemporary Jewish history, literature, and practice, all of which he reviewed in his book so that people would understand the reasons for his opposition and concerns.

Title page of 1543 edition of “On the Jews and Their Lies” by Martin Luther

The definition of antisemitism

The Oxford English Dictionary defines antisemitism as prejudice, hostility, or discrimination towards Jewish people on religious, cultural, or ethnic grounds. Despite appearances, this does not describe Luther’s treatment of the Jews. His quarrels with them inevitably touched on religious questions – how could they not? – but were not rooted in prejudice as the world imagines. Luther considered the Jews as he considered all people, according to how they received or rejected God’s word and gospel, which is the same thing that divides us in the eyes of the Lord (Lu. 12:51), and based on their treatment of their fellow man.

Luther expressly condemned ethnocentric prejudice

In this post, the page numbers in brackets refer to On the Jews and Their Lies as contained in volume 47 of the American edition of Luther’s Works. The page references are not exhaustive, since Luther often returned to discuss the same items several times in his book.

The truth is that Luther rejected any form of prejudice, hostility, or discrimination on ethnic grounds. This is why he condemned the Jews’ claim to divine favour on account of their race and lineage. He complained that, in their synagogues and around their dinner tables, following their religious liturgy, they regularly praised and thanked God that they were born Jews, not Gentiles. He called this carnal and arrogant. He also objected to the prayers of the men, who praised God because they were not born women. To disdain others on account of their natural attributes is to blaspheme God’s creation:

God has to endure that, in their synagogues, their prayers, songs, doctrines, and their whole life, they come and stand before him and plague him grievously (if I may speak of God in such a human fashion). Thus he must listen to their boasts and their praises to him for setting them apart from the Gentiles, for letting them be descended from the holy patriarchs, and for selecting them to be his holy and peculiar people, etc. And there is no limit and no end to this boasting about their descent and their physical birth from the fathers.

And to fill the measure of their raving, mad, and stupid folly, they boast and they thank God, in the first place because they were created as human beings and not as animals; in the second place because they are Israelites and not Goyim [Gentiles]; in the third place because they were created as males and not as females….

They have portrayed their Messiah to themselves as one who would strengthen and increase such carnal and arrogant error regarding nobility of blood and lineage. That is the same as saying that he should assist them in blaspheming God and in viewing his creatures with disdain, including the women, who are also human beings and the image of God as well as we; moreover, they are our own flesh and blood, such as mother, sister, daughter, housewives, etc. For in accordance with the aforementioned threefold song of praise, they do not hold Sarah (as a woman) to be as noble as Abraham (as a man).… But enough of this tomfoolery and trickery. (p140-42)

Luther wrote that both Gentiles and Jews “partake of one birth, one flesh and blood, [and] neither one can reproach or upbraid the other about some peculiarity without implicating himself at the same time” (p148). Further, we are all “lumped together” equally as sinners by nature and birth (ibid).

Therefore, on ethnic grounds Luther was not antisemitic and did not discriminate. But the Jews did discriminate on ethnic grounds – and the men on the grounds of gender.

Luther was not antisemitic, but he did oppose the anti-Christian teachings and practices of Judaism

To the extent that Luther’s quarrel with the Jews reached into the areas of religion and culture, it was due only to how their apostasy from God’s word manifested in these areas. It is inevitable that apostasy will manifest in religion and culture. This is true for Jew and non-Jew.

Luther learned about some of the religious issues he discussed in his book from converted Jews, including a former rabbi, Anthony Margaritha, who had written his own book to expose some very disturbing prayers and rituals of synagogue practice. I know it will shock many people to learn that these included prayers (which were later removed from the Jewish Talmud) for the stabbing and death of the Gentiles (p273). Luther rightly said such prayers were devilish and malicious. The Jews also regularly prayed for the overthrow of Germany and other nations so they could advance in dominion in the world (p264, 293, etc.), which they believed was God’s promise for them. Such goals obviously threatened national security, among other problems. (When the contents of the Talmud became more widely known to the authorities, the Jews, fearing for their own safety, expunged the worst prayers from it; however, when Luther lived they were still part of it. This is further discussed in my longer paper).

