Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 7
The Geneva Bible’s marginal notes reportedly taught that Jesus instituted “nothing revolutionary,” that there is “no difference” between Christ’s moral teaching and Moses, and that only “ceremonial” law changed; how would reading the Gospels through that lens affect what you notice—or fail to notice—about the kingdom of God?
Another way to ask: If you read the Gospels thinking Jesus didn’t bring anything truly new and that His moral teaching is basically the same as Moses, what would you notice less about the kingdom of God? What might you miss completely?

Direct Answer Bercot suggests that lens would cause a reader to miss the kingdom of God as a radical new way of life, because Jesus’ teaching would be reduced to a clarification of Moses rather than a revolutionary kingdom ethic. It would make the Gospels feel like “more of the same,” so the reader would overlook the “radical revolution” Jesus ignited.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the Geneva Bible hid the kingdom by telling readers Jesus instituted “nothing revolutionary.”
  • It taught “there is no difference between Christ’s moral teachings and the law of Moses.”
  • It claimed Jesus merely clarified what “the Pharisees had obscured,” and that obedience must start “inside our hearts” rather than be merely external.
  • It taught “nothing has changed except the ceremonial part of the law.”
  • Bercot concludes: “With such comments all throughout… the average person would read the New Testament and never even see the kingdom of God and the radical revolution it ignited.”
  • He generalizes that Study Bibles can “obscure the kingdom… sometimes subtle,” sometimes a “bold frontal attack.”
Discussion Follow-ups If Jesus’ teachings are treated mainly as “clarified Moses,” what happens to commands like turning the other cheek, refusing retaliation, and rejecting earthly power?