Category Archives: Geneva

Jerome Bolsec’s Unhappy Christmas in Geneva, or, When It Is Wrong to Preach on Predestination, Even if It Be True

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

One ill-fated day in Geneva, in the autumn of the year 1551, a man named Jerome Bolsec rose up at the conclusion of a religious meeting and objected to the preaching on predestination that he had heard that day. Some historians indicate that this occurred in John Calvin’s own church, however it was another man who delivered the sermon that day. The custom was to allow discussion about the sermon topic after the conclusion of the service.

Bolsec was a French refugee who had settled in Geneva and worked as a physician. However, he rejected Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, and he believed that it is wrong to preach on predestination as was done in Geneva. This day he could tolerate it no more. Apparently he thought Calvin was out of town, but in fact Calvin had just returned from a trip and was sitting at the back of the congregation. As the historian Mosheim put it, “[Bolsec’s] imprudence was great … It led him … to lift up his voice in the full congregation after the conclusion of divine worship…”[1]

The Geneva magistrates arrested Bolsec for his outburst and cast him into prison. Hoping to demonstrate the correctness of their doctrine and the unity of Swiss Protestants, they sent a letter about the Bolsec matter to the ministers at Basel, Zurich, and the canton of Bern. However, the responses were disappointing to Calvin. Doctrinal support was tepid, and the advice was to be lenient with Bolsec.

But the magistrates pursued their course. They charged Bolsec with attacking the religious establishment of Geneva and bringing scurrilous charges against its doctrine. The trial and prosecution proceeded, and on December 23, 1551 – just in time for Christmas – the physician was permanently banished from Geneva.

The gentlemen of Bern wrote that it is unnecessary and inadvisable to preach on predestination

It seems that the Bolsec matter, and the question of whether it is right or wrong to preach predestination, engendered much debate among the Protestant churches. Some time afterward, the ministers of Bern wrote:

There have been various disputes in the canton of Bern on the question of predestination. Many ministers have spoken against Calvin’s view, and accuse him of making God the author of sin. This caused the gentlemen of Geneva to send to Bern, and Calvin was one of the delegates.

But the gentlemen of Bern did not wish to take any part in these disputes. They said simply that they would exhort their ministers to speak with reserve on these matters. And they also exhorted the Genevans to speak but little, and with great circumspection, on the issues raised, like predestination, the knowledge of which is not at all necessary to salvation, and which are not good for anything but engendering doubts; that it is not to man to enquire into the secrets of God; that the more one digs, the more one finds the impenetrable; that they wish neither to affirm nor condemn the writings and doctrine of Calvin, but that they wish to deter people from disputing on these matters in their country.[2]

Following this, an edict was passed in Bern to restrict the preaching of predestination in the churches. [3]

Luther, Cranmer, and Tyndale accepted the truth of predestination, but indicated also that it is not a suitable topic for common preaching

The position of the ministers at Bern was similar to that of Martin Luther, who, though he did affirm predestination, discouraged enquiring into the hidden decrees of God. He urged people simply to cling to the revealed Jesus. Likewise Thomas Cranmer’s 1553 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, published less than two years after the Bolsec affair, said that it is wrong to preach predestination and election to the common people, because to hold these difficult doctrines before their eyes casts them into despair and doubt, and even into sin:

Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election, 1553 Articles of Religion of the Church of England: Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his own judgement, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ …

As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ … so for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil may thrust them either into desperation, or into a recklessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, although the decrees of predestination are unknown to us, we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.

Common sense tells us that desperation, disbelief, offence, confusion, and more will be the results of preaching predestination to the masses. This is true especially in a national church such as Calvin’s was, and as was also the Church of England. To such churches a multitude of people from every walk of life came every Sunday – many of whom, according to Calvin’s own doctrine, were not among the elect. Even worse, in Geneva church attendance was compulsory, and many avowed unbelievers were forced grudgingly into the pews. In I discuss the case of Jacques Gruet, an unbeliever who was beheaded after pinning a defiant note to Calvin’s pulpit.[4] What gratuitous folly it is to preach to such people that they cannot choose God, and therefore they are going to hell for eternity if they are not among the elect! This only pleases the devil.

The fact is that such preaching does not proclaim the gospel: it will not save a single soul. It will only work against the gospel, because it will cause people to condemn God or the church, and it will work desperation or recklessness, as Cranmer warned in Article 17, and it will engender needless disputes, as the gentlemen of Bern warned. Jerome Bolsec’s unhappy Christmas proves the truth of these things.

As Tyndale said in his prologue to Romans – which he took largely from Luther, and which therefore expresses also Luther’s mind – the question of predestination is for mature Christians only:

In [Romans 9-11] Paul treats of God’s predestination, by which is determined entirely whether we will believe or not believe, be set free from sin or not be set free, and by which our justification and salvation are taken completely out of our hands and put in the hands of God alone. And this is most necessary, because we are so weak and so uncertain. If it depended on us, there would of a truth be no one saved; the devil would surely deceive and overcome us…

But follow the order of this epistle. First, make Christ your study and concern. Learn what the law and the gospel are, and the office of both, so that you may in the one know yourself, that you have of yourself no strength but to sin, and in the other know the grace of Christ. And then see that you fight against sin and the flesh, as the first seven chapters teach you. After that, when you come to the eighth chapter, and are under the cross and suffering of tribulation, the necessity of predestination will be sweet, and you will feel how precious a thing it is.

For unless you have borne the cross of adversity and temptation, and have felt yourself brought to the very brim of desperation, yea and to hell’s gates, you cannot come to grips with the doctrine of predestination. For it will not be possible for you to think that God is righteous and just. Therefore the old Adam must be well mortified, and fleshly reason destroyed, before you can accept and drink such strong wine. Take heed to yourself therefore, not to drink wine while you are yet but a babe. For all learning is progressive, and has its time, measure, and age. In Christ there is a certain childhood in which one must be content with milk for a season, until he or she is stronger and able to eat stronger meat.[5]

If the doctrine of predestination is not for young believers, it is assuredly not for the general congregation. The wise person will be as humble and circumspect as the gentlemen of Bern in approaching such deep mysteries.[6] However, we are commanded to preach freely to all creatures the joyous message of the mercy and grace that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, and that will assuredly please God.

R Magnusson Davis, Christmas 2020

*********

[1] John Lawrence Mosheim, translator Archibald Maclaine, An Ecclesiastical History: Ancient and Modern, from the Birth of Christ, to the Beginning of the Present Century: In Which the Rise, Progress, and Variations of Church Power are Considered… By the Late Learned John Lawrence Mosheim, D.D., 1768. In Five Volumes. Volume IV, p.125 ff.

[2] This is my (Ruth’s) translation from the old French as given in Richard Laurence, An Attempt to Illustrate Those Articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists Improperly Consider as Calvinistical, 4th edition (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1853), p. 243. For what it is worth, I believe Laurence misunderstands Article 17 of the Articles of Religion, though his historical review is interesting.

[3] Ibid p. 244.

[4] See Appendix E of .

[5] Tyndale’s prologue can be viewed .

[6] I have not even attempted to enquire how Calvin differed from Luther and others in the substance of his doctrine. Regardless, the conclusion about whether it is right or wrong to preach on predestination holds true.

Calvin on Ceremonies: 30 Pieces of Silver??

