Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: Bible Translation, Part 2: A Doctrinal Danger?
One of the never-ending debates about Bible translation deals with how close a translation should come to the original Greek and Hebrew. Formal equivalence allows the English reader to see more of the Greek or Hebrew while functional equivalence makes the text sound more natural in English. But why would a translator or committee choose one approach or the other? There often seems to be an underlying belief about what happens when either approach is adopted.
Mark Ward summed up some of those beliefs. He wrote, “For most truly ‘expository’ Bible teaching of literate adults—the kind of teaching that really digs into Scripture—I think you’ll find that a more literal translation … is the best tool.” This argument crops up a great deal: formal equivalence leads to more correct doctrinal formulations because it is a more accurate translation.
Ward made the corresponding point about functional equivalence: “One of the best things you can do in evangelism or counseling is to ask people to read the Bible in your hand for themselves. … Such a conversation—on the bus, on a plane, in a park, at a store—is not the place for expository-level textual analysis. You want simple, clear English and a minimum of interpretive difficulty.” So real-life application demands simple and clear language.[1]
But is it always so clear cut? The website Catholic Answers chooses to demonstrate the same point with the Greek word ergon: “Functional Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as ‘work’ when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as ‘deeds’ or ‘doing’) when it would serve Catholic doctrine.” The article points out that the NIV renders ergon in Romans 4:2 as “works” but in Romans 2:6-7, it renders the same Greek word family as “what he has done” and “doing good” “to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone.” The author asserts, “If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as ‘work’ then it would be clear that [these passages] support the Catholic view of salvation.”[2]
Arguing for formal equivalence as the gold standard for really getting the meaning out of the text is a double-edged sword. You can nitpick about Greek and Hebrew to argue for something that clearly is not the scriptural position. It is very possible to reach doctrinally false conclusions when using an approach that favors the original Greek and Hebrew. At the same time, it’s equally possible to get lost in Paul’s arguments or Isaiah’s poetry even when using an approach that favors readability in English.
It’s worthwhile to know the pitfalls of both approaches. But translation philosophy is not what makes an English Bible the Word of God. It’s the content that the Holy Spirit built into his eternal Word and the promise that God’s power works in that Word. The translator’s job is to bring that content into English as faithfully as he or she can.
[1] Mark Ward, “How to Choose a Good Bible Translation: 5 Guidelines,” http://www.logos.com/grow/5-guidelines-for-picking-the-right-bible-translation-for-the-right-situation/
[2] “Tract: Bible Translations Guide,” http://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide/
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 Evangelism of Calvinism and Arminianism
How do Calvinist views affect evangelism?
Historically, a relatively small number of Calvinists have taken their teachings of double predestination and limited atonement to their logical extreme and had no use for evangelism. “If God doesn’t want to save them, then neither should we.” However, most Calvinists, recognizing the Bible’s clear directive to evangelize, have not taken this position, and so a lot of mission activity has come out of the Calvinist tradition.
But even if Calvinist teachings do not necessarily prevent a person from carrying out evangelism, they do prevent a Calvinist from saying everything they can and should say in evangelism. Because Calvinists will not feel comfortable telling an unconverted person that God wants to save them or that Jesus died for them, they (somewhat deceptively) will say things like “Jesus died for sinners like you and me”—where the Calvinist evangelist means only to include sinners like the evangelism prospect, even while knowing the evangelism prospect is likely to interpret that statement as meaning to include them. As the conversation progresses, the gospel may end up being presented in terms that sound less certain and more conditional—all because they will not be willing to directly state that God desires that person’s salvation and that Jesus positively died for their sins.
How do Arminian views affect evangelism?
Arminians would have no issue asserting that a loving God wants to save the evangelism prospect and that Jesus died for their sins. But Arminians make man responsible—at least to some degree—for his positive response to the gospel. This can result in evangelistic efforts that prioritize putting a person in the proper cognitive or emotional state to increase their receptivity to the gospel. In its crasser form, it also can result in evangelistic appeals that more directly call on the unconverted to choose or make a decision.
Non-Arminians often caricature decision theology as teaching that a person must choose to believe in Jesus. However, what decision theology often is is something far more insidious. “Choosing to believe” is an oxymoron—even in non-spiritual matters we do not choose to believe something. That’s not how belief works. A truth convinces us of its truthfulness, thereby winning our trust and so we believe it. But we do choose our actions.
Accordingly, the “decision” called for by the decision theology of many Arminians is not merely a decision to believe but a decision to do something, namely, to dedicate and turn one’s life over to Jesus. This makes a person’s voluntary commitment to a life of sanctification out to be a significant part of the reason how they have come to be saved. So such a view is not merely claiming credit for one’s conversion; it is actually often claiming that one’s works of devotion to Jesus are how one receives God’s favor. And it is unsurprising, then, that Arminian evangelistic appeals sometimes call on a person to perform Christian actions even before the gospel has evoked Christian trust. “Get them to live like Christians and then they’ll believe like Christians.”
As we take up the evangelistic task, we can be thankful for a gospel which is sincerely for all, and which is solely responsible for engendering the faith by which alone we are saved.
