Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: Bible Translation, Part 4: When is an Error an Error?
It’s not uncommon in the WELS to hear a pastor disagree with the way a word or phrase is translated in a particular version of the Bible. Our synod spends huge amounts of money training our pastors in Greek and Hebrew to study the scriptures in the languages in which the Holy Spirit spoke. Inevitably, that’s going to lead to disagreements with the way passages are translated.
But does that mean that the translation is wrong? Sometimes, we speak as if it does. But do we understand the difference between disagreeing with how a verse is translated and the translation actually being in error? What is a translation error?
The simplest explanation would seem to be an instance where the Greek or Hebrew does not support what the English version published. When I was translating 1 Kings for the EHV, I made a translation error in 21:13. I translated two qal forms as if they were hiphils. (That error has been corrected in subsequent printed and electronic editions.)
But not every reading that seems to depart from the original language is truly a translation error. When a translation wants to use more natural English, the translators may offer readings that don’t strictly follow the Greek or Hebrew but which they believe do accurately capture the sense of what was originally written. Some Old Testament narrative sections have earthy expressions which might not be acceptable for reading in church. The translators usually offer a reading that is. They are fully aware that they are departing from the original text, so these are not errors.
This matters when the change actually affects doctrine. In Micah 5:2 the NIV 2011 reads: “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The EHV reads: “His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” The EHV clearly understands this as referring to the eternal generation of the Son of God. Many modern Bible scholars simply will not allow that such a thought could appear in an Old Testament context, so they resist the kind of rendering the EHV offers.
Does that mean that their translation is wrong? Their theology is wrong. I believe God intended us to see in Micah 5:2 that Jesus is born of the Father from eternity. If I were on a translation committee I would argue for something like what the EHV did. But I cannot call the translation an error because it is a possible rendering of the Hebrew. I don’t like it. But that doesn’t make it wrong. (There are, in fact, Bible-believing scholars who argue that the eternal generation of the Son is not the point of Micah 5:2.)
Intellectual honesty requires us to admit when a translation is possible, and therefore not, strictly speaking, an error. But we can still defend the translation we prefer. We might encourage our people to avoid some translations because we don’t want their faith to be disturbed. But what will our members think if we declare something to be “wrong” and they discover that we gave them a very one-sided understanding? What effect will that have on their confidence in us as their shepherds? What effect will it have on their faith?
Rev. Geoff Kieta serves as pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran in Menomonie, WI. He is a member of the WELS Translation Liaison Committee.
Systematic Theology: The Means of Grace within Calvinism and Arminianism
Last month we saw how Calvinism and Arminianism each give up one part of gospel assurance in their attempts to retain other parts of gospel assurance. This month, we conclude our series by seeing a further way that Calvinism and Arminianism rob Christians of gospel assurance—by holding theological positions which inevitably lead to a low view of the means of grace.
Neither Calvin nor Arminius were as overtly anti-sacramental as many of their followers have been. In fact, both Calvin and Arminius practiced and defended infant Baptism. But their teachings about salvation could not help but influence the way that Calvinists and Arminians have denigrated not only Baptism, but also Lord’s Supper and the Word.
According to Arminianism, what ultimately determines whether a person comes to faith and remains in faith is the will of the individual person (though the exact amount of credit attributed to the human will greatly varies among Arminians). If the human will is determinative, then the Sacraments are merely outward signs, and even the Word of God itself is seen as being nothing more than information for the human intellect and will to react to. God’s Word, then, tells a person what to believe and do, but it is not the real power that brings a person to believe or do it.
According to Calvinism, God will save an elect subset of humanity, but he has no sincere saving intention for all people. Many Calvinists similarly posit that Christ has redeemed his elect, but he has not made redemption for all people. So can Calvinists see the means of grace as distributing this limited Calvinist grace? Not really. The experience of the church teaches that not all who are baptized persist in faith to the end of their life. Therefore, the Calvinist concludes, Baptism cannot really have any inherent power to do anything (or else it would do it every time) and so it is nothing more than an outward sign. Similarly, since the Word of God is heard and the Lord’s Supper is received by those who ultimately are not saved, this means that they too cannot be an effective expression of God’s desire to save—because God does not actually save or intend to save all who receive them outwardly. They too become nothing more than signs.
The Calvinist understanding of the means of grace, then, resembles the philosophy of Occasionalism, which posits that God does not work through means, but works directly—merely alongside the means—when he wants to. The Calvinist understands that God is the one who creates and sustains faith, but ultimately the Calvinist does not believe that God does so through means, but thinks he does so directly—merely alongside the means—when he wants to. The way in which this robs a Christian of comfort is obvious—you could never look to your Baptism, your hearing of the Word, or your reception of the Supper as if those told you anything certain as to God’s saving, forgiving love for you.
