The New King: An Enemy Of The Geneva Bible
THE NEW KING: AN ENEMY OF THE GENEVA BIBLE
By the end of Elizabeth's reign, the position and influence of the Geneva Bible seemed to have become unassailable. It was the Bible of choice of England's increasingly confident Protestants. Yet with the accession of James I, a new and unexpected factor entered into the situation. By January 1604, it had become clear that James had taken an intense personal dislike to this Bible. The reason for his dislike is not difficult to discern.
As we saw earlier, the marginal notes to the Geneva Bible did more than provide theological elucidation at points of difficulty—the “most profitable annotations upon the hard places” mentioned on the title page of the work. They offered political comments on the text, which could easily be applied to the political situation under James I—and James cordially detested what he found in those notes.
The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.” While the ultimate origins of the theory of the divine right of kings can be traced back to the mists of the early Middle Ages, it had received a new sense of direction under James I. While still James VI of Scotland, James had written some works that showed a keen interest in the divine validation of royal authority, subject to certain limitations. These ideas were set out especially in his True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), but can be summarized neatly in the opening sonnet of his Basilikon Doron (also 1598):
God gives not Kings the style of Gods in vain,
For on his throne his Sceptre do they sway;
And as their subjects ought them to obey,
So Kings should fear and serve their God again.
The language and imagery of this work suggest a God-King who is endowed with divine authority for his work on earth. The language is at times quite extravagant, such as the references to kings as “the breathing images of God,” or the suggestion that even God himself pleases to refer to kings as divine. It is perhaps worth recalling that this work was written at a time when James VI felt himself under severe pressure from radical Presbyterian critics, when it was felt that a none-too-subtle appeal to divine validation might help stem such criticisms.
The theory was widely welcomed by Anglicans, who saw it as a means of ensuring the stability of the monarchy and hence the position of the established church within England. The theory neatly locked church and king together into a robust circle of mutual support and reinforcement. It was, however, a theory that Puritans regarded as nonbiblical, and looked to the notes of the Geneva Bible for its refutation. They found ample ammunition in those annotations, as will become clear from what follows.
The book of Daniel relates the experience of Daniel and his colleagues, who are portrayed as faithful to God in an alien environment, dominated by a powerful king. Much of the narrative of the book concerns the tensions between the integrities of faith and the realities of life under an autocratic monarch. It is, therefore, little cause for surprise that the Geneva Bible picked up on the importance of this work in relation to the English situation. For example, the sixth chapter tells of how Daniel found himself being thrown into the lions' den for disobeying the king's orders. The text and marginal notes, as set out in 1599, read as follows:
Daniel 6:22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him {h} innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done {i} no hurt.
(h) My just cause and uprightness in this thing in which I was charged, is approved by God.
(i) For he disobeyed the king's wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured.
The implications of these annotations would be lost to none. The commandments of kings are to be disobeyed when they conflict with the will of God.
Further comment on the place of a tyrant king can be found in the comments on Daniel 11:36, which speaks of such a king oppressing his people.
And the {s} king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation {t} be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
(s) Because the angels purpose is to show the whole course of the persecutions of the Jews until the coming of Christ, he now speaks of the monarchy of the Romans, which he notes by the name of a king, who were without religion and condemned the true God.
(t) So long the tyrants will prevail as God has appointed to punish his people: but he shows that it is but for a time.
The point being made is that God has raised up such tyrants to punish his people for their sins—but that the days of such tyrants are numbered. It did not take much imagination to apply this comment to the English situation under both James I and his successor, Charles I. God's people—the Puritans—were suffering; yet this was to be seen as a punishment for their sins, which would not last forever. Notice also how the Genevan notes regularly use the word “tyrant” to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word—a fact noted with approval as much as relief by many royalists at this point.
James I held that kings had been ordained by God to rule the nations of the world, to promote justice, and to dispense wisdom. It was, therefore, imperative that kings should be respected and obeyed unconditionally and in all circumstances. The ample notes provided by the Geneva Bible taught otherwise. Tyrannical kings should not be obeyed; indeed, there were excellent reasons for suggesting that they should be overthrown.
This can be seen from the Geneva Bible's comments on the story of Moses, who rose from his humble origins as the son of a Hebrew slave in Egypt to become the deliverer of Israel from its captivity. The Geneva Bible introduces this story as follows, taking care to point out its implications for oppressive tyrants:
After Jacob by God's commandment in Genesis 46:3 had brought his family into Egypt, where they remained for four hundred years, and from seventy people grew to an infinite number so that the king and the country endeavoured both by tyranny and cruel slavery to suppress them: the Lord according to his promise in Genesis 15:14 had compassion on his Church, and delivered them, but plagued their enemies in most strange and varied ways. The more the tyranny of the wicked raged against his Church, the more his heavy judgments increased against them, till Pharaoh and his army were drowned in the sea, which gave an entry and passage to the children of God.