Posted on by Posted in Calvin's teaching

In his Latin commentary on Zechariah 11:13, John Calvin taught that the 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas for the betrayal of Christ were a metaphor for “abominable” ceremonies in the Church. He taught that they were a picture of the “sacrifices offered by wicked men and hypocrites.”

Calvin’s little-known treatment of Messianic prophecies is discussed in a 16th century book by the Lutheran theologian, Aegidius Hunnius, which has now been translated into English: The Judaizing Calvin. Hunnius thoroughly and carefully refuted Calvin, giving many shocking examples of how Calvin treated Messianic prophecies metaphorically and falsely.

Thirty pieces of silver

All the Gospel writers, led by the Holy Spirit, treated Zechariah’s prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver as a prophecy of Christ’s passion, which was fulfilled when Judas accepted them as the price to betray him. However, Calvin taught that the 30 silver coins were a metaphor about “dirty” ceremonies offered by wicked and hypocritical men in the Church – first by the Jews, who were “excessively attentive” to their ceremonies, and then in the Christian Church. This may seem absurd, but this is what he taught. He wrote:

Calvin: By that cheap price worthy of a farmhand, he understands the frivolous nonsense by which the Jews thought they could satisfy God. For we know that they were excessively attentive in their ceremonies, as if this repayment should be of any value before God…. If the Jews would have brought themselves totally into compliance with his word. But how? If they had gotten rid of their ceremonies and other frivolous things, of course! Yes, this was a dirty job, as if they had wanted to pay off some swineherd.[1]

He went on to say that the 30 pieces of silver (representing ceremonies) were “thrown to the potter” to show that they are unworthy of God — even like spitting in his face! He wrote:

Calvin: Afterwards he ironically calls [the 30 pieces] a magnificent and glorious price at which he was esteemed. In other words: This is my glorious price? I bore so much toil, and now they treat me just like some dirty farmer! Yet I was their Lord and Shepherd. Therefore, since they want to satisfy me in such a bogus manner, here also they want to thrust on me the cheap price of their contempt, as if to overthrow my glory or spit in my face. Throw it! Throw it to the potter, he says.… because I will not suffer my majesty to have an unworthy price so contemptuously thrust upon it…. He testifies that these things are worth nothing to him … the sacrifices offered by wicked men and hypocrites who have not the slightest sense of godliness are the highest form of abomination. Why? Because this is the highest form of insult that the reprobate hurl, as if they defiled his face with spit … [2]

By this teaching, Calvin turned a prophecy about Christ into an occasion of endless strife in the Church. The Geneva Bible notes taught everywhere that ceremonies were “abolished under the gospel.” The revolutionary manifestos of the early English Puritans railed against ceremonies and “Judas purse bearers.” In part this came from Calvin’s treatment of the prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March 2019

[1] Aegidius Hunnius, Trans. Paul A. Rydecki The Judaizing Calvin (Texas: Repristination Press, 2012), 65. Hunnius did not cite his sources. The translator advised me that they were from Calvin’s 1617 Latin commentaries. This one is from the commentary on Zechariah, Volume 3, Part 2.

[2] Ibid, 72-73. Hunnius adds, “Perhaps you will say to me that, still, in the things that follow in his commentary, Calvin approves of the Evangelist Matthew’s exegesis. I reply: This is what we have said on several occasions – that Calvin observes this order in explaining the Prophets, with the effect that he truly weakens their prophecies with his interpretations that are primarily Jewish; and blunts their sharp edge; and cuts into the nerve of their argumentation against the unbelievers; and shakes the bedrock foundation by means of stunning tricks and intricate distortions overgrown with a thousand thorn-bushes; that is to say, by means of the deception of symbols and figures of speech, but especially with the deception of his precious metaphors.” (Pages 73-74)

The Geneva Bible on the Coming of Christ on a Donkey

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

It’s been a long journey to understand the changes the Geneva Puritans made to the Bible. I’m still learning.

The real primary version of the Geneva Bible (“GB”) was the Matthew Bible (“MB”). The MB was the combined work of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Then their friend John Rogers added commentaries and published the MB in 1537. It went on to be progressively revised as shown:

Matthew Bible (1537: Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers)
↓
Great Bible (1539: Reviser Myles Coverdale)
↓
Geneva Bible (1560: Revisers William Whittingham with Puritan Church leaders in Geneva)

The Puritans based many of their revisions on the teaching of John Calvin. They significantly changed the Scriptures, commentaries, and chapter summaries. What are chapter summaries? They are brief introductions to each chapter of the books of the Bible which explain the main topic or topics. John Rogers wrote the chapter summaries for the MB, which the Great Bible kept for the most part. However, the GB often changed them. One disturbingly consistent change was to substitute “the Church” for Christ.

An issue that emerges upon a careful comparison of summaries is how the GB handled prophecies of the Messiah. I’ll give one example only. It doesn’t seem too serious at first, but on deeper enquiry reveals a terrible error. Compare:

Chapter summaries on Zechariah 9:
Matthew and Great Bibles: The conversion of the Gentiles. The coming of Christ sitting on an ass.
Geneva Bible: The threatenings of the Gentiles. The coming of Christ.

Why did the GB cut out the prophecy about Jesus? It didn’t smell right to me.

I found the answer in a 16th century book written by Dr. Aegidius Hunnius, a Lutheran professor at the Wittenberg Academy in Germany. He wrote a confutation of Calvin in 1593 entitled The Judaizing Calvin. Back then, Calvin’s unorthodoxy was better known, and it was a real concern to the Lutherans. Hunnius showed what Calvin taught, which explains the omission. It is not a happy explanation:

When Zechariah says, “See! Your King comes to you riding on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a donkey,” the evangelists take the words ‘donkey’ and ‘colt’ in their proper meaning, without any ambiguity whatsoever…. But Calvin … put forth another interpretation:

[Calvin said] “It is certainly true that the words of the prophet are metaphorical, when he says that the King will come riding on a donkey. This is a figurative saying. For the prophet understands that Christ would be a rather poorly known man who does not extol himself above the common measure of the multitudes. This is the genuine sense. This is true, but nevertheless it does not hinder Christ from also putting forth an example of this when he mounts that donkey.”[1]

In other words, Calvin says this was NOT a prophecy – it was just a figurative way of speaking! Later, Jesus supposedly decided to act it out by using a donkey. But it gets worse. According to Calvin, Jesus’ purpose in doing this was to show that he wanted to be considered a common man, not above the multitudes, and even that he would be “poorly known.” But for one, Jesus is not poorly known – not to His, at least. Further, he never taught that he was “common.” He showed us that he was humble, but that is a totally different thing. But see how the devil uses false semantics. ‘Humble’ does not mean ‘common.’ Jesus indeed modeled humility, but he exalted himself as uncommon: the uncommonly humble and at the same time most high Lord and King of Israel, Master, Chief Shepherd, and Son of God. And he also that that he must be obeyed: “Ye call me Lord and Master, and so I am,” he said, (Joh. 3:13).

When Hunnius concluded on this section, he did not mince words:

Indeed, Calvin always seems to feel that deep, innate itch to twist the Word of God, so that with his figurative language and metaphors, the good-for-nothing deceives the more pious mind in such a serious and lofty matter, as charlatans mislead people with their tricks and deceit.[2]

The little-known unorthodox teachings of Calvin seem to be forgotten and lost in history, but their fruit is manifest in the Geneva Bible.

[1] Aegidius Hunnius, The Judaizing Calvin, translated by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki. Link to buy: The Judaizing Calvin

[2] Ibid., page 66.

