#the Geneva Bible verses the king James Bible

[drellz64]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Aries entertainment podcast (@ariesentertainment.podcast)

[aaknopf]

In Shakespeare’s Sisters, Ramie Targoff recovers to literary memory the lives and talents of four women who wrote in England during Shakespeare’s time, well before there was any notion of “a room of one’s own.” From Mary Sidney, sister of the well-known poet Sir Philip Sidney (she wrote most of the beautiful translations of the Psalms ascribed to him) to Anne Clifford, a diarist and memoirist who fought for decades against a patriarchy that tried to disinherit her from her family’s land, these women stun us by their bravery. In the passage below, Targoff discusses the important poetry of Aemilia Lanyer, born of an illiterate mother and an immigrant father; it appeared in print in 1611, making her the first woman in the 17th century to publish an original book of verse.

. . .

In the same year the King James Bible first appeared in print, establishing the most influential English translation of scripture ever produced, Aemilia dared to tell a different story. Over the course of 230 rhyming stanzas of eight lines each, her “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” lays out the story of Christ’s Passion from a distinctly female perspective. The formal challenge of writing the poem was itself daunting: it’s no easy feat to compose over 1,800 lines of ottava rima (iambic pentameter stanzas written in an abababcc rhyme scheme). But Aemilia’s greater audacity was in tackling the subject of Christ’s crucifixion. To justify this, she makes the same claim for divine inspiration that the great Protestant poet John Milton would make sixty or so years later in writing Paradise Lost. Describing her own “poor barren brain” as “far too weak” for the task, she asks God to “give me power and strength to write”:

Yet if he please to illuminate my spirit,  And give me wisdom from his holy hill,  That I may write part of his glorious merit,  If he vouchsafe to guide my hand and quill Then will I tell of that sad blackfaced night,  Whose mourning Mantle covered Heavenly Light.

     Given the fact that the poem proceeds to do exactly what she petitions for, Aemilia shows her reader that her prayer has been answered: she’s not so much writing as channeling the divine word.[...]      Aemilia’s narrative of Christ’s Passion begins on the “very night our Savior was betrayed.” As part of her overall strategy in “Salve Deus”of celebrating female virtue, the poem draws attention both to the wicked acts of men (Caiaphas, Judas) and to the compassionate acts of women (the daughters of Jerusalem, the Virgin Mary) in the days leading up to Christ’s arrest. None of this comes as a surprise. But when Aemilia arrives at the moment that Pontius Pilate considers Christ’s fate, she does something totally unanticipated. Relinquishing her own role as narrator, she hands the poem over to Pilate’s wife. Among the most minor figures in the New Testament, Pilate’s wife has a single line of verse in only one of the four gospels. In Matthew 27:19, a woman who is never named urges her husband, the Roman governor in Judaea, to disregard the will of the people calling for Christ to be crucified: “Have nothing to do with that just man,” she warns Pilate, “for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.”      In early Christian commentaries and apocryphal writings, this woman was often called Procula Claudia, or simply Procula. In medieval England, Procula was paraded onstage in the mystery plays as an evil woman who almost prevented Christ’s saving humankind; in the York Cycle’s play named for her—The Dream of Pilate’s Wife—Percula, as she’s called there, receives her dream from the Devil himself. There’s no way to know if Aemilia knew this or other medieval dramas; it’s more likely she would have noticed the more positive treatment Pilate’s wife was given in the Geneva Bible, the popular translation done by English Protestants in the 1550s. Consistent with the Protestant belief that everyone should have access to the Bible directly, the translation was heavily glossed with marginal notes. Next to the verse from Matthew regarding Pilate’s wife was a single gloss suggesting that Pilate should have taken the “counsel of others to defend Christ’s innocence.” But whether the treatment of this woman was negative or positive, she had never been asked to perform the role Aemilia gave her in “Salve Deus,” where she delivers one of the strongest defenses for women’s rights that Christianity had ever seen.      In Pilate’s wife, Aemilia found her perfect heroine: a woman whose intervention at the crucial moment could have changed the course of history, if only her husband had listened. With the scriptural verse from Matthew before her, Aemilia made two crucial additions to the story. First, she transformed Pilate’s wife into a faithful believer who already regarded Christ as her Lord. “Hear the words of thy most worthy wife,” she begs her husband, “who sends to thee, to beg her Savior’s life.” Far from simply reporting that she’s had an ominous dream, as she does in Matthew, Pilate’s wife explicitly warns Pilate that he will be killing the son of God.      Second, Aemilia turned Pilate’s wife into a proto-feminist. After urging Pilate to let Christ go on religious grounds, she comes up with a new reason for why he should be pardoned: “Let not us women glory in men’s fall / Who had power given to over-rule us all.” If men are sinful enough to crucify their savior, then women should be liberated from men’s rule. “Your indiscretion sets us free,” she declares, “And makes our former fault much less appear.” In these four short lines, Aemilia’s character anticipates the killing of Christ as the basis for women’s freedom from patriarchy.      As if this weren’t radical enough, Pilate’s wife moves in “Salve Deus” from making her argument about the Crucifixion to recon- sidering the reason for Christ’s sacrifice in the first place. “Our mother Eve,” she exclaims,

. . . who tasted of the Tree Giving to Adam what she held most dear, Was simply good, and had no power to see,  The after-coming harm did not appear.

If Eve had no way to know the damage she might do, Adam was only too aware: it was he who received the command directly “from God’s mouth.” Eve was simply a victim of misinformation and “too much love,” whereas Adam, not betrayed by the “subtle Serpent’s falsehood,” knew exactly what he was doing.      Aemilia was certainly not the first person to defend Eve on grounds of her innocence or to propose that Adam be held responsible for the Fall. She was possibly the first to argue that the crime of killing Christ so overwhelmed any fault of Eve’s that women’s subordination should come to an immediate end. “If unjustly you condemn [Christ] to die,” Pilate’s wife concludes,

. . . Then let us have our Liberty again, And challenge [attribute] to your selves no Sovereignty;  You came not in the world without our pain, Make that a bar against your cruelty; Your fault being greater, why should you disdain  Our being your equals, free from tyranny? If one weak woman simply did offend,  This sin of yours, hath no excuse, nor end.

Hundreds of years before the women’s liberation movement, Aemilia used the figure of Pilate’s wife to argue that the sexes should be equal. In doing so, she also rescued a voice from history, giving full personhood and agency to a woman whom the Bible didn’t regard as worthy of a name.

