Arminian Today

A Jesus-Centered Arminian Blog

Quick Note on Luke 2:33

I saw a King James only advocate preaching that modern versions corrupt the doctrines of the faith and he focused in on Luke 2:33 and claimed that the NIV and other modern translations are wrong on the translation here and that they are attacking the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus.

Luke 2:33 in the ESV reads,

And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

The NIV reads,

The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

The KJV reads,

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

KJV only advocates teach that the KJV here is clear that Mary is the mother of Jesus but Joseph is not his father since God is His Father.  They say that the ESV and the NIV both attack the virgin birth and teach that Joseph was Jesus’ father.

However, the KJV itself asserts that Joseph is Jesus’ father in Luke 2:41 when it calls both Joseph and Mary His parents.  Further, the KJV also says that Joseph is Jesus’ father in Luke 2:48 where we read,

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Here Mary herself says that Joseph is His father.  Joseph and Mary where the parents of Jesus as a unit while He was on the earth.  Matthew 1 and Luke 1 are clear that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and even the NIV does not neglect this truth.  KJV only advocates are reaching when they make an entire sermon on how modern versions corrupt the doctrine of the virgin birth in Luke 2:33.  This is simply not true.

Written by The Seeking Disciple

11/28/2013 at 9:52 PM

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When people become obsessed with something (i.e. KJV onlyism) they will only see things (proof texts) that support their obsession and will be blinded to things that contradict it.


    11/28/2013 at 10:40 PM

  2. Good work here. Drives me crazy when people hone in on one verse to “prove” that a translation is wrong. The real problem is that they’re taking the KJV as the starting point and comparing everything to that. They have no concept of original languages or dealing with textual differences. The issue is not what got taken out between the 16th century and now, it’s what got added in between the first and fourth centuries.

  3. I believe in about 95% of what the Arminian’s believe and about 95% of what the Calvanist’s believe. But for that matter, I believe in about what 95% of what the Presbyterians and Catholics believe. But what about the Jehovah’s witnesses, the “Born Agains”, and/or any of the approximately 41,000 christian denominations that exist. Well, I likely believe in about 95% of each one of them as well.

    I think using all of this nomenclature however does more harm than good. I’ve been talking to people about this for years and I might need to take some time out soon to finish up a couple of articles on the subject that I’ve started.

    I mention this because segmentism seems to be the thing that all of these groups share “us against them”. We are ______ (fill in the blank with what you call yourself here). “They are wrong about _____”. The battle continues.

    And in order for ‘your’ group to sound like they are being reasonable, you occasionally throw in a few compliments about “the other groups” to show how you can be agreeable on one point or another. The segmentism continues however. Just a little prettier, but continues none-the-less.


    12/05/2013 at 4:04 AM

    • You may agree with 95% of each different official doctrine, but the subject matter of the 5% is relevent. For example, I agree with many of the teachings of Jehovah Witnesses. However, in the small percentage that I disagree with is the fact that they make the false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man; therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is “a god” and not divine in nature. That being the case, the namesake of our “religions” is a completely different person. This is not an insignificant difference and does get in the way of fellowship.


      12/05/2013 at 3:07 PM

      • And on those points we also agree. But what we likely do not agree on is the segmentism that has been caused by the insisting of denominational nomenclature.

        I hope to free as many people from this as Christ will allow me to. I believe it is in direct opposition to Christ’s prayer in the garden where he prayed that all would be one with him and he is one with the father.

        Furthermore this importance of guard against division is covered in Gal 5 with the example of “how it should be done” given throughout the book of Acts. … The followers of Christ never called themselves much of anything. Others called them followers of the way, ‘others’ called them christians, ‘others’ called them lots of things but they were a family, a body of believers that was so focussed on giving up everything (including their self identification) to follow Christ.

        The Hebrew word for name “Shem” holds a lot of insight here.


        12/06/2013 at 6:25 AM

  4. Tim, I don’t like division either. I do have good fellowship with friends who are Baptist, Nazarene, and Lutheran. As you said before, we agree on most things and those things we do not agree on we can discuss among ourselves (by the way, I believe that it is possible to discuss these things in a civil and respectful manner; without anger… and we practice that). However, when it come to an evangelical outreach to non-believers, whose rules do you follow? The Lutheran would say something way different than the Baptist when it comes to “how to be saved”. It is primarily the views on how to be saved or how to stay saved that raise the denominational barriers. You cannot effectively evangelize where there are so many differing opinions on how one is saved.
    In our town, there is a community youth ministry that was started by 4 or 5 of the churches in the area. They pooled their money and hired a youth minister. After only about a year, he was told not to discuss with any of the youth “how to be saved”, because there was not agreement from all of his employers on how that should be answered. He continued and was so pressured that he ended up finding another position shortly after that. Somehow, they found another “youth minister” who would fill the position without ever having a discussion with the students regarding that question. So, what’s the point in having a community youth ministry if not to show the students how to have a relationship with God?
    The problem is that leaders of each denomination/view are convinced that they are right on these issues; therefore, they are not willing to give in. That being the case, there must be some level of division or there will simply be in-fighting and confusion.
    Now, if we could all just come to the conclusion that my way is the right way we could all get in one Accord… 🙂


    12/06/2013 at 1:28 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: