By Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez
Originally written on May 5, 2014
Updated on October 18, 2024
There is a very delusional, young missionary in Chile, who promotes the 1865 Valera. He tries so hard to discredit the RVG but fails miserably every time. Pretty much no one is paying attention to him and for good reason. He is part of a failed movement to promote the 1865 Valera. It never got off the ground and died before it got started. Their strategy was to viciously attack everyone who disagreed with them but this backfired on them and left them looking very foolish. It was once called the Valera Bible Society.
The fall of this movement is due to several reasons. One of the reasons is because the very few members of the remnants of this irrelevant group are not good students of the Bible. Their attempts to discredit the RVG are embarrassing as I'll demonstrate in this article.
For example, this misguided brother in Chile (we will be gracious and not mention his name to save him the embarrassment) wrote an article in which he accuses the RVG of being in error in Matthew 1:20. He goes so far as accusing the RVG of denying the Virgin Birth of Christ in this passage; a bold inditement that would really hurt our credibility if true! In so doing, however, he is accusing the King James Bible of also denying the Virgin Birth of Christ since the RVG and KJB say THE EXACT SAME THING in this verse of scripture. Observe: KJB - Mat 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
RVG - Mat 1:20 "Y pensando él en esto, he aquí el ángel del Señor le apareció en un sueño, diciendo: José hijo de David, no temas recibir a María tu esposa, porque lo que en ella es engendrado, del Espíritu Santo es." 1865 - Mat. 1:20 "Y pensando él en esto, he aquí, que el ángel del Señor le aparece en sueños, diciendo: José, hijo de David, no temas de recibir a María tu mujer; porque lo que en ella es engendrado, del Espíritu Santo es."
The word in question is "wife". The King James Bible says "wife" and so does the RVG. The RVG says "esposa" which is translated "wife". Members of the no longer operating Valera Bible Society say this is wrong. Their Bible says "woman" which is "mujer" in Spanish.
Their explanation is that because Joseph and Mary had not yet consummated their marriage and were still in the betrothal stage it is incorrect for the RVG and KJB to refer to Mary as Joseph's "wife". Therefore they believe it is more accurate to refer to Mary as Joseph's "woman" instead of "wife" like their 1865 Valera Bible revision does.
This ignorance demonstrates once again their unreliability as Bible teachers.
In Jewish culture a woman and man goes through a betrothal period before consummating their marriage. The betrothal period of Jewish culture was a much more serious commitment than the engagement period of our western culture. In Jewish culture the betrothed woman was recognized as the man's wife, as we will see in scripture in just a moment. The only difference is that the marriage had not yet been consummated because the wife was not yet living with her husband and therefore had not yet entered into an intimate relationship. However, the commitment to be husband and wife had already been made and settled once the couple entered into betrothal. Note the following verse:
KJV - Deuteronomy 20:7 "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her"
1. Notice that the woman betrothed is already referred to as the man's wife.
2. Notice that there is a difference between "betrothing a wife" and "taking a wife". The wife had been betrothed, in other words, the commitment to be husband and wife was already done and settled. However, she had not been "taken" by her husband into her new home and into an intimate relationship yet. This was because the betrothal period was a period of time of which the husband was given to make preparations for a new life with his wife whom he was already committed to (Pro. 24:27). For further confirmation of these truths, read Gen. 20:21:
Gen 29:21 "And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her."
The 1865 supporters don't know how to study their Bibles. Therefore, they blame their ignorance on the RVG. That's irresponsible.
The KJB and RVG are absolutely correct in referring to Mary as Joseph's wife in Mat. 1:20.
Besides, if it is not correct to refer to Mary as Joseph's "wife" in Mat. 1:20 than WHY DOES THE 1865 REFER TO JOSEPH AS MARY'S HUSBAND in the verse prior? Note:
1865 - Mat 1:19 "Y José su marido, como era justo, y no quisiese exponerla a la infamia, quiso dejarla secretamente."
"Marido" is "husband" in Spanish. Oops! How does Joseph become Mary's "husband" without Mary becoming his "wife"?! Meditate on that. Looks like the 1865 crowd better change that verse to make it say that Joseph was Mary's "man" or "boyfriend" or "sidekick" or "soul mate" or "sugar daddy" or something like that in order to be consistent with their ridiculous conclusions and embarrassing attempts to teach the Bible.
Jokes aside, this is a real shame because pastors are supposed to be "apt to teach" (1st Timothy 3:2). This is also a disappointment because Chile needs good, capable missionaries. This is the best the Valera Bible Society has to offer, yet WE are the ones they claim are "Laodicean".
I am thankful for the excellent missionaries that I know of in Chile who use the RVG and are seeing much fruit for the glory of God. These are the missionaries worth supporting.
At any rate...
No, the King James Bible and the Reina Valera Gómez are not wrong in Mat. 1:20. God's word is right and the failed 1865 Valera Bible Society is wrong. Again.
Comments