More on this book and author:

Learn more about Shakespeare’s Sisters by Ramie Targoff.

Browse other books by Ramie Targoff and follow her on Instagram @ramietargoff.

Hear Ramie Targoff read at the Boston Athenaeum in Boston on May 15, 6:00 - 7:00 PM. Click here to join virtually. 

Visit our Tumblr to peruse poems, audio recordings, and broadsides in the Knopf poem-a-day series.

To share the poem-a-day experience with friends, pass along this link.

[versegpt]

Is 1 John 4:19 mistranslated in modern translations?!

Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

We love because he first loved us.

English Standard Version (ESV)

We love because he first loved us.

New International Version (NIV)

We love because he first loved us.

New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)

We love, because He first loved us.

New English Translation (NET)

We love because he loved us first.

New Living Translation (NLT)

We love each other because he loved us first.

New Century Version (NCV)

We love because God first loved us.

GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)

We love because God loved us first.

Good News Translation (GNT)

We love because God first loved us.

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

We love because God first loved us.

World English Bible (WEB)

We love him, because he first loved us.

New King James Version (NKJV)

We love Him because He first loved us.

King James Version (KJV)

We love him, because he first loved us.

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

We love him, because he loved us first.

Delving into some translations of 1 John 4:19, which seemingly convey the same message, we encounter older translations with a distinct approach.

Does this imply a mistranslation in modern versions?

Introduction

In the vast tapestry of biblical verses, certain passages stand out for their profound insights into the nature of faith and the relationship between God and humanity. Among these, 1 John 4:19 holds a special place, offering a glimpse into the reciprocal love shared between believers and their Creator. This article will delve into the linguistic nuances of this verse, considering the various translations and the broader context of the First Letter of John.

Exploring the Verse

The verse, as rendered in different translations, unveils intriguing differences that reflect various translation approaches and interpretative nuances. The focus is on the reciprocity of love, where believers respond to God's initiating love. Notably, the King James Version (KJV) and the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) uniquely emphasize loving "him," referring to God, while other translations use a more general expression of love.

Translation Nuances

The choice of words in translations plays a crucial role in conveying the intended meaning of the verse. In light of the broader context of 1 John, a translation approach that captures the reciprocal nature of love and aligns with the theological emphasis of the letter is essential. The translation "We love because He first loved us" encapsulates this essence, highlighting both the sequence and the source of love.

Contextual Considerations

To fully appreciate the significance of 1 John 4:19, it is essential to understand its place within the First Letter of John. The letter consistently emphasizes the theme of God's love and encourages believers to respond in kind. This verse, situated within the broader context, underscores the foundational truth that our ability to love is grounded in God's love for us.

Theological Implications

The theological implications of 1 John 4:19 are profound. It reinforces the idea that our capacity to love is not self-generated but flows from the wellspring of God's love. This understanding shapes the believer's response, fostering a deep sense of gratitude and a commitment to love others as an outpouring of the love received from God.

Conclusion

1 John 4:19 invites us to contemplate the dynamic interplay between divine love and human response. Through linguistic analysis and contextual exploration, we gain a richer understanding of the verse's depth and significance. Regardless of the translation, the core message remains clear: our love finds its origin in the unfathomable love of God, creating a transformative journey of reciprocal love that defines the essence of Christian faith.

[casmong]

Sincerity and truth.

“Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward." Matthew 6:1-2

These teachings from the Master are given during the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7], where Jesus gives wise counsel, blessings, warnings and rebuke.

This verse introduces the word hypocrite to the Greek New Testament, and was the first time Jesus uses the word. It represented the beginning of his policy of using the word hypocrite when referring to the Pharisees, and it was almost an alias he used to refer to them. Whenever the word hypocrite occurs in the gospel, it is almost always referring directly to Pharisees, or a characteristic trait they exhibit. Even in these verse aforementioned, Jesus does not explicitly mention them by name, but he mentions synagogues and streets, which indirectly refers to Pharisees who 'ruled the synagogues' [Luke 13:14; Acts 18:8] and since Sadduccess were rarely mentioned as being on the streets it also was referring to Pharisees, who to their credit were always on the streets among the people (poor man's priest).

A hypocrite [Gk. ὑποκριταὶ (hypokritai) - one who answers, an actor, a hypocrite] The word hypokritai literally refers to a performer acting under a mask or an assumed character in a Greek theater.(i.e. a theater-actor). The word alludes to a two-faced person, whose profession does not match their practice, or someone who "says one thing but does another.", or someone who hides their real ‘face’, feelings or intentions, or hides the true facts.

We know that "there is no new thing under the sun"[Ecclesiastes 1:9] and the concept of a hypocrite has always existed, and therefore can be found in the Hebrew old testament. During Elihu discourse with Job and his three ‘friends’, he mentions "But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he bindeth them." Job 36:13

The Hebrew word translated as 'hypocrites' [Hb.וְֽחַנְפֵי־ (wə·ḥan·p̄ê-) - godless, impious {hypocrite}] has the connotation, based on the root word from which it is derived, of someone who is corrupted or soiled with sin. The Septiugint{viz ancient greek translation of the old testament ~300 BC}, Wycliffe translation{1382}, Luther translation{1545}, Coverdale{1585} Geneva Bible{1599}, King James{1611} and other older translations used the word 'hypocrite' or 'feigners and false men' (Wycliffe) instead of simply 'godless', because they realized that the person described is feigning being righteous based on the context the word is used.

There are two extreme classes of righteousness: the righteous person who is sincerely seeking to fear YAH and do what is right 'from the heart', and there are those who have no knowledge nor regard and respect for YAH and His commands and expectations. In this context the 'godless in heart' presents a separate class of people who appear to be righteous on the outside but on the inside are godless, and thus are play acting and putting up a facade. Even further, Elihu goes on to say that when the wə·ḥan·p̄ê- are rebuked and chastened by God; they don't cry out, because they can't break character as they have to maintain the facade of being righteous for others to see.

Jesus also alludes to the hypocrites sounding a trumpet before them in the synagogues and in the streets. This can be considered literal or figurative or a symbolic metaphor for making a public show of their charitable deeds. It is very unlikely that the hypocrites have a person blow a trumpet wherever the hypocrites go to announce their charitable deeds, but it is likely that they enjoyed putting lots of money in the synagogue collection pan, which was a trumpet shaped metal container, that made a loud clanging noise the more coins are thrown into it; to the delight of the hypocrites. This was not the case with the poor widow with her two little copper coins (2 mites) [Mark 12:38-44]. Everyone would hear the clanging noise of the rich, who for a show threw in lots of money, but hardly anyone would hear the sincere whisper of the widow’s little offering; but Jesus didn't hear the noise of the proud, but he definitely heard her little prayer loud and clear, and rewarded her accordingly; with her story recorded as a testament to her faith and offering.