For the fascinating story of the making of the Matthew Bible, go here for more information about our book.

Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, 1560 Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Geneva
© Ruth Magnusson Davis, 2019
To my knowledge, this is the only place on the internet where you can read the Puritan dedication to Queen Elizabeth from the 1560 Geneva Bible. For some reason the 1560 preface is widely reproduced, but not this dedication. I typed it out myself, checked it diligently against the original, and modernized the spelling. It is set out below, with paragraph numbers for easy reference.

The dedication was dated April 10, 1560. It was unsigned and anonymous in my copy. I suspect the primary author was the zealous Puritan William Whittingham, who revised Tyndale’s New Testament in 1557, and/or John Calvin. I say this because some things written here strongly echo Whittingham’s dedicatory epistle to a book by the Puritan Christopher Goodman: How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects and Wherein They May Lawfully by God’s Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. The purpose and topic of Goodman’s book is evident from the title. Goodman was not a popular man with European rulers. It seems to me that neither Whittingham nor Calvin could affix their name in an epistle to the queen and expect a good reception, because of their revolutionary writings and affiliations with men like Goodman. However, I cannot be sure about authorship, and in any case, it is not important to know. What matters is the content of this dedication to the queen. The reader should understand that it is consistent with the teachings that came from the leaders and scholars of Geneva at this time, though they are often forgotten or overlooked. This dedication gives important insight into the spirit and purpose of the Geneva Bible. It also reveals why Queen Elizabeth and King James did not like it.

A note on Christopher Goodman’s book: It was typical of the revolutionary rhetoric of the Puritans. It was also diametrically opposed to William Tyndale’s book, The Obedience of a Christian Man. Whittingham’s endorsement of Goodman’s book shows how contrary his spirit was to Tyndale. It also raises questions about the changes Whittingham made to Tyndale’s New Testament. I examine some of these changes in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, including how Whittingham interpreted Jesus’ words to Peter about the use of the sword. It is fascinating, but disturbing too.

Some things to bear in mind:

(a) When I say ‘Puritan,’ I mean it in the classic, original sense, referring to the men with a post-millennial dream who returned to England from Geneva after Queen Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558. They believed they were called to purify and restore the Church and inaugurate the reign of the saints. As the reader will see, they considered certain Old Testament punitive practices (as they interpreted them) to be relevant under the New Covenant, to the extent that they, the Puritans, should “minister God’s law” and execute severe punishments, including the execution of false prophets, heretics, and anyone who stood in the way of building God’s Church. The highly esteemed Puritan Theodore Beza advocated ‘tyrannicide’ if need be. ‘Tyrannicide’ was a euphemism for ‘regicide’; i.e., revolutionary execution of kings or queens by their subjects.

(b) When you see a reference in the dedication to “God’s mouth” or the “mouths of the Lord,” understand that it means Puritan ministers. Whittingham and his associates believed they were God’s mouth. Thus paragraph 5.2 means that the queen should consult with Puritan leaders. This is only one example. And where the dedication speaks of obeying the will of God “immediately” (para 8:3), it means obeying the instructions of Puritan ministers immediately. Paragraphs 9.2- 9.3 make this clear.

(c) Note that all the emphasis here is on building the Church. John Roger’s dedication to King Henry VIII emphasized giving the Bible to the people. Further, the reader will see how frequently the Puritans urged the queen to seek their counsel concerning the will of God, and ONLY their counsel. They never once urged her to read the Bible, but said they were the ones chosen by God to understand and teach what it meant (para 9.2). On the other hand, Rogers in his dedication urged the king to read the Bible, and he warned the king that false prophets would surround him and try to influence him. I hope to get a chance to post Rogers’ dedication soon.

(d) Note the mention in paragraph 8.2 about executing people who will not seek the Lord. The Puritans drew on Old Testament stories as precedents to follow for building the Church and governing the people. This is why they talk about such things as putting false prophets to death. Paragraph 5.1 refers to rooting out, cutting down, and destroying. But there are no particulars at all. What exactly is to be rooted out? Who are the people who will not seek the Lord? Who are the false prophets? The Puritans were holding their cards close to their chest. Because they were writing to the queen, they could not afford to be clear about their goals, which included terminating her role as the head of the Church so that they could establish a Presbyterian model.

(e) Items in round brackets are original. Items in square brackets are added by me: [italicized words] are modern synonyms and [regular font] indicates words that I added to complete the sense.

(f) I added a few more notes at the end.

*****

Dedication to Queen Elizabeth I, 1560 Geneva Bible

To the Most Virtuous and Noble Queen Elizabeth, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, etc. Your humble subjects of the English Church at Geneva, wish grace and peace from God the Father through Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 How hard a thing it is, and what great impediments let [hinder], to enterprise any worthy act, not only daily experience sufficiently showeth (most noble and virtuous Queen) but also that notable proverb doeth confirm the same, which admonisheth us, that all things are hard which are fair and excellent. And what enterprise can there be of greater importance, and more acceptable unto God, or more worthy of singular commendation, than the building of the Lord’s Temple, the house of God, the Church of Christ, whereof the Son of God is the head and perfection?

2 When Zerubbabel went about to build the material Temple, according to the commandment of the Lord, what difficulties and stays daily arose to hinder his worthy endeavours, the books of Ezra and Esdras plainly witness: how that not only he and the people of God were sore molested with foreign adversaries, (whereof some maliciously warred against them, and corrupted the king’s officers, and others craftily practiced under pretence of religion) but also at home with domestic enemies, as false prophets, crafty worldlings, faint-hearted soldiers, and oppressors of their brethren, who as well by false doctrine and lies, as by subtle counsel, cowardice, and extortion, discouraged the hearts almost of all: so that the Lord’s work was not only interrupted and left off for a long time, but scarcely at the length with great labour and danger after a sort brought to pass.

3.1 Which thing, when we weigh aright, and consider earnestly how much greater charge God hath laid upon you in making you a builder of his spiritual Temple, we cannot but partly fear, knowing the craft and force of Satan, our spiritual enemy, and the weakness and inability of this our nature: and partly be fervent in our prayers toward God that he would bring to perfection this noble work which he hath begun by you:

3.2 and therefore we endeavour ourselves by all means to aid, and to bestow our whole force under your grace’s standard [to rally all our forces under your grace’s flag], [you] whom God hath made as our Zerubbabel for the erecting of this most excellent Temple, and to plant and maintain his holy word to the advancement of his glory, for your own honour and salvation of your soul, and for the singular comfort [strengthening/ encouragement] of that great flock which Christ Jesus the great shepherd hath bought with his precious blood, and committed unto your charge to be fed both in body and soul.

4.1 Considering therefore how many enemies there are, which by one means or another, as the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin went about to stay the building of that Temple, so labour to hinder the course of this building [work of building] (whereof some are Papists, who under pretence of favouring God’s word, traitorously seek to erect idolatry and to destroy your majesty: some are worldlings who, as Demas, have forsaken Christ for the love of this world: others are ambitious prelates, who, as Amasah and Diotrephes can abide none but themselves; and as Demetrious, many practice sedition to maintain their errors), we persuaded ourselves that there was no way so expedient and necessary for the preservation of the one, and destruction of the other, as to present unto your Majesty the holy Scriptures faithfully and plainly translated according to the languages wherein they were first written by the holy Ghost.