Luther also explained how, in addition to cursing their host country and the Gentiles, the Jews regularly cursed Jesus and his mother, the virgin Mary. They called Mary a whore who conceived Jesus in adultery with a blacksmith (p257). They perverted Jesus’ name in Hebrew; they shortened Yeshua to Yeshu so that it operated as a kind of secret curse that only they could understand, and they spit on the floor at the mention of this name (ibid). They called Jesus Hebel Vorik, which signified that he was the very embodiment of lying and deception (p284-85; more on this below). Further, when conversing with each other about Jesus, they said Delateatur nomen eius, which means “May God exterminate his name,” or “May all the devils take him” (p257).

The Jews also ritually cursed Christians. Luther explained,

They treat us Christians similarly in receiving us when we go to them. They pervert the words Seid Gott willkommen [literally, “Be welcome to God”] and say, Sched wil kem! which means: “Come, devil,” or “There comes a devil.” Since we are not conversant with the Hebrew, they can vent their wrath on us secretly. While we suppose that they are speaking kindly to us, they are calling down hellfire and every misfortune on our heads. (p257)

Again, Luther learned about these curses and rituals from converted Jews who were eye-witnesses to and former practitioners of them, including the former rabbi Anthony Margaritha.

The advice that has generated charges that Luther was antisemitic

On account of these “abominations,” as Luther called the rabbinic prayers and rituals, he said that if the Jews would not stop, their synagogues should be destroyed. This should be done not only for reasons of national security, but, perhaps more important to Luther, to demonstrate that Christians would not knowingly condone the public cursing of Christ. If Christians tolerated this when they had the power to prevent it, then they were participants in the abominations (p270). Luther said that, while inward belief could not be compelled, public blasphemy should be prevented if possible (p268f, 279f, etc.).

Further, Luther said that if the Jews would not reform, they should be expelled from the country and go back to Jerusalem, and their Talmuds and literature should be destroyed. He also said their homes should be burned down, which I found extreme, but then I learned that it was not a new idea: in former times, the authorities burned down the homes of serious offenders as a manifest sign and warning to others. This historical context explains Luther’s comment that the burning down of the homes of Jewish offenders was intended to “bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast” (p269). Also, expulsions were then common for treason or crime. The Jews themselves had Anthony Margaritha expelled from Augsburg for writing his book – hardly a crime! (These things are further discussed in my longer paper.)

Luther emphasized repeatedly that his purpose for these measures was to ensure that the German people did not, as he wrote, “become guilty sharers before God in the lies, the blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves” (p274). He had a keen sense of duty to avoid partaking in the sins of others – especially gross, persistent, open blasphemy against the Son of God:

If we permit them to do this where we are sovereign, and protect them to enable them to do so, then we are eternally damned together with them because of their sins and blasphemies, even if we in our persons are as holy as the prophets, apostles, or angels. …

They dub [Jesus] Hebel Vorik; that is, not merely a liar and a deceiver, but lying and deception itself, viler even than the devil. We Christians must not tolerate that they practice this in their public synagogues, in their books, and in their behavior, openly under our noses and within our hearing in our own country, houses, and regimes. If we do, we, together with the Jews and on their account, will lose God the Father and his dear Son, who purchased us at such cost with his holy blood, and we will be eternally lost, which God forbid.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter, but a most serious one, to seek counsel against this. (p284-85)

And so Luther advised the authorities to act forcefully to end the evil. However, he anticipated that they would not heed his advice. He wrote, “I observe and have often experienced how indulgent the perverted world is when it should be strict, and, conversely, how harsh it is when it should be merciful” (p276). Nonetheless, he said that he had spoken his mind fully and was thereby exonerated before God (p292).

But it is most important to note that Luther insisted the Jews must not be personally harmed. He wrote:

You, my dear gentleman and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners [to] be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. (p274)

Luther also never advised the authorities to harm the Jews personally, and he said no action against them should ever be taken from a spirit of vengeance (p268). Therefore, to accuse him of sowing the seeds of Nazism is absurd and slanderous. It is as facile to accuse him of fomenting Hitler’s evil as it is to blame Moses for the evils that men have wrought through misuse of the Bible.

Luther’s strong and sometimes intemperate language: Straining at gnats?