The sounding of the trumpet can also be viewed as a figurative not 'blowing of our own trumpet' when we do our charitable deeds. Jesus warns that those who seek to draw attention to themselves and praise from onlookers have already received what they desired, and will receive nothing more. The goal is to be seen and validated and derive our value and self worth by God and not to be seen and validated nor derive our self worth from other people. Jesus lovingly advises that “when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly." - Matthew 6:3-4

[humbleservantprayerwall]

Daily Devotionals 11-07-2023

Have A Nice Day!

Verses of the Day: John 15:13/1 Samuel 15:1-23/Isaiah 53:6/Romans 10:9/Romans 11:36/Revelation 4:11/Isaiah 43:7/James 4:7/Psalms 119:11/1 Corinthians 10:13/Hebrews 4:15-16/James 1:14-15/Psalm 119:105/Exodus 20:8/Exodus 3:1/Genesis 2:3/1 John 4:7,21/Acts 1:8/Isaiah 49:16/Psalm 17:1–9/Proverbs 10:8/1 Timothy 2:1-2/1 Peter 5:7/1 John 5:11/ Chapters of the Day: 1599 Geneva Bible 2 Kings 16-18/Blue…

[ebishopwooten]

Everything is meaningless: And that's okay

Ecclesiastes 1:1. . .”Meaningless, meaningless. All is meaningless.” My favorite verse in the Bible. I also like the Geneva Bible, which predated King James. Everything after that just gets more watered down. Solomon, the wisest man in the Old Testament, wrote the most doom and gloom book that you would think he struggled with depression. The first and last verse of Ecclesiastes pretty much say…

[pugzman3]

Listen up.

1. This is way I keep saying read your Bible and know it.

2. This is why I use the King James Version and why I say to know where your Bible came from.

Maxwell is talking about this verse.

Only in this verse, and another in Revelation 2:28, does it make reference to the morning star. So why does that matter? Because of Isiaha 14:12.

And THIS is how he got to it. Look at the New International Version.

You see what they did right? The NIV changed lucifer into the morning star, giving lucifer the same title as Jesus Christ. Do you understand the problems this creates, the ripples of doubt and confusion that span out from just this one rock in the water?

There are two main streams of manuscript the bibles came from. Byzantine, which is where the Received Text came from, and which led to the KJV. then you have the Alexandrian Text, which is where the catholics got their Bible.

The received texts was put together by over 5000 writings that were compared and agreed over 95% of the time. And those 5% it was easily seen where the disagreement was, misspellings, grammar.

The Alexandria text came from about 40 text..... (40...forty, a four with a zero behind it) that barely agreed half the time, and the disagreements didn't even match up in how they disagreed. (Did I mention that Alexandria was the hotbed of gnosticism teachings?....you know....the very t3achings that Paul and the other Apostles were warning about in their Epistles?)

THIS was the foundation to what lead to centuries of fighting, tens of millions of deaths of protestants at the hands kf the catholic church and jesuits.

So how did we get this apostate NIV, and other modern translations? Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort were two catholic leaning, occultists who created a NEW version of the Recieved Text, based on the Codex Vaticanis and Codex Sinaticus, (a shotgun lesson on those, both Vatican received and loved, one "found" in a burn basket in a monastery at Mt Sinai, the other "found"....at the same time Sinaticus was being "found" , in the library of the Vatican...and that's shotgun).

In other words. Westcott and Hort used those two texts, to create a New text, sprinkled in some Recieved Text, then sold it off to a corrupt jesuit infiltrated translation committee. It became the NEW RECEIVED TEXT, and the apostate bibles flooded the churches. And I promise that is a short class on the topic.

If you are reading a new translation, look up where the text came from. Find out for yourself. But I can save you time. If it isn't from the original received text, (KJV, Geneva Bible, Matthew's Bible), then do your salvation a favor. Take that apostate garbage, put it in your emergency prep area. It will work great to start fires, maybe toilet paper. Go get a KJV, and repent.

[greatsitedotcom]

Things to Look for in the Geneva Bible Facsimile Reproduction

In the history of Bible translations, the Geneva Bible occupies a special place. It preceded the KJV (King James Version) by 51 years. Considered the most influential Bible, which was also the primary Bible of 16th century Protestantism, the Geneva Bible found its users in Oliver Cromwell, William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Donne, and John Knox.

This was the first English Bible that had its scriptures segregated into numbered verses. Since its publication was an enormous achievement, owning the 1560 Geneva Bible is worth every dime you spend to acquire it. But not everyone will find its steep price affordable.

For them, a facsimile reproduction of the Geneva Bible will be worth considering. This Bible was widely read throughout the 16th and 17th centuries and played a large role in boosting the rate of scripture literacy among England’s public.

Things You Should Look For in the Geneva Bible Facsimile Reproduction

The Geneva Bible had some unique features, knowing which will help you check and ensure your facsimile reproduction too comes with them. To begin with, each chapter of this Bible had numbered verses.

A key factor behind the Geneva Bible’s popularity was its “study resources,” which referred to the marginal notes. The translators of this Bible included these notes to help the common people easily understand the Bible. These marginal notes comprised almost 300,000 words, which was approximately one-third of the text.

At the time the Geneva Bible was published, Gothic Black letter-style typeface was commonly used. However, the Geneva Bible deviated from the norm and used a Roman-style typeface instead, which was easy to use for its readers.

The original 1560 Geneva Bible had 30+ woodcut maps and illustrations depicting Biblical views. Some of the notable among these were the labeled images of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant. The Geneva Bible also had the Apocrypha.

When buying a facsimile reproduction of the Geneva Bible, you should check if the copy has all these unique features that the original had, thus ensuring your purchase is worth it.

Final Words

Keep all these features in mind when shopping for the Geneva Bible’s facsimile to ensure you get an authentic facsimile reproduction and not a cheap replica with missing pages and features.

Original Sources:

http://geneva-bible.com/geneva-bible-facsimile-reproduction.html

[rickwhite]

Rumination #17: Exactly what are the "Ten Words" (or what some people call the "Ten Commandments")?

Everyone seems to know about a portion of Scripture they call the "Ten Commandments." They were written on tablets of stone; and they supposedly represent the baseline of morality for two religions: Judaism and Christianity. But what exactly are they?

