Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: Bible Translation, Part 3: That Doesn’t Seem Appropriate
Not long after I started serving his congregation, an older gentleman said to me, “I like how you just come out and talk to us.” He appreciated a more conversational style of preaching. On the other hand, I once got an email from a man who argued that even in a sermon a pastor should never use a contraction. Not surprisingly, he was an English professor.
Linguists call the level of formality of language its register. Virtually all languages have ways of speaking that reflect more or less formality. The language in our hymnals is fairly formal, even if our preaching runs more toward the conversational. When I write a conference paper, it’s more formal than when I preach.
Not all portions of the Bible are written in the same register. King Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8 is quite formal, and that generally comes out in English translations. In Hebrew, King Saul’s outburst in 1 Samuel 20:30 is quite profane. But almost no English translation reproduces his words in that register. English words corresponding to such a profane register would be hard to read in church or Bible class.
Robert Alter contrasts the registers of Hannah and Eli in 1 Samuel 1. He notes that Eli speaks in poetic parallels and is almost pompous, but Hannah speaks simply and from the heart—and she persuades the priest.[1] Alter makes the point that much Old Testament narrative is really conversations between people and that noticing the difference in the registers can be illuminating. A similar point can be made about New Testament texts as well.
But this raises a translation issue. Many church leaders would agree with this statement: “The goal [of a translation] is to make the text feel as though it was originally written in the target language, seamlessly blending with the cultural and linguistic norms.”[2] But would it surprise you to hear that there are other voices who argue that there is value in people being able to see that the Bible was written in a very different time and place? They argue that it is good for there to be “distance” between the reader and the text because a significant cultural and historical distance does, in fact, exist.
A particular translation can adopt a philosophy that leads it to smooth out more of the differences in register, while another translation might accentuate those differences. Which approach is better[WB1] ? Register finally has to be classified as one of those things that can never fully be brought out in translation. Translators make tough decisions about how much they can preserve. But for the exegete, recognizing differences in register can be helpful in identifying meaning. It can also provide a level of textual flavor that can inform preaching and help us to reach the people of God as we lead them to study God’s Word on a deeper level.
[1] Robert Alter, “The Art of Biblical Narrative” Revised and Updated (New York: Basic Books, 2011) 106-7.
[2] Liraz Postan “How To Evaluate Translation Quality: 8 Point Checklist” http://www.getblend.com/blog/evaluate-translation-checklist/
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 Assurances of Calvinism and Arminianism
The Fanny Crosby hymn Blessed Assurance is a favorite among both Calvinists and Arminians. Both Calvinists and Arminians (like all Christians) like having assurance of their standing with God. And both Calvinists and Arminians claim that their theological system provides the Christian with more assurance than the other.
The famous Calvinist preacher Charles Spurgeon once memorably compared Calvinism and Arminianism to two bridges, and this illustration helps contrast the different assurances offered by each tradition.
The Arminian bridge is wide, but it doesn’t go all the way across the gap. Within Arminianism, God’s promises and Christ’s death are universal in their intent—the bridge is wide because it is meant for everyone. This provides great assurance to the Christian who questions the authenticity of their own faith or wonders: “Does God really want to save me? Are his promises really for me? Did Jesus really die for me?” The answer, built on God’s promises, is a clear “yes.”
But within Arminianism, God’s promises and Christ’s death require some contribution from people for them to be believed and received—the bridge doesn’t go all the way across the gap because it requires people to do something to cross over into eternal life. This provides no assurance to the Christian who wonders: “Will I persevere in the faith?” For that kind of assurance, Arminians are left looking to themselves.
The Calvinist bridge, on the other hand, goes all the way across the gap, but it is narrow. Within Calvinism, God’s promises and Christ’s death are completely effective and sufficient for the elect—the bridge crosses the gap because it requires nothing more from people. This provides great assurance to the Christian who wonders: “Will I persevere in the faith?” The answer, built on God’s promises, is a clear “yes.”
But within Calvinism, God’s promises and Christ’s death are only meant for some people—the bridge is narrow because God does not actually want everyone on it. This provides no assurance to the Christian who questions the authenticity of their own faith or wonders: “Does God really want to save me? Are his promises really for me? Did Jesus really die for me?” For that kind of assurance, Calvinists are left looking to themselves.
Calvinists and Arminians are each latching onto one key part of biblical assurance—the Calvinists cling to the effectiveness of grace and the Arminians cling to the universality of grace—but neither manages to retain both of these key parts of biblical assurance. Far better than this kind of selective assurance is the comprehensive assurance that God actually provides—when instead of trying to harmonize and comingle law and gospel, we just proclaim each of them fully at the proper time. The person who questions the sufficiency of their own faith can be given assurance that God’s grace and Christ’s death are for all, and that certainly includes them. The person who questions whether their faith will last can be given assurance that God will preserve his people in the faith.
Yes, the way to eternal life is narrow (relatively few will ultimately be saved), but we can be thankful for the assurance God has given us—to appropriate and proclaim—of a wide bridge (meant for everyone) that goes all the way across (requires no contribution from us).
Rev. Dr. Aaron Jensen serves as pastor of St. Peter’s Lutheran in Monticello, MN.