I acknowledge that Luther sometimes went far in using intemperate language in his book On the Jews and Their Lies, especially when writing about the ritual cursing. But I will leave it to God to judge if he went “too far,” as people say. When the Day of Judgement comes, we will learn the measure of God’s wrath against his servant Luther for his indignant and “vehement” speech, as well as the measure of his wrath against those who cursed his Son. I know I would rather be found on Luther’s side than on the side of those who cursed the Son. They definitely went too far.

Finally, the point should be made that Luther did not live in such a delicate age as we do; strong and unpleasant language was common in 16-century literature. The theory that illness or medication contributed to his irascibility is possible – I recall him lamenting in one of his later works that he was too often angry – but it ignores the gravity and severe provocation of the problems he was addressing. He was not wrong to be angry about them. To find fault with his language and overlook the terrible problems he was writing about is to strain at gnats and swallow a camel.

Luther’s other concerns

Luther addressed other rabbinical teachings and practices in his book, along with a fascinating and learned review of history – especially certain events of the first century, which he examined alongside messianic prophecy to show how rabbinic interpretations of history and Scripture do not add up. I learned a lot from his exposition of the prophecies in Daniel 9. He drew from a wealth of personal knowledge and study, and he possessed keen insight. After discussing the history of the Jews, their false interpretations of Scripture, their spiritual blindness, and the problems in the synagogues, he mourned:

The wrath of God has overtaken them. I am loathe to think of this, and it has not been a pleasant task for me to write this book, being obliged to resort now to anger, now to satire, in order to avert my eyes from the terrible picture which they present. It has pained me to mention their horrible blasphemy concerning our Lord and his dear mother, which we Christians are grieved to hear. I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans 10 when he says that he is saddened as he considers them. I think that every Christian experiences this when he reflects seriously, not on the temporal misfortunes and exile which the Jews bemoan, but on the fact that they are condemned to blaspheme, curse, and vilify God himself and all that is God’s, for their eternal damnation, and that they refuse to hear and acknowledge this, but regard all of their doings as zeal for God.

Oh God, heavenly Father, relent and let your wrath over them be sufficient and come to an end, for the sake of your dear Son. Amen.

Thus Luther’s true heart and prayer for the Jewish people.

Therefore, Luther was not antisemitic, but was motivated only by his love of God’s word and Son, and his love of truth and righteousness. He was motivated by these same things in all his writings, whether against the Jews, Turks, Roman Catholics, Arians, Sacramentarians, his fellow Germans, the peasant insurrectionists, or others. This is shown in my longer paper, Luther Was Not Antisemitic. My defence there – my longer answer to the question, was Luther antisemitic? – is structured around the horrid accusations against Luther made by the Concordia House editor Franklin Sherman in his introduction to On the Jews in volume 47 of Luther’s Works.

Sherman, a pro-Judaizing ecumenist, attacked Luther’s character, knowledge, and “thought,” as well as his supposed gullibility, superstitious beliefs, stereotypes, abusiveness, and negative attitude. He said Luther possessed an “immense capacity for hatred” and provided a prototype for Hitler’s “final solution.” He also defended the “merits” of Judaism while he never spoke well of Christianity; he even refused to acknowledge salvation by faith alone, which he presented as merely Luther’s view. Quoting from rabbinical sources that he preferred far above anything Luther ever wrote, Sherman went so far as to suggest Judaism was the “mother” of an ungrateful and unappreciative Christianity. He also repeatedly referred readers to sources that blamed Christians for the circumstances of the Jews throughout the New Testament age.

Sherman’s unfortunate influence can sometimes be seen in Lutheran circles, where people echo his accusations and say they wish Luther had never written On the Jews and Their Lies. But I for one am glad he wrote his book. I learned a lot from it – about history, about prophecy, about the Talmud, and more. It was an eye-opener.

********

Ruth Magnusson Davis. Blog post May 2021, Martin Luther Was Not Antisemitic: A Defence

Link to longer defence on Academia.edu, which can read as a pdf online or downloaded and printed.

Consider also our book, The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2, which shows how Lutheran the 1537 Matthew Bible was. It also highlights some little-understood differences between the early Lutherans and Calvinists in the 16th century. The Geneva Bible changed some translations, but especially the notes, to advance Calvinist and puritan doctrine and practice.