First, they are never called the "Ten Commandments" in Scripture. It is quite odd that they ever earned this name. They are listed in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. They are called the "the Ten Words" in Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; and Deuteronomy 10:4. It is from these three passages that they earned their title. In Hebrew, they are called "aseret ha-devarim" [the ten words]. In the Greek Septuagint they are "deca logos" [ten words]. In the Latin Vulgate, they are "verba decem" [ten words]. So how did they earn the English name, "the Ten Commandments"?

The Wycliffe Bible, one of the earliest English Bibles (1395 CE) translated "aseret ha-devarim" as "ten words." The Coverdale Bible (1535 CE) translates the phrase as "ten verses." Virtually every English Bible from that time on has translated the phrase as "Ten Commandments." So what happened between the Wycliffe translation and the Bishop's Bible in 1568? The Protestant Reformation. The Geneva and Bishop's well-established the phrase "the Ten Commandments"; but the Authorized Version [King James Bible] of 1611, theologically sealed the matter. They were to be called "the Ten Commandments" from then on.

So, does it really matter? Certainly, the ten words of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are imperatives, aren't they? Traditional Judaism lists them as part of the "613 mitzvot" [commandments]. So, what difference does it make if they are incorrectly translated into English?

Beloved, there is a reason they went from being "words" to "commandments" and it isn't out of reverence for mitzvot - it is the opposite. The word "devarim" [words] carries with it the promise of liberty and life - after all, we are to live by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of HaShem." (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4) To some, the word "commandments" bears the appropriate negative connotation. There is a theological reason "words" became "commandments."

To be fair, some of the men of the Protestant Reformation considered these words as valid and operable in the lives of believers. Sadly, those same men were those that promoted a heretical theology called "Supercessionism" or "Replacement Theology." The real force behind the denigrating of the Ten Words is to be found in Dispensationalism. It is there that the Ten Words became a relic of a past "dispensation" - the "dispensation of law" which in the dispensationalist's mind is the antithesis to the "dispensation of grace."

It was not the name "Ten Commandments" that reduced these words of life to "the Law carved on stone" in Christianity - it was the theology, whether Supercessionist as with Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Presbyterianism; or Dispensationalism as with Baptist, Pentecostalism, or Evangelicalism (and sadly, some forms of Messianic Judaism). The theology aims to do the same thing in this regard: relegate the Ten Words to cold hard tablets of stone.

That is not what they are. They were delivered by the mouth of the Almighty King of the universe to the ears of an entire nation at once. They came with sounds and sights that have never been experienced since. They were spoken audibly by the mouth of the Master of all worlds. We could see those words, as if sparks. HaShem Himself carved them onto tablets (twice). Our tradition tells us that those tablets were miraculously carved in a way to be visible on both sides, with the words suspended as if on air.

Beloved, they are words of life. They are Ten Words. They are the summary of HaShem's self-revelation. Think about that for a moment. Everything that He said, is found within these Ten Words. And the first of them is...

I am the HaShem your G-d, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Exodus 20:2

This is His formal introduction to His bride. Never forget that.

[strawberry-milktea]

Hey I found some posts/answered asks of yours in the christian witchcraft tag. I've been exploring this subject lately. I've seen some posts of people argumenting that 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' isn't correct, that it was merely put in like that by King James to serve for his own purposes. Apparantly it originally said poisoner, not witch, so they say nothing in the bible says anything against witchcraft, so it's OK. Do you happen to know if there's any truth to this?

Hello!I’ve heard this argument before. There’s more than one reason why this is incorrect.The claim that the KJV is when the word “witch” was added is false because the word was in there before the KJV. Prior to the KJV, the Geneva Bible was a commonly used translation, which contains the same verse:

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” - Exodus 22:18 (x)

Regarding the claim that it originally said “poisoner”, we can see this also isn’t true because in the Geneva translation above that came before the KJV, the verse still says “witch” - not “poisoner”. So this wasn’t something that was merely added in by King James for his own agenda. Delving deeper into the original Hebrew, take a look at what this commentary says:

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.—The word translated “witch” in this passage is the feminine singular of that rendered by “sorcerers” in Exodus 7:11, and means “a mutterer of charms.” The use of the feminine form can only be accounted for by supposing that, practically, witchcraft was at the time mainly professed by females. Whether “witches” had actual help from evil spirits, or only professed to work magical effects by their aid, the sin against God was the same. Jehovah was renounced, and a power other than His invoked and upheld. Witchcraft was as much rebellion against God as idolatry or blasphemy, and deserved the same punishment.” - Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (x)

So like the commentary states above, the word for witch is basically the equivalent of “sorceress”. We can be see this when we look at the the original Hebrew. As mentioned above, it’s the female singular version of “sorcerers” used in the passage in Exodus 7 where Pharaoh called upon his sorcerers to perform enchantments:

“Then went Moses and Aaron unto Pharaoh, and did even as the Lord had commanded, and Aaron cast forth his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it was turned into a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and sorcerers: and those charmers also of Egypt did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron’s rod devoured their rods.” - Exodus 7:10-12

We have the original Hebrew, plus the context of the verses above from Exodus 7, to prove that the verses are referring to someone who performs enchantments and spells using magic. There is no context to suggest or reason to believe what’s being talked about here is anything about a “poisoner”. The original Hebrew and the context of the passages tells us that what is being talked about is witchcraft/magic/spells/sorcery.Yet another reason proving this argument false is it’s absurd for anyone to say “the Bible doesn’t say anything about witchcraft”. First, as we have established, this verse in Exodus they’ve chosen to claim isn’t talking about witchcraft is actually talking about witchcraft. And second, these individuals are completely ignoring every other Bible verse that talks about witchcraft being a sin - such as Leviticus 20:6, Deuteronomy 18:9-12, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. Exodus 22 is not the only place it’s mentioned. The fact that the “poisoners” claim is wrong plus the false implication that Exodus is the only place “witch” or mention of witchcraft shows up in the Bible demonstrates how absurd this argument is and that people claiming it really don’t have much exposure (if any) to Biblical scripture aside from randomly cherry picking some verses and adding false claims to them.I’ve seen the same pattern done with homosexuality - people taking one verse and falsely claiming with no basis whatsoever that it’s “not actually talking about homosexuality” thus claiming “this verse isn’t about homosexuality so that means the Bible doesn’t say homosexuality is a sin”. Yet the original manuscripts prove that the verse is actually talking about homosexuality and all the other verses throughout the Bible also confirming homosexuality is a sin are completely ignored. If people want to justify a sin, they will go to lengths to contort His Word and create lies from those contortions. But when we look at the true context and the original language, we can see how these baseless claims of “mistranslations” are false.