4.2 For the word of God is an evident token of God’s love and our assurance of his defence, wheresoever it is obediently received: it is the trial of the spirits, and as the Prophet saith, It is as a fire and hammer to break the stony hearts of them that resist God’s mercies (1) offered by the preaching of the same. Yea it is sharper than any two edged sword to examine the very thoughts and to judge the affections of the heart, and to discover [reveal] whatsoever lieth hid under hypocrisy and would be secret from the face of God and his Church. So that this must be the first foundation and groundwork, according whereunto the good stones of this building must be framed, and the evil tried out and rejected.

5.1 Now as he that goeth about to lay a foundation surely, first taketh away such impediments as might justly either hurt, let [hinder], or deform the work, so is it necessary that your grace’s zeal appear herein, [so] that neither the crafty persuasion of man, neither worldly policy, or natural fear, dissuade you to root out, cut down, and destroy these weeds and impediments, which do not only deface your building, but utterly endeavour, yea and threaten the ruin thereof.

5.2 For when the noble Josiah enterprised the like kind of work, among other notable and many things he destroyed, not only with utter confusion the idols with their appurtenances, but also burnt (in sign of detestation) the idolatrous priest’s bones upon their altars, and put to death the false prophets and sorcerers, to perform the words of the law of God: and therefore the Lord gave him good success, and blessed him wonderfully, so long as he made God’s word his line and rule to follow, and enterprised nothing before he had inquired at the mouth of the Lord.

6 And if these zealous beginnings seem dangerous and to breed disquietness in your dominions, yet by the story of King Asa it is manifest that the quietness and peace of kingdoms standeth in the utter abolishing of idolatry, and in advancing of true religion. For in his days, Judah lived in rest and quietness for the space of five and thirty years, till at length he began to be cold in the zeal of the Lord, feared the power of man, imprisoned the Prophet of God, and oppressed the people: then the Lord sent him wars, and at length took him away by death.

7 Wherefore great wisdom, not worldly, but heavenly, is here required, which your grace must earnestly crave of the Lord, as did Solomon, to whom God gave an understanding heart to judge his people aright, and to discern between good and bad. For if God for the furnishing of the old temple gave the Spirit of wisdom and understanding to them that should be the workmen thereof, as to Bezaleel, Aholiab, and Hiram, how much more will he endue your grace and other godly princes and chief governors with a principal Spirit, that you may procure and command things necessary for this most holy Temple, foresee and take heed of things that might hinder it, and abolish and destroy whatsoever might impair and overthrow the same?

8.1 Moreover, the marvelous diligence and zeal of Jehosaphat, Josiah, and Hezekiah, are by the singular providence of God left as an example to all godly rulers, to reform their countries and to establish the word of God with all speed, lest the wrath of the Lord fall upon them for the neglecting thereof. For these excellent Kings did not only embrace the word promptly and joyfully, but also procured earnestly [took earnest measures] and commanded the same to be taught, preached, and maintained through all their countries and dominions, binding them and all their subjects both great and small with solemn protestations [public declarations] and covenants before God to obey the word, and to walk after the ways of the Lord.

8.2 Yea and in the days of serving Asa it was enacted that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slain, whether he were small or great, man or woman. And for the establishing hereof and performance of this solemn oath, as well Priests as Judges were appointed and placed through all the cities of Judah to instruct the people in the true knowledge and fear of God, and to minister justice according to the word,(2) knowing that, except God by his word did reign in the hearts and souls, all man’s diligence and endeavours were [would be] of none effect. For without this word we cannot discern between justice and injury, protection and oppression, wisdom and foolishness, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil.

8.3 Therefore the Lord, who is the chief governor of his Church, willeth that nothing be attempted before we have enquired thereof at his mouth. For seeing he is our God, of duty we must give him this pre-eminence, [so] that of ourselves we enterprise nothing but that which he hath appointed, who only knoweth all things, and governeth them as may best serve to his glory and our salvation. We ought not therefore to prevent [go before] him, or do anything without his word, but as soon as he hath revealed his will, immediately to put it in execution.

9.1 Now as concerning the manner [design] of this building, it is not according to man, nor after the wisdom of the flesh, but of the Spirit, and according to the word of God, whose ways are divers from man’s ways. For if it was not lawful for Moses to build the material [earthly] Tabernacle after any other sort than God had showed him by a pattern, neither to prescribe any other ceremonies and laws than such as the Lord had expressly commanded, how can it be lawful to proceed in this spiritual building any other ways, than Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is both the foundation, head, and chief corner stone thereof, hath commanded by his word? And forasmuch as he hath established and left an order in his Church for the building up of his body, appointing some to be Apostles, some Prophets, others Evangelists, some pastors and teachers, he signifieth that everyone according as he is placed in this body which is the Church, ought to enquire of his ministers concerning the will of the Lord, which is revealed in his word. For they are, saith Jeremiah, as the mouth of the Lord: yea, he promiseth to be with their mouth, and that their lips shall keep knowledge, and that the truth and the law shall be in their mouths.

9.2 For it is their office chiefly to understand the Scriptures and teach them. For this cause the people of Israel in matters of difficulty used to ask the Lord either by the Prophets, or by the means of the high Priest, who bare Urim and Thummin, which were tokens of light and knowledge, of holiness and perfection, which should be in the high Priest. Therefore when Jehosaphat took this order in the Church of Israel, he appointed Amariah to be the chief concerning the word of God, because he was most expert in the law of the Lord, and could give counsel and govern according unto the same. Else there is no degree or office which may have that authority and privilege to decide concerning God’s word, except withal he hath the Spirit of God, and sufficient knowledge and judgement to define [make a precise statement] according thereunto. And as everyone is endued by God with greater gifts, so ought he to be herein chiefly heard, or at least that without the express word, none be heard, for he that hath not the word, speaketh not by the mouth of the Lord. Again, what danger it is to do anything, seem it never so godly or necessary, without consulting with God’s mouth, the examples of the Israelites, deceived hereby through the Gibeonites: and of Saul, whose intention seemed good and necessary: and of Josiah also, who for great considerations was moved for the defence of true religion and his people, to fight against Pharoah Necho King of Egypt, may sufficiently admonish us.

10.1 Last of all (most gracious Queen) for the advancement of this building and rearing up of the work, two things are necessary.

10.2 First, that we have a [illegible] and steadfast faith in Christ Jesus, who must dwell in our hearts, as the only means and assurance of our salvation: for he is the ladder that reacheth from the earth to heaven: he lifteth up his Church and setteth it in the heavenly places: he maketh us lively [living] stones and buildeth us upon himself: he joineth us to himself as the members and body to the head. Yea, he maketh himself and his Church one Christ.

10.3 The next is, that our faith bring forth good fruits, so that our godly conversation [manner of life] may serve as a witness to confirm our election, and be an example to all others to walk as appertaineth to the vocation [calling] whereunto they are called, lest the word of God be evil spoken of, and this building be stayed [delayed] to grow up to a just height,(3) which cannot be without the great provocation of God’s just vengeance and discouraging of many thousands through all the world, if they should see that our life were not holy and agreeable to our profession.