********

K.Ps. Was Luther antisemitic? Was Martin Luther antisemitic? Martin Luther Was Not Antisemitic

“Unto” as a Nonce-word, and Why We Should Keep “Unto” in the Bible

Posted on March 1, 2021 by admin Posted in Ruth's Picks

“That day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)

The old English expression for the nonce means “for the present.” A nonce-word is a word that is used only for the nonce; that is, on a specific occasion or in one specific text or writer’s work.[1] In the context of that occasion, text, or work, it acquires a nonce-meaning, its own special meaning, which readers learn to understand.

The word “unto” has become something of a nonce-word in biblical use. In 1768, Samuel Johnson’s dictionary showed it as already obsolete, but it has continued in quasi nonce-use in the Bible and in related works and speech. However, we hear it less now, since modern Bible translators have substituted “for” or other words in its place.

There are people who say we should keep “unto” in the Bible. It is not just that they miss the old familiar phrasing, but they also know that “unto” conveyed a special meaning that is lost in the new translations. This meaning involves a fascinating grammatical concept called fusion with the object.[2] I will explain this, but first, to see an example of lost meaning, we will compare 1 Timothy 1:16 in The October Testament (the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible or NMB[3]), where we kept William Tyndale’s word “unto,” with some modern translations.

In 1 Timothy 1:16, Paul wrote that he, a notorious sinner, had received mercy from Jesus Christ:

NMB: as an example for those who will in time to come believe on him unto eternal life.

ESV: as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

NIV: as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

“Unto” conveys a unique meaning in the NMB, which is lost in the two modern versions.

(I note in passing that the ESV and NIV restrict this verse to the past, as if Paul was not to be an example for believers during the entire New Testament age. This is a significant change in meaning. The new meaning has nothing to do with a variant in the Greek manuscript used by the modern translators, but is a new interpretation.[4] This is the case with at least 98% of the losses and differences in meaning and doctrine in modern Bibles.[5])

About “unto” and fusion with the object

“Unto” is a preposition. A preposition is a word that is placed before a substantive (noun or pronoun) to show its relation to some other word or words in the sentence. The substantive is called the object of the preposition. In 1 Timothy 1:16, the substantive is (eternal) life, and it is the object of the preposition “unto,” where “unto” denotes the relation between believing on Jesus and eternal life.

But what relation does “unto” denote? The OED says “unto” was formed on the analogy of the word “until,” and it denotes motion directed towards and reaching (a place, point, or goal).[6] In other words, it expresses the concept of movement toward and finally reaching the object, the substantive. This is the concept that grammarians call “fusion with the object.” See how this works:

► [Paul is an example] for those who will in time to come believe on Jesus (related words) unto eternal life (object, substantive).

“Unto” expresses the idea that believing on Jesus begins motion toward and reaches the object, eternal life. In grammatical jargon, this is fusion with the object.

In 1 Timothy, some translators updated “unto” to “to.” Darby put, “those about to believe on him to life eternal.” However, in my view “unto” expresses the idea of movement “until” the object more emphatically. It has acquired – or with familiarity, does acquire – this unique, emphatic nonce-meaning, but “to” does not convey the idea as well.

Why we should keep “unto” in the Bible

The concept of fusion with the object, which is so well denoted by “unto,” teaches about spiritual things. In 1 Timothy 1:16 it teaches about the process and progress of faith, which finally attains to eternal life. In other verses, it teaches about the progress of the soul toward its eternal reward, as in “repentance unto salvation” (2Co. 7:10), or about the consequences of sin, as in “the sin unto death” (1Jo. 5:16). What a person does, believes, gives himself to, takes pleasure in, etc., propels him along a path that will reach (fuse with) good or evil in eternity.