[lightoftruth]

One of the more common questions we receive at Answers in Genesis is what were the waters of day two of the creation week? Encompassing only three verses (Genesis 1:6–8), the account of day two says:

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

ABC Homeschool Now Available

Show your children the big picture of Scripture and the Jesus connection from Genesis to Revelation with ABC Homeschool.

LEARN MORE

Notice that the expanse God made on day two is intimately related to the waters of day two. God made the expanse amidst the waters to separate waters above the expanse from waters below the expanse. So, this raises a second question, what is this expanse? We probably can’t answer these two related questions separately, but they must be answers in tandem. Further complicating the issue is that older English translations of the day two account used the word firmament rather than expanse. The former word suggests something hard, while the latter word doesn’t give that impression at all. We shall get to that issue in due course, but first let’s start with the waters.

God created the earth in verse 1. However, the earth as God created it at the beginning was far from complete, for verse 2 states,

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

“Without form and void” is better rendered as “unformed and unfilled.”

“Without form and void” is better rendered as “unformed and unfilled.” Over the following days of the creation week, God worked to shape the creation and fill it. This includes the work of day two. Notice that initially there was darkness over the deep. The word “deep” here refers to deep bodies of water. Land did not exist (or perhaps appear) until day three, so the initial earth was either entirely water or at the very least the earth was completely and deeply covered with water. Lest there be any doubt about this, the next phrase says that God’s spirit moved “over the face of the waters.” This importance of water in the creation is echoed elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Psalm 136:6; 2 Peter 3:5). On day two, it suited God’s purpose to divide the waters into two, with the expanse in between the two. Perhaps getting a handle on what the expanse is will help in understanding what these upper waters are.

Early Influences

Key in deciphering the identity of the expanse is the clue that God called the expanse “heaven” (v. 8). Three times the account of day four (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17) says that God placed the luminaries (sun, moon, and stars) in the “expanse of heaven.” So, wherever the heavenly bodies are, that would be the expanse. Today we would say that the location of the heavenly bodies is (outer) space, so perhaps to people in the 21st century, the best identification of the expanse would be the space of the universe. However, we must be careful, for our modern understanding of cosmology is of recent origin. With a different cosmology, people in the past may have thought of the expanse a bit differently than we do today.

The Greek cosmology of that day featured a spherical earth at the center of a hard, transparent celestial sphere to which the astronomical bodies were attached.

For instance, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek in the 3rd – 2nd century BC. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), as this translation is called, was translated in Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria was the major city of Greek culture and learning at the time. The Greek cosmology of that day featured a spherical earth at the center of a hard, transparent celestial sphere to which the astronomical bodies were attached. The LXX translators chose the Greek word stereoma to translate the Hebrew word raqia, the thing God made on day two. Stereoma has the meaning of something hard or firm. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul used the same Greek word when he commended the Colossian church for the firmness of their faith in Christ (Colossians 2:5). When Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) in the late 4th century, he chose the Latin word firmamentum to translate raqia. As you may surmise, we get our English word firm from the same root that this Latin word comes from. Therefore, this is a good translation of the Greek word stereoma. But is it a good translation of the Hebrew word raqia? No, because raqia doesn’t mean something firm or hard. Rather, raqia means “expanse.” So, why did Jerome translate raqia as firmament? The cosmology of Jerome’s day was the same as it was 6-7 centuries earlier when the LXX was translated, so Jerome probably believed the hard, transparent celestial sphere model best fit the day four description of where the heavenly bodies were. Therefore, Jerome probably concurred with the LXX and chose the appropriate Latin word firmamentum to translate stereoma.

This mistranslation of raqia that persisted for more than two millennia is a cautionary tale for us to be careful not to impose our understanding of cosmology onto the Bible.

John Wycliffe completed the first English translation of the Bible in the late 14th century. Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate, not the original languages of the Bible. Wycliffe transliterated the Latin word firmamentum into English as “firmament,” thus coining a new English word. Why did Wycliffe do this rather than properly translating raqia as “expanse?” There were at least two reasons. First, Wycliffe did not know Hebrew, so he probably didn’t know about the word raqia, nor did he know its meaning. Consequently, Wycliffe relied upon Jerome’s translation, and he knew Latin, so Wycliffe probably thought his transliteration was the best way to render the Latin word firmamentum. Second, the hard, clear celestial sphere model was still the dominant cosmology in Wycliffe’s day, and it would continue to be so for two to three more centuries. Wycliffe likely found this translation consistent with the cosmology he believed. By the time of later translations such as the King James Version (KJV), study of Hebrew and Greek for the purpose of translating directly from the biblical languages was in vogue, and so the true meaning of raqia was known. But it wasn’t until the 20th century that the more correct “expanse” began to show up in English translations (though the Geneva Bible, which preceded the KJV, had a footnote that read “or, spreading over, and air,” and the 1862 Young’s Literal Translation used “expanse”). This mistranslation of raqia that persisted for more than two millennia is a cautionary tale for us to be careful not to impose our understanding of cosmology onto the Bible. It is alright for us to express what we think the meaning is in terms of our cosmology, but we must not impose any meaning onto the Bible.

Heavenly Problems

Another consideration is what the word heaven means. Immediately we have a problem, because the Hebrew word for “heaven,” shamayim, is a dual form, having no difference between the singular and plural. But in English there is a difference between the singular and plural forms of heaven, so it is the sense of the translator to decide whether “heaven” ought to be plural or singular in any given verse. Heaven refers to everything above us. As such, the word heaven seems to have three distinct meanings in the Bible. What many people consider to be the first heaven is where the birds and clouds are. A good example of this is the description of the “birds of the heavens” found in Genesis 1:26, 28, and 30, though in some translations the less literal “air” is substituted for “heaven.” What people often call the second heaven is where the astronomical bodies are. Examples of this would be the giving of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 22:17). The third heaven is the abode of God. This is the meaning that the Apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:2 that he was caught up to the third heaven (Paul’s term).