10.4 For the eyes of all that fear God in all places behold your countries as an example to all that believe, and the prayers of all the godly at all times are directed to God for the preservation of your majesty. For considering God’s wonderful mercies toward you at all seasons, who hath pulled you out of the mouth of the lions, and how that from your youth you have been brought up in the holy Scriptures, the hope of all men is so increased, that they cannot but look that God should bring to pass some wonderful work by your grace to the universal comfort of his Church. Therefore even above strength, you must show yourself strong and bold in God’s matters: and though Satan lay all his power and craft together to hurt and hinder the Lord’s building, yet be you assured that God will fight from heaven against this great dragon, the ancient serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, till he have accomplished the whole work and made his Church glorious to himself, without spot or wrinkle.(4)

10.5 For albeit all other kingdoms and monarchies, as the Babylonians, Persians, Grecians, and Romans have fallen and taken end, yet the Church of Christ even under the Cross hath from the beginning of the world been victorious, and shall be everlastingly. Truth it is, that sometime it seemeth to be shadowed with a cloud, or driven with a stormy perfection [sic; persecution?], yet suddenly the beams of Christ the sun of justice shine and bring it to light and liberty. If for a time it be covered with ashes, yet it is quickly kindled again by the wind of God’s Spirit: though it seem drowned in the sea, or parched and pined in the wilderness, yet God giveth ever good success. For he punisheth the enemies, and delivereth his, nourisheth them and still preserveth them under his wings.

10.6 This Lord of lords and King of kings who hath ever defended his, strengthen, comfort, and preserve your majesty, [so] that you may be able to build up the ruins of God’s house to his glory, the discharge of your conscience, and to the comfort of all them that love the coming of Christ Jesus our Lord.

From Geneva. 10.April.1560.

**********

Notes:

(1) Para 4.2 There are two teachings here about God’s word which, coupled with what is missing, indicate a distorted understanding and a lack of true Christian knowledge. One is the idea that God’s word is but a “token of his love.” The other is that it is a “hammer.” What is missing is the understanding that the preaching of the Word, who is Jesus, is a preaching of mercy and forgiveness for salvation, in the power of the Holy Spirit. This explains many changes the Puritans made to the New Testament. See for example my post about 1 Peter 13 and also Psalm 23.

(2) Para 8.2 This is a veiled reference to appointing Puritan ministers and officials in secular and Church offices throughout the country, with effective judicial and executive control over civic and Church affairs, so they could run the country according to “God’s laws.”

(3)(4) Para 10.3 and 10.4 These passages express the Puritan postmillennial vision for the Church. This was the zeal that (in part) fuelled the Puritan revolt and murder of King Charles I in England in 1649. They believed that after they slew all who stood in the way of building the Church, whether “great or small,” the Church would grow to a glorious perfection according to the Geneva model. However, their dreams were dashed quite quickly, when the throne was restored to Charles II in 1661.

It seems to me that Puritan history and the English revolution, in which over 200,000 people lost their lives, is often misunderstood by the evangelical Church today, or painted with a false rosy hue. But a sense of the early Puritan spirit, and their willingness to take up the sword to build their Church, can easily be gained from this dedication. King James’ misgivings about the Geneva Bible were prophetic: Charles, whom the Puritan revolutionaries beheaded, was his own son.

Puritans, Democrats, and Revolutions

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

Part 1 of The Story of the Matthew Bible was about the non-revolutionary Reformation and its peaceful soldiers, William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, and the men who fought for the word of God. Those men did not fight with violence, but only suffered violence. They helped build the Church of England, and were a small group.

But now, for Part 2 of The Story I have been researching the revolutionary Reformers, who sought from the very beginning to tear down the CofE. These were the Puritans, a large group. Religious zeal caused them to build an army and go to war violently to “complete the Reformation,” and to establish the kingdom of Christ with a Church built on the Geneva model. I have traced their writings and manifestos from their exile in Frankfort and Geneva in 1553, when Queen Mary came to the throne, to their revolution in the next century, in which there were over 200,000 war-related deaths. The Puritan Oliver Cromwell, known as “General of the Parliament,” beheaded his king. Peaceful he was not.

I’ve noticed that many modern writers sentimentalize or even justify the Puritan revolution. This is dangerous and irresponsible. I’ll have to wait for Part 2 of The Story to share more (which I’d rather not share) about the intrigue, false trials, and evils of the whole miserable affair. One historian observed in this context:

It may be open to doubt whether the arbitrament of force is morally much worse than the arbitrament of factious strife, with the malignity, the trickery, the lying, and the corruption which it involves. (1)

Comparison with situation in the USA

What has this to do with the Democrats? I keep seeing parallels between the Puritan revolt and the present Democratic revolt in the USA. “Rome, Rome!” was the battle cry against King Charles. “Russia, Russia!” is the cry against President Trump. These are both false appearances, which stir up fear, outrage, and fanaticism.

Please note, I do not deny the evils of Rome. Anyone who read Part 1 of The Story knows that. But I reject how the Puritans incited people to rage through a fiction that the Church of England, which Thomas Cranmer built and died for, was the shadow of Rome. Rome killed Cranmer, but the Puritans would have us believe he was a Roman lackey who left “Romish dregs” in the liturgy. (Some people reading this will still believe it, as I myself once did; that’s the Puritan legacy.) Anyway, this “Rome, Rome!” business is similar to the Democrat fiction that Trump is a lackey of Russia.

I suppose every revolution has the same ingredients, just with different flavours. To compare them is an eye-opener. It reveals the same tactics:

Ingredients of a revolution Puritan flavourDemocratic flavour
First war cry:Rome, Rome!Russia, Russia!
Second war cry:Papist, papist!Racist, racist!
Third war cry:Tyrant!White supremacist!
Accusation:TreasonTreason
Leader to depose:King Charles IPresident Trump
Take down of chief aides:Strafford and Laud executedCohen and others imprisoned
Popular supporters labelled: Delinquents (Royalists)Deplorables (Trump voters)
Note: Puritan leaders labelled people who supported the king as “Delinquents,” and the rogue parliament passed laws to confiscate their estates and property.

 

Ingredients Puritan flavourDemocratic flavour
Objects of righteous wrath:Ceremonies and liturgyBorder walls and immigration law
Political machinery:Rogue parliamentMueller commission
Popular preachers: Puritans in the pulpits of the ChurchLeftists in television and radio pulpits
Note: Oliver Cromwell paid ministers to preach against bishops and the Prayer book liturgy. Who is paying media personalities to preach against Trump?

 

Personal exposé and slander:Puritan: King’s private letters to his wife published as “King’s Cabinet Opened.”Democrat: Private tapes, Stormy Daniels, and fake dossiers.
Note: After Cromwell’s army captured the king, they found his personal papers, which they published in newspapers under the title “King’s Cabinet Opened.” They deceptively made his natural efforts to find foreign help look like treason. Trump’s natural business ventures are being made to look like treason.

 

Evil holiday:Puritan: Christmas (too pagan)Democrat: Christmas (too Christian)
Note: Under Puritan rule, the celebration of “Christ-Mass” was made illegal. The emphasis was on the “Mass.” Many Democrats today also object to Christmas, with emphasis on the “Christ.” Anti-Christian regimes suppress Christmas (Communism, Islam).

The spirit of revolution disregards moral and civil obligations

These are not the tactics of peacemakers, nor of men who fight only with the sword of truth. Historian David Hume (History of Great Britain) observed the state of affairs in the country before the Puritans finally toppled the government of King Charles:

The distempered imaginations of men were agitated with a continual dread of popery, with a horror against prelacy, with an antipathy to ceremonies and liturgy, and with a violent affection for whatever was most opposite to these objects of aversion. The fanatical spirit, let loose, confounded all regard to ease, safety, interest, and dissolved every moral and civil obligation. (2)

Change a few words, and see how this fits today:

The distempered imaginations of men are agitated with a continual dread of Trump, with a horror against white supremacists, with an antipathy to border walls and immigration laws, and with a violent affection for whatever is most opposite to these objects of aversion. The fanatical spirit, let loose, has confounded all regard to ease, safety, interest, and dissolved every moral and civil obligation.