According to Exodus 1, Pharaoh was anxious concerning the growing strength of the Hebrews in Egypt, and ordered that measures should be taken to restrict their growth and influence. One of those restrictive measures was a command that midwives were to ensure that all newborn male Hebrew children were killed. The mid-wives chose to ignore this, and deceived the Egyptian authorities by suggesting that Hebrew mothers gave birth before they could arrive. The translation of this in the Geneva Bible is here provided, along with its comment on the deception practiced by the midwives. On being asked why male children were not killed as they had been ordered, the midwives offered the following explanation (Exodus 1:19):
And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew {g} women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
(g) Their disobedience in this was lawful, but their deception is evil.
The marginal note is clear; the deception practiced was morally unacceptable, but it was entirely legal. To deceive tyrants is entirely within the law. In case its readers failed to appreciate this point, the marginal notes stressed that it was Pharaoh who deceived people (Exodus 1:22):
And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall {i} cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
When tyrants cannot prevail by deceit, they burst into open rage.
The suggestion that it was lawful to disobey or deceive kings would hardly have pleased James I of England. Yet it fitted well into the growing trend within Calvinist circles to argue for the resistance to tyrants, whether by force or deception. As radical Protestant factions, such as the Puritans, began to view James as their oppressor, the suggestion that it was lawful to disobey him became increasingly welcome to Puritans and worrying to James.
It is known that James I was also anxious over the marginal comments on 2 Chronicles 15:15–17, which seemed to bear uncomfortably on his own situation.
And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was {h} found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about. And also concerning Maachah the {i} mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. But the high places were not {k} taken away out of {l} Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was {m} perfect all his days.
(h) As long as they served him correctly, so long did he preserve and prosper them.
(i) Or grandmother, and in this he showed that he lacked zeal, for she should have died both by the covenant, as 2 Chronicles 15:13 and by the law of God, but he gave place to foolish pity and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the law.
(k) Which was partly because of lack of zeal on his part, partly through the negligence of his officers and partly by the superstition of the people that all were not taken away.
(l) Because God was called the God of Israel, by reason of his promise to Jacob, therefore Israel is sometimes taken for Judah, because Judah was his chief people.
(m) In respect to his predecessors.
The passage describes measures taken by King Asa to eliminate the Canaanite religious practices which had crept into Israel's national life under his predecessors. The passage might be taken to imply that Asa—and, by implication, modern kings who made some attempt to reform the religion of their nation—was to be praised for his actions. The marginal notes ensured that no reader of this passage came away with that impression. Asa was lazy his officials incompetent or corrupt, and the people were superstitious. And if Asa was “perfect,” this was only in comparison to those who came before him.
Most interesting of all, the marginal comments on the fate of Asa's mother merit close attention. The passage mentions that Asa deposed his mother for her idolatry, and destroyed the idol she had created. The marginal comments are quite indignant on this matter. Asa “lacked zeal.” If he had behaved properly he would have executed his mother. Instead, he was overcome by sentimentality and failed to do his duty. As James I's mother—Mary Queen of Scots—had been executed by Elizabeth I, it is not difficult to understand why he found this comment slightly painful to read. Yet the implications of the passage for the monarchy are perhaps more important: the king is not above the law, and is required to discharge his religious duties without regard for “foolish pity.” The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for.
The notion of the divine right of kings was often defended from Psalm 105:15. In the King James Bible, this would read as follows: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” This was argued by many Anglicans to be a reference to the king. After all, was not the king anointed at his coronation, and thus designated as God's anointed one? Such ideas were developed in detail in the anonymous 1642 treatise The Sovereignty of Kings.
The Geneva Bible had little time for such ideas, as it made clear in its comments on this verse.
Psalm 105:15 [Saying], Touch not mine {h} anointed, and do my {i} prophets no harm.
(h) Those whom I have sanctified to be my people.
(i) Meaning, the old fathers, to whom God showed himself plainly, and who set forth his word.
The Genevan notes argued that the term “anointed” was to be understood to refer to God's people as a whole. This was picked up by a series of critics of the “divine right” theory, such as Edmund Ludlow in his Voice from the Watch Tower. The text was thus interpreted in a way that made no reference whatsoever to the “divine right of kings.” According to the Geneva Bible the text was actually, if anything, a criticism of kings, in that their right to harm the people of God was being absolutely denied.
The Geneva Bible thus undermined whatever biblical basis there might have been for the idea of “the divine right of kings.” As this notion was highly significant in James's understanding of his role in both church and state, he would have reacted with horror to any challenge to it. As a result, James now had a personal agenda—to rid England of what he regarded as the baleful influence of the Geneva Bible and its detestable marginal notes. It was, in his view, the “worst of all” of the English translations.
Yet when James I came to the throne of England in 1603, the position of the Geneva Bible seemed absolutely secure. It had outsold and outperformed all its rivals. It was the version of the Bible that had been used by Shakespeare in his dramas. How could it conceivably be toppled from its place of eminence? The growing sales and influence of this Bible seemed to be beyond James's control. The future of both the English monarchy and the church could depend upon eliminating this most turbulent of Bible translations. But what could be done to topple it from its place of honor?