“Unto” also teaches about the relation of believers as one with God in the Holy Trinity – our fusion with God, as it were, in and through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is attained in oneness with the trinitarian God. Jesus alluded to this when he prayed for His disciples that “they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they may also be one in Us” (John 17:21). “Unto” conveys the idea of oneness with the divine in and through Christ. Myles Coverdale referred to this oneness as an “incorporation” into Christ’s body, and by him into the Holy Trinity, wherein only can man attain to eternal life.[7]

The importance of understanding what it is to be “in Christ”

The concept of fusion with the object – that is, with God through Christ – enhances our understanding of our position in Christ and of what it means to be “in Christ,” as Paul often spoke of salvation. The following quotations are from The October Testament (NMB):

Romans 3:24 – We are justified … through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:1 – There is then no damnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 16:7 – Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, who were … in Christ before me. (Ro. 16:7)

The idea of being in Christ is mysterious, but is clearly taught in the New Testament. The apostle John said in his divine and inspired words:

He who believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself. … And this is that testimony: that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life, and he who does not have the Son does not have life. … We know that we are of God, and that the world is altogether set on wickedness. We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us a mind to know him who is true. And we are in him who is true through his Son Jesus Christ. This same is very God and eternal life. (1John 5:10,11-12,20, NMB)

Understanding our position in Christ, who is very God and eternal life, helps us understand the Holy Trinity, how God is known, the glory of salvation, how it is that we do not belong to this world but in another world, and much more. It helps us discern the body of Christ when we approach unto God in Holy Communion (1Co. 11:29). “Unto” is the right word to build understanding of these holy mysteries, and, also, to move the spirit to wonder and praise for what Jesus Christ accomplished for us through his cross.

A very important little preposition: We should keep “unto” in the Bible

Who could have imagined that so much doctrine, so much meaning, could be packed into one little preposition? However, it is lost if we substitute other words. In the ESV, the preposition “for” in 1 Timothy 1:16 indicates a relation of purpose, not progress and fusion. The NIV paraphrase also brings a different message: it says only that those who believe on Jesus will (or rather “would,” past tense) receive eternal life. There is no sense of process or progress towards, or growth into, the object.

The Greek preposition that Tyndale translated “unto” in 1 Timothy 1:16 is εις (or eis, pronounced “ice”). Strong defines εις as meaning to or into, indicating an object “reached or entered.”[8] Thus it denotes fusion with the object, exactly like “unto” does. Tyndale’s translation was faithful to this meaning.

There are many good reasons to keep “unto” in the Bible as a nonce-word. To use other prepositions changes the meaning, while an update to the modern “to” – especially in the context of our relation to the divine – gives a weaker and unnatural result.

Below are three examples showing how well “unto” conveys spiritual teaching:

John 4:36

NMB: He who reaps receives reward, and gathers fruit unto life eternal.

ESV: Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life.

NIV: Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life.

Such different translations! In the ESV, it appears the translator rendered the Greek aorist verbs literally to convey sense of process that was lost by translating εις as “for.” However, the result is unnatural. “Unto” works well in nonce-use.

(I note also that both the NIV and ESV refer to “wages” instead of “reward.” This is too concrete and worldly when speaking of spiritual things. It is another change that had nothing to do with the Greek manuscript.)

2 Corinthians 7:10

NMB: Godly sorrow causes repentance unto salvation, not to be regretted, while worldly sorrow causes death.

ESV: For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Here the ESV expressed the idea of the Greek preposition εις by a paraphrase. However, a subtle difference in meaning remains. The preposition “unto” indicates that repentance reaches salvation; however, the verb phrase “leads to” suggests it only puts one on the road to salvation. It does not convey the same relation.

It is interesting to see John Wycliffe’s 14th century translation, which to my mind conveys the meaning of the verse better than the 21st century ESV. (Note, in older English “penance” meant repentance and “health” meant salvation):

WYC: For the sorrow that is after God, worketh penance into steadfast health; but sorrow of the world worketh death.

1 Peter 1:3-9

The following beautiful passage from the apostle Peter speaks of the beginning and the end of our faith, and illustrates how “unto” conveys the spiritual meaning:

Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who through his abundant mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death, to enjoy an inheritance immortal and undefiled, and that does not perish, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Which salvation is prepared all ready to be shown in the last time – in which time you will rejoice, though now for a season (if need require) you are in heaviness through manifold trials, so that your faith, once tried, being much more precious than gold that perishes (though it be tried with fire), may be found to laud, glory, and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ – whom you have not seen, and yet love him; in whom even now, though you see him not, yet you do believe, and rejoice with joy inexpressible and glorious, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (NMB)

In conclusion, “unto” has a nonce-meaning, a spiritual meaning, that is instructive for the Christian faith and is easily understood. The concept of fusion with the object teaches about salvation and about our relation with the divine through Christ. These are good reasons to keep “unto” in the Bible.