At the risk of imposing our modern cosmology, we might understand the first heaven to be the atmosphere and the second heaven to be space. And we likely would think that the third heaven is beyond the physical world that we know. But is this the true meaning of these three? Where does the atmosphere end and space begin? There is no definite line of demarcation between the two. Therefore, we cannot say where the first heaven ends and where the second heaven begins. Nor could ancient people, including the Hebrews. They seemed to have understood there was a difference between the first and second heavens, but they didn’t seem to be concerned with the question of exactly where the boundary between the two laid. The Hebrews probably didn’t have difficulty with this fuzzy distinction, but we moderns tend to be too precise for our own good sometimes. As for whether the third heaven is physical and just beyond the first two heavens, the ancients didn’t seem to have a problem with ambiguity there either, though we moderns seem to have some difficulty with it.

Which heaven does the day two account of Genesis 1:6–8 refer to? That is not entirely clear. It would not seem to mean the third heaven. It could refer to either the first or second heaven, both, or portions of the two.

A half-century ago, most recent creationists subscribed to the canopy model, the belief that the expanse is the earth’s atmosphere with the waters above being in a sort of canopy over the atmosphere.

Expanse and Water

With these caveats in mind, let us consider the possibilities of what the expanse is and hence what the waters above are. A half-century ago, most recent creationists subscribed to the canopy model, the belief that the expanse is the earth’s atmosphere with the waters above being in a sort of canopy over the atmosphere. The canopy model hypothesized that the water canopy collapsed at the time of the flood (the “windows of heaven” being opened at the beginning of the flood per Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). We don’t see these waters above now because the canopy no longer exists. While some creationists still support the canopy model, most creation scientists do not, nor do most major creation ministries, such as Answers in Genesis. Why has support for the canopy model eroded? There are two primary reasons. One reason is that despite much effort expended to make a physical model of the canopy viable, no such working model was ever produced. More importantly, the canopy model has some scriptural problems. For instance, Psalm 148:4 speaks of the waters above the heavens as if they still exist. Psalm 148 was almost certainly written after the flood, so why would it mention waters above the heavens if those waters are not there anymore?

Another possibility is that “waters above the heavens” simply refers to atmospheric water, water that is continually recycled via the hydrologic cycle through evaporation and precipitation. The problem with this answer is that the water in the atmosphere is hardly above the heavens. Rather, that water is in, not above, heaven, and the first heaven to boot. This does not seem to comport with the day four description (three times) of the heavenly bodies being in the expanse of heaven, with the terminology “expanse of heaven” apparently referring to what God made on day two. How could atmospheric water be said to be above the place where the sun, moon, and stars are?

This leaves the possibility that the waters above the expanse are beyond the realm where we find astronomical bodies. This would imply that there is a shell of water surrounding the universe. What form (solid, liquid, or gas) would this water take? Considering that, just like English, there are Hebrew words for ice and water vapor, the use of the Hebrew word for liquid H2O means liquid water, so we ought to conclude that this water is liquid. A shell of water around the universe would not be possible if the universe were infinite, so the universe must have a finite size. Modern cosmologists who reject biblical cosmology are split on whether the universe is finite or infinite. But there is something even more profound here. For there to be water at the edge of the universe, the universe must have an edge. The universe having an edge is anathema to modern cosmologists. Those cosmologists who believe the universe is finite think that the geometry of the universe closes back on itself, sort of the way that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere closes back on itself so that it has no edge. Since God moved this shell of water outward from the earth when He made the expanse on day two, then the cosmology of the Bible suggests that the earth is somewhere near (but not necessarily at) the center of the universe. The idea that the universe has a center and that the earth is near that center also is anathema to modern cosmology.

There is an interesting implication coming from this cosmology gleaned from Genesis 1. If there is water at the edge of the universe, then that water must have nonzero temperature.

Implications and Conclusion

There is an interesting implication coming from this cosmology gleaned from Genesis 1. If there is water at the edge of the universe, then that water must have nonzero temperature. Normal matter, such as water, that has nonzero temperature must radiate. Therefore, there should be electromagnetic radiation from the shell of water coming toward earth from all directions. We don’t know what temperature this radiation will have because we don’t know what the temperature of the water is. Furthermore, the Hubble relation tells us radiation coming from a distant source will be redshifted, effectively cooling the temperature of the radiation, but we don’t know how much redshift there will be. All we can say is that there ought to be a low-temperature radiation field in the universe. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.73 Kelvin radiation field in 1964. This cosmic radiation background (CMB) was hailed as proof of the big bang model, as cosmologists using the big bang model had predicted the existence of a low-temperature radiation field 16 years earlier. However, other hypotheses, such as the water of day two creation, predict a CMB too. Rather than evidence of the big bang, perhaps the CMB is evidence of the biblical creation account.

To sum up, the cosmology of the day two and day four accounts suggests that the expanse God made on day two is what we would call space, but it likely includes most, if not all, the atmosphere as well. There is water at the boundary of the universe. This means that the universe is finite, has an edge, and the earth may be near the center of the universe. However, this does not imply strict geocentrism, that the universe moves around the earth. The CMB may be evidence for this cosmology.

[live4thelord]

Timeline of Bible Translation History 1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses. 500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament. 200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books. 1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament. 315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture. 382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test). 500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages. 600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture. 995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced. 1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books. 1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin. 1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament. 1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament. 1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language. 1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha). 1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books). 1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books). 1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books). 1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books). 1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Book https://www.instagram.com/p/CDi2Qm7jEKX/?igshid=16tpfmsc8nx3u

[earlofmanchesters]

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof for correction and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work.” Second Epistle to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17 . The King James Version of the Bible, considered by many Christians to be the definitive English translation, was one of the salvoes in a battle for control of biblical scripture in England that had raged since the Reformation. The most popular version of the Elizabethan age was The Geneva Bible, published in 1560, which was widely available in handy small editions. However, Elizabeth I tried to displace the Geneva Bible as the translation did not appear to support her Church of England's structure of bishops and archbishops, and Puritans used this to question and oppose church authority. The subsequent Bishops' Bible failed to displace the Geneva's popularity. . When he came to the English throne in 1603, King James I ordered a new translation, which would overcome the Geneva and replace the flawed Bishops', making sure words such as "church" and "bishops" we're not translated as "congregation" and "elders", which had been used to argue against the power of the bishops. During the English Civil War and subsequent Commonwealth, Parliament made some efforts to create a new translation that expressed a more independent theology, but this project was abandoned. . Despite it's popularity now, with many words and sayings derived from its pagesmaking their way into common use, it wasn't until the 18th Century that the KJV would finally become the unchallenged English translation. . #bible #newtestament #puritan #book #bookstagram #sunday #scripture #photoreenactment #reenactment #reenactors #reenacting #reenactorstyle #reenactorslife #reenactorsofinstagram #reenactmentphotography #livinghistory #history #photohistory #historicalreenactment #17thcentury #sealedknot #dailyphoto #photoaday #photooftheday #photoadaychallenge #englishcivilwar #instadaily . (Image description: the frame is filled with a close-up shot of a reenactor dressed in black, holding a brown leather-back book with both hands) https://www.instagram.com/p/B8EBI5hHWAK/?igshid=1yc9tp0ca9kt

[mumblingsage]

lurkinghistoric

The King James bible drew on earlier translations, including the very influential Tyndale (1494-1536) and Geneva (1560 and later) bibles  - and texts of both are available online, so you could check your chosen King James text against the earlier versions?

That is super cool Bible history I did not realize before yesterday! So I’ve checked them. The main complication is that my protagonists are Catholic, which adds layers of  unintended implication if I use a Protestant translation (and most early English translations are, for obvious reasons...in fact this was my first issue with the King James, timeline aside. And it’s an issue storytelling-wise, not religion-wise or language-wise; I think it’s the most gorgeous translation). Even so, glad to have this info, thanks!

future-geometries

the douay-rheims has lovely language and is period-accurate!

future-geometries

well, if you're quoting the new testament, I guess.

And it’s Catholic! I’m quoting a Psalm, so I was able to get the 1610...or 1635? version on Internet Archive and page through it. Trying to find the right Psalm when your comprehension of Latin numerals is poor is...a trip, but I did find it! And it is a lovely-sounding translation. A little less subtle than the KJV, but apparently more literal wrt the Vulgate. 

So at this point, I know way more about Bible translations, but still have to choose between timeline accuracy, faithfulness to characterization, and wording I like best. There may be an author’s note in my future (”I know I’m not 100% accurate but at least I was near exhaustive.”) 

Also, Bible Gateway’s  Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (the only version they had, thus my paging through scans of a 17th century book on Internet Archive) AND their Vulgate (I can’t read Latin but that won’t keep me from going back to the source) both have...a substantially different version of Psalm 88 than all the others do? As in, they have more than a dozen extra verses and are on a fairly different topic. I don’t even know what’s happening here (I’m guessing Psalms got shuffled for some reason).

[humbleservantprayerwall]

Daily Devotionals 11-06-2023

Verses of the Day: Hebrews 13:5/Romans 8:28/Hebrews 4:14-16/Matthew 10:16/John 8:32/Psalms 1:1-3/Colossians 3:16/Ephesians 5:18-19/Romans 12:3/James 5:19-20/James 2:13/Acts 5:1-5/Ephesians 1:9-10/Psalms 85:8/Psalms 17:8/Psalm 139:10/Isaiah 40:31/Isaiah 44:3/Hebrews 9:20/1 Kings 18:20–40/ Chapters of the Day: 1599 Geneva Bible 2 Kings 13-15/Blue Letter Bible 1 Chronicles 1-2/Psalms 1/Galatians…

[ahopkins1965]



Sign in

 

TOOLS

LANG

HIST

PAS

PER

INFO

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation  Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4 Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Ch 8 Ch 9 Ch 10 Ch 11 Ch 12 Ch 13 Ch 14 Ch 15 Ch 16  Vs 1 Vs 2 Vs 3 Vs 4 Vs 5 Vs 6 Vs 7 Vs 8 Vs 9 Vs 10 Vs 11 Vs 12 Vs 13 Vs 14 Vs 15 Vs 16 Vs 17 Vs 18 Vs 19 Vs 20 Vs 21 Vs 22 Vs 23 Vs 24 Vs 25 Vs 26 Vs 27 Vs 28 Vs 29 Vs 30 Vs 31 Vs 32 Vs 33 

Home / by-Verse Commentary / 1 Corinthians / Chapter 10

by-Verse Commentary

1 Corinthians 10:21

PrevBackNext

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Jump to: Clarke Commentary • Barne's Notes• Coffman Commentaries • Gill's Exposition •Geneva Study Bible • Commentary Critical and Explanatory • Robertson's Word Pictures •Vincent's Studies • Wesley's Notes • Trapp's Commentary • Coke's Commentary • Burkitt's Notes • Alford's Commentary • Meyer's Commentary • Bengel's Gnomon • Poole's Annotations • Family Bible New Testament •Cambridge Greek Testament • Whedon's Commentary • Pett's Bible Commentary •Beet's Commentary on the New Testament •Constable's Expository Notes • Schaff's New Testament Commentary • Haydock's Catholic Commentary • Dunagan Commentary •Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes •Commentary Critical and Explanatory - Unabridged • The Bible Study New Testament• Treasury of Knowledge • Hodge's Commentary •

Other Authors

Range Specific

Birdgeway Bible Commentary

Box's Commentaries on Selected Books

Ellicott's Commentary

Expositor's Greek Testament

Meyer's Commentary

Godbey's NT Commentary

Gary Hampton Commentary

Everett's Study Notes

Mahan's Commentary

Ironside's Notes

Kretzmann's Popular Commentary of the Bible

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures

Henry's Complete

Henry's Concise

Peake's Bible Commentary

Hawker's Poor Man's Commentary

People's New Testament

Benson's Commentary

Chapter Specific

Adam Clarke Commentary

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord - It is in vain that you who frequent these idol festivals profess the religion of Christ, and commemorate his death and passion in the holy eucharist; for you can not have that fellowship with Christ which this ordinance implies, while you are partakers of the table of demons. That the Gentiles, in their sacrifices, fed on the slain beasts, and ate bread and drank wine in honor of their gods, is sufficiently clear from various accounts. See my Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, where many examples are produced. The following from Virgil, Aen. viii, verse 179-273, is proof in point: -

Tum lecti juvenes certatim araeque sacerdos

Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum, onerantque canistris

Dona laboratae Cereris, Bacchumque ministrant.

Vescitur Aeneas simul et Trojana juventus

Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis. -

Quare agite, O juvenes, tantarum in munere laudum,

Cingite fronde comas, et pocula porgite dextris,

Communemque vocate Deum, et date vina volentes.

The loaves were served in canisters; the wine

In bowls; the priests renewed the rites divine:

Broiled entrails are their food, and beef's continued chine

Ye warlike youths, your heads with garlands crown,

Fill high the goblets with a sparkling flood,

And with deep draughts invoke our common god.

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain.