Rev. Dr. Aaron Jensen serves as pastor of St. Peter’s Lutheran in Monticello, MN.
Historical Theology: Learning from the Church Fathers—Justin Martyr
In the early second century, Justin Martyr wrote, “Pray for our enemies, and endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God the ruler of all.”[1] Does Justin Martyr’s encouragement still stand for us, 2000 years later? It does.
While differences exist between ancient Rome and modern America, there are two key similarities. First, Romans viewed Christians as divisive. Within Roman religious life, “the attitude toward this rich diversity of gods was completely tolerant.”[2] In contrast, “Christian and Jews insisted that they alone had the true faith and the only way of salvation.… So the Church’s exclusive, intolerant, missionary attitude toward other religious marked Christians out and made them unpopular.”[3] Thus, Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny all call Christianity a “superstition,”[4] because Christians rejected every single Roman god.
Second, Romans viewed Christians as foolish. Galen viewed both Christians and Jews “as insufficiently reliant upon philosophical reasoning and as too much based on claims about divine revelation that have to be taken on faith.”[5] Lucian, in his satirical work The Death of Peregrinus, mocks Christians for their kindness and naivety.[6]
That sounds familiar to our tolerant, enlightened American culture. The only sin is denying another’s truth or denying modern wisdom.
What to do? Follow Justin’s example. Justin was one of the early Christian apologists, those who engaged with the world at large to witness their faith. Justin gives us a simple example: dialogue with the world around us. How?
With love. Needham describes Justin’s interaction in his Dialogue with Trypho, a fictional conversation between Justin and a Jew, as “a learned and polite debate… relatively free from the anti-Jewish feelings that spoil so many early Christian writings.”[7] Our goal is to be on friendly terms, if possible, with those we talk to, leaving the door open for future talk.
Ask questions and be curious. Although it’s a fictional work for a rhetorical purpose, Justin fills his dialogue with questions. We don’t need to attack, win, or score points. Genuine curiosity about how the other person thinks may open doors to share the truth with them.
Find common ground. In Dialogue, Justin uses Scripture as his main weapon because he speaks to Jews. In his other works, like his First Apology, Justin relies on philosophy as he talks to pagan Romans and Greeks. The lesson holds true today. We can start the conversation with others on common ground.
To what end? Jesus. Sharing Jesus was always Justin’s goal. In both his works, Justin wishes that all might be “partakers” of Jesus with him.[8] In his final parting with Trypho, Justin writes, “I can wish no better thing for you, that… you may be of the same opinion as ourselves and believe that Jesus is the Christ of God.”[9] Our goal in talking with others is not to win. It’s to share Jesus, that everyone might share his joy.
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] Justin, 1 Apol. 14.
[2] Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods, 45.
[3] Needham, Christ’s Power, 84.
[4] Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Suetonius, Lives, 16; Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96.
[5] Galen, quoted in Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods, 27.
[6] Lucian, Passing of Peregrinus, 13, quoted in Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods, 29.
[7] Needham, Christ’s Power, 93.
[8] Justin, 1 Apol. 14. Dialogue, 58.
[9] Justin, Dialogue, 142.
Practical Theology: Working for the Lord
Our bulletin-stuffing group got on the subject of young people working. One’s business-owner-friend attended a workshop on understanding the new generation entering the workforce. The message was: “You can’t change them. You must change your thinking about them and adjust accordingly.” This concerned the group who have long extolled the “Protestant work ethic.”
We know we should be faithful in our work, but what is “faithful?” I hear Solomon’s warning in Proverbs 6:6: “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!” People talk about 80-to-90-hour weeks, but they themselves admit that this isn’t healthy.
Member impressions fluctuate. “Pastor, I hate to interrupt you because I know you are so busy.” “Well, it must be nice to work one day a week.”
Some congregations list a number of duties and estimated hours for a typical ministry year. Others have no expectations listed except “faithful.”
Older ministers lovingly warn against “sacrificing your family on the altar of the ministry,” lamenting that they themselves weren’t home enough. Some question if the next generations understand that the ministry is not just a nine-to-five, forty-hour-a-week job.
But there are intangible benefits to a pastor’s schedule too. I sat in the church library with a newly retired factory worker who was looking for more ways to connect with God’s Word. Through the open door came busting in my then three-year-old who stopped by to give me a big hug. Without any guile, after my child left, the factory worker said that that could never have happened at their thirty-year place of work.
There are days when I think the work will never stop. There are days when I have complete flexibility. Both are opportunities to serve God, my family, his people.
What does faithfulness look like? We tend to think in terms of hours, productivity, priority, delegation, leadership, health, comparison, and more! Some give the encouragement to keep a log of time spent for ministry tasks (even down to fifteen-minute segments) and reflect on productivity. Maybe we need to log family time as well, or time studying God’s Word vs. other tasks.
God’s Word gives encouraging examples. Jethro lovingly chided Moses, “What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone” (Exod 18:17-18). Paul motivates with resurrection joy and confidence, “Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58). “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters” (Col 3:23). As you strive to be faithful, God knows your heart and efforts. “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end” (Heb 6:10-11).
Rev. Nate Scharf serves as pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran in New Ulm, MN.