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” (Ephesians 5:30)

“The glory that you gave me, I have given them, so that they may be one as we are one, I in them and you in me, so that they may be made perfect in one.” (John 17:22-23)

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March 2021.

—————

Blog post, baruchhousepublishing.com. “Unto” as a Nonce-word, and Why We Should Keep “Unto” in the Bible.

For real grammar buffs, see “Understanding ‘Like Unto’ in William Tyndale’s Writing”

See also this article on Tyndale Complains about Revisions to his Scripture Translations

———-ENDNOTES———

[1] OED online, s.v. “nonce,” noun, entry I.1.a. Only subscribers have access to the online OED.

[2] More correctly, “fusion with the dative,” because the object is in the dative case. It is also called “blending with the dative.”

[3] The New Matthew Bible is published by Baruch House Publishing. It is the chief work of the New Matthew Bible Project, dedicated to gently updating the 1537 Matthew Bible (MB) for today. This study of “unto” illustrates why an update should be gentle.

The MB was the work of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, the translators, and their friend John Rogers, who compiled their work, added study notes, and published the MB in 1537. King Henry VIII then licensed the MB for use in the Church. It went on to serve as the (unacknowledged) base of the Great, Geneva, and King James Bibles, so readers will find much that is familiar in it.

In 2016, Baruch House published the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible as The October Testament. Work on the Old Testament is underway.

[4] For Greek text comparisons, for the RT I use Scrivener’s text as set out in Green, Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English, 2nd edition (USA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986). For CT Bibles I use the Nestle Greek New Testament set out in Zondervan’s Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, ed. Alfred Marshall (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975).

[5] The many changes in modern Bibles are discussed, with examples, in The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2: The Scriptures Then and Now (Canada: Baruch House Publishing, 2020).

[6] OED online, s.v. “unto” preposition, entry A.I.1.a.

[7] Baruch House will publish Coverdale’s treatise Fruitful Lessons before the summer of 2021 (God willing). This is only one of his works containing teaching about the incorporation of the believer into Christ and, through Him, into the Holy Trinity.

[8] Strong’s Concordance, s.v. εις, entry 1519 in the Greek lexicon.

Pentecost: Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale

Posted on February 9, 2021 by admin Posted in Ruth's Picks

In about the year 1540, the English Reformer Myles Coverdale published a treatise called Fruitful Lessons. In it he expounded the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the sending of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. It is a book that makes the believer’s heart rejoice for its knowledge, reverence, and depth of spiritual wisdom.

Chapter 5 of Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale was about the sending of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2:1-4. Coverdale began by setting forth the verses from Acts, which he took from the 1539/1540 Great Bible. He then explained the significance of the events described: why the pouring out of the Spirit happened when it did (on the fiftieth day after the death of Christ), why it happened where it did, and more. Below are excerpts from Coverdale’s lesson on Acts 2:1-4. I have updated some of the obsolete English, including putting “Holy Spirit” where he had “Holy Ghost.”

From Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale: His lesson on Pentecost:

Acts 2:1-4: When the fifty days were come to an end, they were all with one accord together in one place; and suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as it had been the coming of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they sat. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like fire, and they sat upon each one of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, even as the same Spirit gave them utterance.

Doctrine and Fruit

The evangelist makes mention here of “the fiftieth day” upon which this great wonder was done. In this there lies hidden a notable mystery. The Jews, from the day that they offered the Passover lamb, counted fifty days, and upon the fiftieth day was the Feast of Weeks. In this feast they kept holy day, offering unto God a willing sacrifice of the firstfruits, after they had cut them down. We begin to count from the resurrection of Christ, our Passover Lamb, who also was offered up. Upon the fiftieth day, when the fruits began now to be ripe and were ready to be reaped, the harvest also being great and the laborers few, then God sent his Holy Spirit to prepare and equip the disciples, so that from amongst the heathen they could gather fruit together unto the Lord.

And as beforetime, when the children of Israel were departed out of Egypt the law was given to the people on the fiftieth day, so it was fitting that upon the fiftieth day the Holy Spirit should be given to the disciples – which Holy Spirit is both an interpreter and fulfiller of the law.

The place where the Holy Spirit was given is Zion, for there Christ commanded his disciples to wait, and from that place the law of God should, according to the saying of the prophets, proceed forth into the whole world. Therefore, like aforetime the law was given on Mount Sinai, even so was the Spirit given up on Mount Zion.

Upon Sinai did God at that time, with some terrible things, declare his might and power, his plagues also, and vengeance, which would fall upon those who scorned his law; and therefore was there such fearfulness through lightnings, thunderings, and other such terrible things. Here there is heard a noise, mighty and vehement, but not horrible and fearful – in which wind is signified that the doctrine of the Spirit should speedily and with power break in through the world and bring fruit; and that no man would be so strong as to hinder the strength of it, even as the wind in its course can by no man be kept back.

Whereas fiery tongues do appear and are seen, it signifies the manifold speeches and instruction that the Spirit gives to Christ’s disciples. It also signifies the zeal and ferventness that he works in their hearts, making them altogether fire, and kindling them in such sort that even their words are fervent, and pierce afterwards into the hearts of others. All weakness, fear, and coldness he removes out of them, so that they are not afraid to manfully step forth before all the people, although not long before they dared not stay with, but fled from the Lord. Now they confess him to be the Savior of all the world, whom they before had denied.

Whereas the tongues were divided, it signifies the diversity of the gifts of the Spirit. Christ promised in Mark 16 that they would “speak with other tongues,” or with a new speech or language. This promise is now performed in them. … How else could the apostles have been instructors of the whole world, if the Spirit had not taught them the diversity of tongues?

… The tongues of Christian men ought to be adorned with gentleness and with the Holy Spirit, so that no foul or wanton talk proceeds out of their mouth. The tongues that pronounce and confess Christ the eternal Truth, and his sincere Spirit, must not lie, neither speak any unclean, hurtful, or venomous thing. For to all such speech the Spirit is an enemy. Therefore they are not fleshly, but fire in spiritual tongues, out of which the fire of the Spirit has consumed all moisture of worldly and carnal wantonness, and God with his own love has kindled them. …

… Immediately after the resurrection, he breathes upon his disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit, to show that he is the same One who at the beginning created our nature and sealed it with his Spirit, and that it is he who now, in the beginning of a new life, must by his Spirit renew and restore our decayed nature again…

[And] immediately after this, he ascended up into heaven, to show to them that he was the Lord of all things. [Then], out of the high and real throne, where he sits at the right hand of God his Father, Christ the eternal King sent down his Holy Spirit upon all flesh, so that we by him may obtain the old innocency and salvation again; and so that the image of God, stained and defiled by sin, can be restored to us; and so that we might thus become partakers of eternal life.

… Come, O Holy Spirit, replenish the hearts of thy faithful believers, enkindle in them the fire of thy love, thou that through manifold tongues hast gathered together all the nations of the heathen in unity of faith. O take all dissension and discord out of thy holy church, and make us to be of one mind in unfeigned love, without which we cannot please thee.

[From Myles Coverdale, “Fruitful Lessons,” c. 1540, in Writings and Translations of Miles Coverdale, editor George Pearson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), 387-388, 392-393.]

Baruch House will soon be re-publishing a facsimile of the Parker Society’s edition of  Fruitful Lessons by Myles Coverdale. Though Coverdale’s English was remarkably modern compared to other writers of his time, our edition will include a glossary of words that are likely to cause difficulty. Below is a sneak preview of our cover.

Coverdale was co-translator of the 1537 Matthew Bible along with William Tyndale. The story of his amazing contribution to the English Bible is in our book, The Story of the Matthew Bible: That Which We First Received.  To purchase on Amazon USA, click here

Ruth Magnusson Davis, Feb 9, 2021

Subscribe to BHP

Subscribe to receive blog posts: enter email address below

Loading

Learn the Story of the Matthew Bible.

Part 1: How it was made.

Part 2: What changed in later Bibles and why.

Information about The Story of the Matthew Bible

Discover Tyndale’s New Testament

Together with John Rogers’ notes from the Matthew Bible, gently updated by Ruth Magnusson Davis, in THE OCTOBER TESTAMENT:

Paperback only $16.50US. Other editions are also available.

 

Bonded leather edition of The October Testament

© Baruch House Publishing

Shipping reduced on all orders shipped from Canada. All prices are $US. Dismiss