Bibliography

Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "The Adam Clarke Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/1-corinthians-10.html. 1832.

 return to 'Jump List'

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord … - This does not mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a natural impossibility; for they certainly had power to do it. But it must mean that they could not “consistently” do it. It was not fit, proper, decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ, they had devoted themselves to him, and they could not, consistently with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a striking instance in which the word “cannot” is used to denote not natural but moral inability.

And the cup of devils - Demons; 1 Corinthians 10:20. In the feasts in honor of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drank by the worshippers; see Virgil, Aeneas viii. 273. The custom of drinking “toasts” at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honor of the pagan gods; and is a practice that still partakes of the nature of paganism. It was one of the abominations of paganism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating drink. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually accompanies the drinking of a glass in this manner, if it means anything, is now also a “prayer.” But to whom? To the god of wine? To a pagan deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Yahweh directed that prayer should be offered to Him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to Him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a pagan god, or it is mockery of Yahweh; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul. “Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of Jehovah.” Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?

And of the table of devils - Demons. It is not needful to the force of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil spirits. They were not God; and to worship them was idolatry. The apostle means that Christians could not consistently join in the worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honor of them.

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain.

Bibliography

Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/1-corinthians-10.html. 1870.

 return to 'Jump List'

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.

Ye cannot ... has the weight of "I forbid you to ..." Of course, it was not a physical impossibility for some to lead such double lives; and it may be inferred that some in Corinth were actually partaking of both; but it was a sin, the words here indicating that it was morally impossible to do such a thing.

Copyright Statement

James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved.

Bibliography

Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/1-corinthians-10.html. Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.

 return to 'Jump List'

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils,.... Not only they ought not, but they could not rightly, truly, and really drink the cup of wine in the Lord's supper, in the true faith of Christ's bloodshed, and his sacrifice offered up for them, in remembrance of his love, and to the honour of his name; and also the cup of wine of libations, poured out and drank to the honour of the Heathen deities; these things are utterly inconsistent; no man can serve two masters, God and mammon, or God and Baal; nor is there any concord between Christ and Belial, or agreement between the temple of God and idols:

ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils; no man can spiritually, however he may externally partake of the entertainment provided, on the table of the Lord, at his supper instituted and kept in commemoration of him; and also with gust and pleasure, and without any concern for the peace of weak minds, and the honour of God, eat things set upon a table in an idol's temple, and before the idol, and as sacrificed unto it.

Copyright Statement

The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernised and adapted for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.

A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855

Bibliography

Gill, John. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/1-corinthians-10.html. 1999.

 return to 'Jump List'

Geneva Study Bible

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the s cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

(s) The heathen and profane people were accustomed to finish up and make an end of their feasts which they kept to the honour of their gods, in offering meat offerings and drink offerings to them, with banquets and feastings.

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain.

Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.

Bibliography

Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/1-corinthians-10.html. 1599-1645.

 return to 'Jump List'

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord — really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (1 Kings 18:21).

cup of devils — in contrast to the cup of the Lord.At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol.

the Lord‘s table — The Lord‘s Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord‘s Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ‘s sacrifice, as the Jews‘ sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Malachi 1:7, “altar … table of the Lord”), and the heathen idol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices (Isaiah 65:11). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jews‘ sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is the only substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew‘s sacrificial feast partook rather “of the altar” (1 Corinthians 10:18) than of God manifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord‘s Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.

Copyright Statement

These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text scanned by Woodside Bible Fellowship.

This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary is in the public domain and may be freely used and distributed.

Bibliography

Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/1-corinthians-10.html. 1871-8.

 return to 'Jump List'

Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament

Ye cannot (ου δυναστε — ou dunasthe). Morally impossible to drink the Lord‘s cup and the cup of demons, to partake of the Lord‘s table and the table of demons.

Of the table of the Lord (τραπεζης Κυριου — trapezēs Kuriou). No articles, but definite idea. Τραπεζα — Trapeza is from τετρα — tetra (four) and πεζα — peza (a foot), four-footed. Here tablemeans, as often, what is on the table. See Luke 22:30 where Jesus says “at my table” (επι της τραπεζης μου — epi tēs trapezēs mou), referring to the spiritual feast hereafter. Here the reference is plainly to the Lord‘s Supper (Κυριακον δειπνον — Kuriakon deipnon 1 Corinthians 11:20). See allusions in O.T. to use of the table in heathen idol feasts (Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 16:18.; Ezekiel 23:41). The altar of burnt-offering is called the table of the Lord in Malachi 1:7 (Vincent).

Copyright Statement

The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament. Copyright � Broadman Press 1932,33, Renewal 1960. All rights reserved. Used by permission of Broadman Press (Southern Baptist Sunday School Board)

Bibliography

Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/1-corinthians-10.html. Broadman Press 1932,33. Renewal 1960.

 return to 'Jump List'

Vincent's Word Studies

The cup of devils

Representing the heathen feast. The special reference may be either to the drinking-cup, or to that used for pouring libations.

The Lord's table

Representing the Lord's Supper. See 1 Corinthians 11:20sqq. The Greeks and Romans, on extraordinary occasions, placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. Diodorus, describing the temple of Bel at Babylon, mentions a large table of beaten gold, forty feet by fifteen, standing before the colossal statues of three deities. Upon it were two drinking-cups. See, also, the story of “Bel and the Dragon,” vv. 10-15. The sacredness of the table in heathen worship is apparent from the manner in which it is combined with the altar in solemn formulae; as ara et mensa. Allusions to the table or to food and drink-offerings in honor of heathen deities occur in the Old Testament: Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 16:18, Ezekiel 16:19; Ezekiel 23:41. In Malachi 1:7, the altar of burnt-offering is called “the table of the Lord.”

Copyright Statement

The text of this work is public domain.

Bibliography

Vincent, Marvin R. DD. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/vnt/1-corinthians-10.html. Charles Schribner's Sons. New York, USA. 1887.

 return to 'Jump List'

Wesley's Explanatory Notes

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils — You cannot have communion with both.

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that is available on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library Website.

Bibliography

Wesley, John. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:21". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/1-corinthians-10.html. 1765.

 return to 'Jump List'

John Trapp Complete Commentary

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

Ver. 21. Partakers of the Lord’s table] Name and thing. The Popish opinion of mass was, that it might not be celebrated but upon an altar, or at least upon a superaltare, which must have its prints and carects, or else the thing was not thought to be lawfully done. Our communion table they call an oyster board. (Acts and Mon.)

And the table of devils] Redwald, king of East Saxons, had in the same church one altar for Christian religion, and another for sacrifice to devils. (Camden.)

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain.

Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.

Bibliography