When we recognize that God sincerely wants to save all and that Jesus died for all and that the Holy Spirit is the one who creates and sustains faith, then we also can appreciate the additional gospel comfort we can each receive from knowing that the means of grace are sincere, efficacious expressions of God’s saving intentions for us. We can say—and teach others to say—I know who I am and how I stand with God, because I am baptized, because I hear it in his Word, because I am assured of it in the Supper.
Prof. Aaron Jensen serves as professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.
Historical Theology: Teaching Church History, Part 1: Reviewing the Blessings
When I received my first call as a tutor at Michigan Lutheran Seminary, I was thrilled—until I learned I’d be teaching Latin and U.S. History. I didn’t consider myself a “history guy.” I just wanted to teach the Bible. But over time, I recognized that history is all the story of God’s grace. What’s more, studying history increased my understanding of current events and culture and thus better equipped me to bring God’s Word to people.
Perhaps you still find yourself where I did on assignment day—not a “history guy.” But even if you don’t remember many dates or details (or didn’t always give your full attention), your church history classes gave you valuable perspective and insights that most of your members don’t have. And they likely won’t, unless you teach them church history too.
The following list includes just some of the many blessings and benefits of studying church history, which you can extend to the people you serve.
The study of church history…
- Highlights Christ’s continued keeping of his promise to save sinners and sustain the Church.
- Displays God’s grace, providence, preservation, love, mercy, and faithfulness.
- Demonstrates how God works for and through his people, even in suffering.
- Reveals the insidiousness and spiritually deadly results of sin and false teaching.
- Underscores the true and invaluable treasure we have in the truth of Scripture.
- Identifies false teachings that are still around today and gives biblical responses to them.
- Broadens our appreciation for the holy Christian Church and the communion of saints.
- Clarifies the developments and differences of various Christian denominations.
- Gives deeper explanations for many of our worship elements and practices.
- Allows the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us to point us to Jesus.
- Provides a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the world in which we live.
- Allows us to wrestle with real-life issues we face as Christians from new perspectives.
- Reminds us we are all significantly impacted by the time and culture in which we live.
- Encourages us to reexamine our long-held assumptions about the Christian life.
- Promotes a deeper consideration of our personal histories and how they impact us.
Still, perhaps one or more of the following thoughts makes you hesitant to teach church history:
- I don’t know that much about church history, and let’s be honest, it’s kind of boring.
- I just want to teach the Bible. Besides, my members have too many practical problems right now for us to spend our precious time talking about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago.
- There’s too much to cover! Where would I even start? It would take too long.
- I’m still not convinced this is worth my time, or that my people would be interested or consider it worthwhile.
Over the next four months, I’ll respond to each of those objections and offer practical examples and resources to help encourage and equip you to point your people to Christ through the teaching of church history.
Rev. Nathanael Jensen serves as pastor at Cross of Christ Lutheran in Las Cruces, NM.
Practical Theology: Working Together as a Team
You and I are always part of a team—whether that is as a pastor working with a congregation or as a pastor working as part of a large staff.
When we are part of a team, God helps us appreciate the different gifts he has given to each of us. These differences are by his design (1 Cor 12).
God blesses our working together and our modeling the unconditional love God has for us. It is a testimony to others. “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35, NIV). When we work in unity we sing as David did 3000 years ago: “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity” (Ps 133:1).
We know the devil doesn’t want this. Our sabotaging sinful natures don’t let us forget we are in the church militant, full of us sinner-saints. It has always been so. The disciples argued amongst themselves about which of them was the greatest (Luke 22:24). Paul had to warn Roman Christians, “Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud…do not be conceited…do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Rom 12:16-17).
Pride, conceit, tallying wrongs and holding grudges seek to kill you and your team. Disagreements come where both parties’ opinions might be valid like with Paul and Barnabas, where one “did not think it wise.” “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company” (Acts 15:38-39, NIV).
Working together takes work. “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel” (Phil 4:2-3, NIV). There will be conflict, even “sharp” disagreements. God can even use them to mature us, help us learn, develop patience and self-control, and form deeper bonds. Systems like StrengthsFinder, Working Genius, Traction, etc. can serve a purpose in helping a team work as a team.
Realize it is not by mistake God has placed you where you are. “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries in their lands. God did this so that they would seek him” (Acts 17:26-27, NIV). God uses both peace and struggle for our good. God grows teams together for carrying out the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18). We can address issues and conflict in love. Paul encouraged the Colossians, “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Col 3:12-13).
Though it takes constant work to work together, God works through our work together to bless us and others as we model and share the message of reconciliation.
Rev. Nate Scharf serves as pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran in New Ulm, MN.