We see all this in the US today. The Puritan parliament confiscated the property of Delinquents, but the Dems have to be content with refusing restaurant service to Deplorables. What would happen if they had all the power they wanted?

The same spirit is behind all this: the prince of this world, the father of lies. He wants to divide, to make war and unrest. His leaven is pious-sounding falsehood, and by it he deceives the simple. It is certain that none of this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

The true Reformation was law-abiding

The true English Reformation, which began under King Henry and was completed under his son Edward, was not accomplished through revolution – unless we call it a spiritual revolution. The soldiers fought with prayer and hard work, in weakness. There was no army, no uprising to depose the secular powers. To be sure, there was upheaval. But, as Luther was fond of saying, the word of God is the only sword Christians may lawfully use to effect change. That, and the lawful work of men whom God placed in King Henry’s court at just the right time, brought about the true Reformation.

The period of the rebel Puritan rule in England is known as the Commonwealth or Interregnum. ‘Interregnum’ is a Latin word that means temporary rule during a suspension of the usual government. During the Interregnum, religious coercion – or freedom, as the Puritans called it – was severe, and so people turned against them. They went down, and the fickle people welcomed Charles’ son back with delirious joy, happy to have a king again.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, December 2018.

~~~~~~

Check out The Story of the Matthew Bible and our other books on our new shopping page: http://bible.ready4.ca/book-store/

More information about the Puritan war on the Church of England and their rejection of the Reformation under Kings Henry VIII and King Edward VI is here: https://newmatthewbible.org/The-Puritan-Rejection-of-the-Tyndale-Matthew-Bible.pdf

Note (1) Quotation is from Goldwin Smith, D.C.L., The United Kingdom: Political History, Vol. I (Toronto: The Copp, Clark Company, 1899), page 530.

Note (2) Quotation is from David Hume, Esq., The History of England, Stereotype edition in ten volumes, Vol. VII (London: A. Wilson, 1810), page 373.

 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9)

The Geneva & RV Prefaces on “Correcting” the Former Translations

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

Two years of research into English Bible history have yielded some surprising insights.

The past 650 years can be divided into four periods. During the first two, God’s word struggled for light. In the latter two, men took the former translations in hand in order to revise them. In particular, the Geneva Bible (1560) and Revised Version (1881-1894) were touted by their makers as badly needed “corrections” of earlier Bibles.

(1) The Lollard Period, from the late 14th century to the dawn of the Reformation.

The word of God was under open assault when Wycliffe and his men fought to give England her own Bible. Their Scriptures were laboriously written out by hand. Many people died in the Lollard persecutions.

(2) The Reformation Period, during the reign of King Henry VIII

After the invention of the printing press, and after a bloody battle in which many more people lost their lives, vernacular Scriptures were at last lawfully received in England. During this time we received three Bibles:

In 1535: The Coverdale Bible;

In 1537: The Matthew Bible, also known as Matthew’s version;

In 1539: The Great Bible

The Matthew Bible contained the combined translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Martin Luther’s influence on Coverdale should be noted: Coverdale translated mainly from Luther’s 1534 German version, and his Scriptures are remarkable for their Lutheran clarity. The Great Bible was a minimal revision of the Matthew Bible by Coverdale himself, commissioned to appease the conservatives and establish an English Bible in the Church.

Clarity was very important to Luther, Tyndale, and Coverdale. We are all familiar with Tyndale’s famous promise: if God spared his life, he would give England a Bible in her own language, and the boy who drives the plough would understand them. He succeeded. His Scriptures are actually easier to understand than the KJV, which came in the next century, due to his philosophy of translation. I call the Bibles of the Reformation period the “ploughboy Bibles.”

By the end of this period, the Great Bible was the official English version of the Church.

(3) The Literal Period, after an English Bible is established in the Church

The fight for God’s word was over, and the victory won. Now certain men took in hand the Scriptures we received in the Reformation, and changed them.

The Literal period was inaugurated by the Geneva Bible, a Puritan revision of the Great Bible. In their 1560 preface, the Puritans criticized the former translations as immature, imperfect, and even irreverent. Alas, a lot of people believed them (and still do). They said the Great Bible “required greatly” to be reviewed and corrected. Though Coverdale and Tyndale were of the same generation, and Coverdale was still living, they characterized their work as from “the infancy of those times.” They also claimed to have more perfect knowledge of the biblical languages, and a revelation of “clear light” from God:

Preface, 1560 Geneva Bible: We thought that we should bestow our labours and study in nothing which could be more acceptable to God and conformable to his Church than in the translating of the Holy Scriptures into our native tongue; the which thing, albeit that divers heretofore have endeavored to achieve [i.e. Tyndale and Coverdale], yet considering the infancy of those times and imperfect knowledge of the tongues, in respect of this ripe age and clear light which God hath now revealed, the translations required greatly to be perused and reformed. (This preface is reproduced in 1599 Geneva Bible, Tolle Lege edition. See p. xxvii.)

The Puritans employed a different translation technique; that is, an intensified literal approach, which, they said, “most reverently kept the propriety of the words.” Briefly, this meant following the words of Hebrew idioms even though English speakers could not understand the meaning. They departed from Tyndale’s and Luther’s translation emphasis, which put meaning first. The Puritans did, however, acknowledge that they had obscured the meaning, or as they put it, had made the Scriptures “hard in their ears that are not well practiced.” Therefore they added hundreds of edifications and commentaries:

Preface, 1560 Geneva Bible: Now as we have chiefly observed the sense, and labored always to restore it to all integrity: so have we most reverently kept the propriety of the words, considering that the Apostles who spake and wrote to the Gentiles in the Greek tongue, rather constrained them to the lively phrase of the Hebrew, than enterprised far by mollifying their language to speak as the Gentiles did. And for this and other causes we have in many places reserved the Hebrew phrase, notwithstanding that they may seem somewhat hard in their ears that are not well practiced and also delight in the sweet sounding phrases of the holy Scriptures. Yet lest either the simple should be discouraged, or the malicious have any occasion of just cavillation, seeing some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification, we have in the margent [margin] noted that diversity of speech or reading which may also seem agreeable to the mind of the holy Ghost, and proper for our language.

In other words, God’s word, now “restored to all integrity,” was no longer plain for the ploughboy. Everywhere in the margins of the book were added “diversities of speech or reading” to explain the difficult translations, with also “edifications … proper for our language” of the uncertain “lively” and “sweet sounding” phrases. (So much for the perspicuity of Scripture. It seems ironic, to make the word of God harder to understand, and then insist on its perspicuity, as the Puritans did.)

As time would tell, the notes and commentaries of the Geneva Bible inflamed people against the English Church, and so the Bishops’ and King James Bibles were commissioned to allay its influence. These versions proceeded of a genuine unifying spirit, and eventually the KJV did bring a good measure of stability to Christendom, however the KJV revisers carried on the Puritan literal tradition.

(3) The Modern Period: from the Revised Version until now

In the late 1800s, the Revised Version came along, the work of Westcott and Hort with certain other academics. These scholars offered criticisms of the former work that were similar in kind to those of the Puritans. In their New Testament preface, they said the KJV was produced in the infancy of time, as it were, when we still had much to learn, and they also had new light: this time, it was their superior manuscripts and critical skills. Also, they rebuked the manner of expression of the KJV – in particular “variety of expression” – as “hardly… faithful.” They intensified literalism and adherence to the propriety of words in their own fashion:

RV 1895 preface to NT: Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself …

… 1. All [their “guides”] were founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill. But in those days, it could hardly have been otherwise. Nearly all the more ancient of the documentary evidence have become known only within the last two centuries … While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.…

… 2. they [the KJV committee members] profess in their Preface to have studiously adopted a variety of expression which would now be deemed hardly consistent with the requirements of faithful translation…. it cannot be doubted that they carried this liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.

And thus the members of King James’ translation team now joined Tyndale and Coverdale in the company of translators whose work required greatly to be reviewed and corrected.

Interestingly, the Westcott and Hort committee, also like the Geneva revisers, added alternate readings in the margins. However these gave alternate meanings, whereas the Geneva Bible (apparently) focused on re-wording and clarifying the passage. Now the ploughboy had to make up his own mind about what the Scriptures might actually have meant.

All this raises many questions, including whether the later revisions really did improve the Scriptures, and, especially, the merits and demerits of the literalistic technique espoused by the Puritans and Westcott and Hort. The Story of the Matthew Bible, especially Part Two, will consider some of the questions. We will see what Luther and Tyndale, not to mention also Hilary, St. Jerome (who gave us the Latin Vulgate Bible), and John Purvey (one of Wycliffe’s top translators), had to say about the best approach to Bible translation. For now, I close simply with some quotations from these men:

Purvey: First it is to know that the best translating is… to translate after the sentence [meaning], and not only after the words.

Luther: Many know-it-alls, and even some pious souls, may take offense. But what is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather, he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew author – that he concentrates on the sense of the text … [and] once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows.

Hilary: We enter the faith by the meaning of what has been said.

Jerome: The gospel is not in the words of Scripture, but in the meaning.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October, 2017.

Sola Scriptura … Sine Verbo? Where the Geneva Bible Lost the Word of God

Posted on by Posted in Geneva 4 Comments

I accept that Scripture – truly translated, that is – must be our source and arbiter of doctrine, if that is what is understood by ‘sola scriptura’. But if I were to rally around a slogan, it might be ‘Verbum prius’, or ‘the Word first’, by which I mean Him who is the Incarnate Word. For he not only gave us the writings that we call the Scriptures, but also gives himself in the Word faithfully spoken (in preaching or liturgy), in the Supper (where we partake of Him who is the Word), and so forth. For the Word is bigger than the writings. And no matter how the writings may be corrupted by men, he remains true.

The Geneva Puritans made ‘sola scriptura’ a rallying cry, but what I find interesting is that when they produced their version of the Scriptures in 1560, in the Geneva Bible, they removed the Word from many passages. Keep in mind that their Bible was a second revision of the 1537 Matthew Bible the first revision being the Great Bible. The Puritans said in their preface that “the former translations required greatly to be perused and reformed,” and they were the men to do it because they had “clear light.” Also, they would be more literal, because literalism was more “reverent.”[*] Below are three of their “reverent reformations”:

1 Corinthians 13:12 – We see in a dark speaking

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: Now we see in a glass, even in a dark speaking.
♦ 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible: For now we see through a glass darkly.

Discussion:
(1) ‘Dark speaking’ is a noun phrase that translates the Greek noun ‘ainigma’; that is, ‘enigma’ or (Strong) ‘obscure saying’. This refers to God’s Word, which is mysterious, but in which we seek understanding.
(2) Tyndale put noun-for-noun. The Geneva revisers put adverb-for-noun, with ‘darkly’. So much for reverent literalism.
(3) The sola scriptura men removed the word as the place in which we look.

Psalm 23:1-2 – He feeds us in a green pasture

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a fresh water.
(MB note: This fresh water is the healthful water of the Word of God.)
♦ 1560 and 1599 Geneva: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to rest in green pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.
(Geneva note: He hath care over me and ministreth to me all things.)

Discussion:
(1) All reference to feeding and the Word is removed in the Geneva Bible, though the early Reformers (and in part St. Augustine) considered this Psalm to be about the Word as our pasture, water, oil, and table set before us in the presence of our enemies.
(2) The Puritans also removed eternal life from verse 6. The MB had, “that I may dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” The Geneva Bible put, “I shall remain a long season in the house of the Lord.”
(3) The sola scriptura men removed the word as our food and refreshment.

1 Peter 1:13- Trust on the grace brought when Christ is declared

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you by the declaring of Jesus Christ.

♦ 1599 Geneva: Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, in the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Geneva note 3: He setteth forth very briefly, what manner of hope ours ought to be, to wit, continual, until we enjoy the thing we hope for: then, what we have to hope for, to wit, grace (that is, free salvation) revealed to us in the gospel, and not that, that men do rashly and fondly promise to themselves.)
(Geneva note 6: He setteth out the end of faith, lest any man should promise himself, either sooner or later that full salvation, to wit, the later coming of Christ: and therewithal warneth us, not to measure the dignity of the gospel according to the present state, seeing that that which we are now, is not yet revealed.)

Discussion:
(1) The Puritans reinterpreted 1 Peter 1:13 and referred it to the second coming. Among other problems, including semantic mumbo-jumbo, they conflate the first and second comings, and turn the second coming into the time of grace. This ignores and suppresses all the significance of the Incarnation: Jesus’ first coming to us – God taking flesh upon himself to suffer and die for our redemption – has brought to us who dwell upon the earth the very time of grace prophesied by the prophets. It inaugurated the New Covenant. It changed everything, and now God has poured out his Spirit upon all flesh: “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us … full of grace and truth” (Joh 1:14), and, “The grace of God that brings salvation to all men has appeared” (Tit 2:11). For Jesus has appeared in the flesh. But what do the Geneva commentators say? They tell us “not to measure the dignity of the gospel according to the present state, seeing that that which we are now, is not yet revealed.” This is their reverent teaching?
(2) The grace we must trust on is brought to us when Christ is ‘declared’. This old English word carried the senses of speaking and showing forth. When Christ is declared, he is revealed: faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word (Ro 10:17). This is the power of God unto salvation (Ro 1:16), by which we are raised up in the resurrection life of the Lord. This is supreme and excellent grace.
(3) The Puritans removed the word as the means of grace and salvation. They made the second coming the means of grace and salvation.

*****

Why did the Puritans make these changes? Why did they exalt their Scriptures, but at the same time knowingly take away teachings that would turn us to the Scriptures, and which teach about the Word? I say “knowingly” because they had the earlier versions at hand, and anyway, they proclaimed themselves learned and wise to amend and correct the English translations.

I think I know what happened, but I need space to tell about it. God willing, this I will do in the upcoming Story of the Matthew Bible. Please subscribe for updates on this website if you are interested. I send mailouts to my subscribers 2 – 5 times a year at most.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, August 2017.

Endnotes:

[*] See the preface to the 1560 Geneva Bible, also apparently included in the Tolle Lege edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible.

 