Historical Theology: Learning from the Church Fathers—Irenaeus of Lyon
“Certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies … and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive…. These men falsify the oracles of God.”[1] That is how Irenaeus describes gnostic theology in his work, Against Heresies. However, Irenaues does not just tear down; he builds up too. He also teaches Christians how to interpret the Bible. He encourages learning from the Bible “simply, truthfully, and in a homely way.”[2] Irenaeus offers multiple hermeneutic principles, but this attitude of simplicity, truth, and plainness forms his foundation.
God’s word has context. Gnostics loved to cherry-pick words and passages out of their context, especially numbers. After “collecting a set of expressions and names scattered here and there [in Scripture], they twist them, as we have already said, from a natural to a non-natural sense.”[3] Irenaeus instead encourages that “they ought to adapt the numbers themselves, and those things which have been formed, to the true theory lying before them. For system does not spring out of numbers, but numbers from a system.”[4]
God’s Word is the only source for theology. Gnostics, Irenaeus writes, have no respect for the Word of God. “Besides the above [misrepresentations], they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.”[5] In contrast, whenever Irenaeus refutes a gnostic heresy, he only uses the Word of God. He argues “from the very words of Scripture” and nothing else.[6]
God’s word teaches only what God reveals. Gnostics wanted to explain the hidden things of God. However, Irenaeus reminds his reader that “if … any one does not discover the cause of all those things which become objects of investigation, let him reflect that man is infinitely inferior to God.”[7] Furthermore, “it is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skillful, to be found [among those who are] blasphemous against their own God.”[8]
Interpret unclear parts of God’s Word with clear parts. The Gnostic teachers loved to twist and muddy the parables as well. In response, Irenaeus writes that Christians stick to what is “openly and unambiguously expressed in terms in the Divine Scripture. And therefore, the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions.”[9]
It is both comforting and encouraging to know that Christians of all ages, from the ancient church to the Reformation to the 21st century, have approached God’s Word with such a sound, safe, cautious, and truth-loving hermeneutic.[10] By studying and learning the hermeneutics of past Christians, we are better equipped to face whatever problems might arise in our time, firmly rooted in the simple and plain Word of God.
This article is a condensed form of part of a chapter found in The Illumination of History: A Festschrift in Honor of Glen L. Thompson.
Rev. Orie Thomford serves as pastor of Our Savior Lutheran in Burlington, IA.
[1] Irenaeus, Haer. 1, pref. 1.
[2] Irenaeus, Haer. 1, pref. 3.
[3] Irenaeus, Haer. 1.9.4.
[4] Irenaeus, Haer. 2.25.1.
[5] Irenaeus, Haer. 1.20.1.
[6] Irenaeus, Haer. 2.27.2.
[7] Irenaeus, Haer. 2.25.3.
[8] Irenaeus, Haer. 2.26.1
[9] Irenaeus, Haer. 2.27.1
[10] Irenaeus, Haer, 2.29.1
Practical Theology: Encouraging Community
Buzzwords like “authenticity” and “community” are coming up in conversations about ministry lately. The risen Lord gives the greatest community to us—being part of the body of Christ! “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” (1 Cor 12:27, NIV).
The thing the Holy Spirit uses to form authentic community is gathering around Word and Sacrament. But how do we foster conversations and community-building among believers outside the worship service or Bible Class time? What encourages them to stay and talk to one another?
I once served as recruiter for Luther Preparatory School and had the privilege of travelling, attending, and often serving on Sunday mornings in congregations throughout the synod. I observed a common feature in our congregations that seems to help in this endeavor. The common feature is coffee and donuts, and a place to stand and talk while you enjoy them.
Children want to stay to get a donut. Parents smell the aroma of good coffee and are willing to stick around. It is intergenerational. I would not qualify this as “secret and shameful ways,” or “deception” (2 Cor 4:2, NIV).
We make a statement by having these things available and visible when the worship service ends. You are communicating that you want them to stay and visit. Many make a closing announcement in worship: “Please stay and join us for some fellowship time.”
A small 100-year-old country congregation I attended had built a room right off the sanctuary where refreshments were served each Sunday after the service, and everyone sat down and visited. Newer congregations built large narthexes or remodeled their spaces so tables and coffee nooks were immediately available when worship ended. A few churches with a coatroom narthex where there was no room removed the back two pews to enable gathering in the back of church.
Some are happy with simple donuts and coffee, but often people enjoy it so much they bring baked goods, fruit, or another items so the selection and variety grows. Some are willing to coordinate the “coffee ministry.” Some make it their passion not to have “just any coffee,” but make sure to have the good stuff. Juice, water, and tea also join the mix. I’ve seen sprinkles outlawed in the carpeted narthex to keep the custodians happy.
Some congregations put a line into their budget for the regular donut order from the local bakery to make sure they have enough available. Some have a free will donation basket off to the side.
It’s a simple, yet tried and true method to encourage people to stay and talk. We recently even had a member who requested an hour of fellowship time with church coffee and donuts before his Christian funeral. When people hear the invitation and see the spread available, they see that you really want them to stay and be a part of the community.
Rev. Nate Scharf serves as pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran in New Ulm, MN.