Changes to Psalm 23 from the Matthew Bible to the Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Geneva 1 Comment

<< It is impossible to stay on the right track when the word is not held in the highest esteem and when faith in it is not exercised. (Martin Luther) >>

AN ENGLISHMAN named John Rogers published a seminal work in 1537, early in the English Reformation. It was an English Bible called the “Matthew Bible,” or “Matthew’s version,” which contained the Scripture translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, together with Rogers’ notes and commentaries. It also contained a healthy portion of Martin Luther’s work, because Coverdale translated from his German Bible.

Hardly anyone knows that Matthew’s version is the real primary version of our English Bible. It served as the base for the Great Bible, which the Geneva Puritans revised in 1560. The Great Bible was also the base of the Bishop’s Bible, which went on for further amendment in the KJV, making the KJV the fourth revision of the Matthew Bible.

For my upcoming book, The Story of the Matthew Bible, I examined some of the changes made to the Scriptures over the years. One of my surprises has been Psalm 23, and in particular what the Geneva Puritans did with it. In my last post, I showed what they did at 1 Peter 1:13, when they removed the teaching of the revelation of Christ in the preaching of the word. Now at Psalm 23, the teaching of the word was removed again. (The full versions of the Psalm, with commentaries, are at the end of this paper, for reference.) See what happened to verse 2:

Psalm 23:1-2

1537 Matthew Bible The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a fresh water. (Rogers’ note: This fresh water is the healthful water of the word of God.)

1539 Great Bible The Lord is my shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing. He shall feed me in a green pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

1560 & 1599 Geneva The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to rest in green pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

In the Matthew Bible, v.2 is about the word of God as our pasture, food, and refreshing water. This was also the teaching of St. Augustine and of Martin Luther (and is also reflected in the Psalm as contained in the traditional Anglican prayer books). According to them, not only v.2, but the whole Psalm is mainly about the word, which quickens the soul and leads us to righteousness (v.3). John Rogers confirmed this understanding in his notes, in which he taught that the word refreshes us as we walk through the valley of the shadow of death (v.4). The ‘shadow’, Rogers explained, is darkness and affliction.[1] Therefore, God’s word is the pasture and water of his sheep while they walk in adversity. It is also the table set before us in the presence of our enemy (v5).

In Coverdale’s Great Bible revision, we go from being fed and led to fresh water, to being fed and led by still waters. However, we need to understand this as agreeing with Rogers’ exposition, in that God’s word stills our hearts. Coverdale himself expressed this understanding when he translated Luther’s essay on Psalm 23, in which he made it clear that God’s word, especially when we hear it in the congregation and receive it by the sacraments, is our green grass, water, table, oil, and full cup. “In this Psalm,” he wrote, “doth David and every Christian heart give thanks and praise unto God for his most principal benefit, namely, for the preaching of his dear and holy word …”[2] The word and promises of God are our final resort and comfort in adversity:

In the great heat, when the sun doth sore burn (Ps cxx), and I can have no shadow, then leadeth he me to the fresh water, giveth me drink, and refresheth me: that is, in all manner of troubles, anguishes, and necessities, ghostly [spiritual] and bodily, when I know not elsewhere to find help or comfort, I hold me unto the word of grace. There only, and nowhere else, do I find the right consolation and refreshing.[3]

But then, in the Geneva Bible, all teaching about the word of God disappears. There is nothing about it, nor about being fed in any way, in the Geneva Scriptures or commentaries. The notes do refer to God’s care and provision, but not through or by the word. All such reference was removed – and this knowingly, by men who had the earlier versions at hand. Surely they were aware of Reformation teaching and the teaching of St. Augustine. But, remarkably to me, they departed from it. They whose loud cry was sola scriptura, now emphasized God’s care sine scriptura.

After the Geneva version, no Bibles that I have seen recovered Matthew’s message:

Psalm 23:1-2 in versions after the Bishops’ Bible

1611 KJV and 1895 RV The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

NIV 1984 The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters.

The Message 1996 God my shepherd! I don’t need a thing. You have bedded me down in lush meadows, you find me quiet pools to drink from.

The modern versions of Psalm 23 might cause believers who walk in adversity, not in rest, to wonder if their faith is lacking. The Matthew Bible, however, sows no such confusion, but contrariwise, gives comfort. I remember how, as a new believer coming to this Psalm in modern versions, I was puzzled by it. Shall we be bedded down in lush meadows while the Lord had nowhere to rest his head? The reality is that much of our lives are passed in want of rest and stillness, but what is never wanting to us is God’s word and promise.

Lastly, see below how, in the Geneva Bible, two more essential doctrines are lost, which were also lost at 1 Peter 1:13 (again, see my previous post). At v.3, the idea of the new birth through the word is lost. (The old English ‘quickeneth’ meant ‘quickened to life’.) In v.6, the idea of eternal life is lost.

Psalm 23 Compared

1537/ 1549 Matthew Bible1560/ 1599 Geneva Bible
Summary: He describeth the wonderful surety and great grace of a faithful and sure confidence in God.Summary: Because the Prophet had proved the great mercies of God at divers times, and in sundry manners, he gathereth a certain assurance, fully persuading himself that God will continue the very same goodness towards him forever.
1. The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing.

2. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a fresh (a)water.

3. He quickeneth my soul, and bringeth me forth in the way of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4. Though I should walk now in the valley of the (b)shadow of death, yet I fear no evil, for thou art with me; they staff and thy sheep-hook comfort me.

5. Thou preparest a (c)table before me against [in full view of] mine enemies; thou annointest my head with oil, and fillest my cup full.

6. O let thy loving kindness and mercy follow me all the days of my life, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

1. The Lord is my shepherd, (a)I shall not want.

2. He maketh me to rest in green pastures, and leadeth me by the still waters.

3. He (b)restoreth my soul, and leadeth me in the (c)paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4. Yea, though I should walk through the valley of the (d)shadow of death, I wll fear no evil, for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

5. Thou doest prepare a (e)table before me in the sight of mine adversaries: thou doest (f)anoint mine head with oil, and my cup runneth over.

6. Doubtless kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall remain a long season in the (g)house of the Lord.

Rogers’ Notes:Geneva Notes:
 

(a) The fresh water is the healthful water of the word of God, of which is said Esai lv.a*

(b) Shadow for darkness and affliction, as it is said Esai li.e*

(c) Look the Psalm lxxviii.c. [Rogers’ note on Psalm 78:19 says, “By the table is understood all sorts of victuals necessary for man, yet it is often taken for the bread and water of the wisdom of the word of God, as in the Psalm xxiii.b.]

 

* The Isaiah verses mentioned in Rogers’ notes are too long to include here.

(a) He had care over me & ministreth unto me all things

(b) He comforteth or refresheth me.

(c) Plain, or straight ways.

(d) Though he were in danger of death, as the sheep that wandereth in the dark valley without his shepherd.

(e) Albeit his enemies sought to destroy him, yet God delivereth him, & dealeth most liberally with him in despite of them.

(f) As was the manner of great feasts.

(g) He setteth not his felicities in the pleasures of this world, but in the fear and service of God.

 

Endnotes:

[1] A clue perhaps to the meaning of ‘shadow’ in Tyndale’s translation of 1 Peter 3:6, that the women are not to be afraid of “every shadow.”

[2] Myles Coverdale, A very excellent and swete exposition upon the two and twentye Psalme of David, called, in latyn, Dominus regit me, et nihil. Translated out of hye Almayne into Englishe by Myles Coverdale, 1537, in Parker Soc., Remains, 282. The “two and twentye Psalme” is now known as the 23rd Psalm.

[3] Ibid., 300.

[4] L. Maria Willis (1864), Canadian Book of Common Prayer, Hymn #454.