Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 41

The Christian and God the Father

Christians recognize and confess God as One in Three Persons according to what has been made known in Scripture: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit (John 1:1, 14, Colossians 2:8-9). The members of the Godhead exist as distinct “personalities” (John 8:16-18), yet remain perfectly one in nature, purpose, will, and intention: in a word, one in relational unity (John 17:20-23). YHWH, the Creator God of Israel, is One: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in perfect unity (Genesis 1:26-27, Deuteronomy 6:4-6, John 8:58).

The triune nature of the Godhead is indeed a divine mystery, a matter we take by faith based on what God has made known about Himself. Such an understanding has always proven controversial; contentions regarding the nature of God consumed Christendom for its first half millennium, and to this day the triune reality of God is not well grasped by many.

Christians must be careful lest they make too much of the distinctions among the members of the Godhead; God’s unity remains a profound element of His nature, so much so that the Scriptures speak of God in the third person singular even though He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, there is danger in the opposite extreme as well in entirely conflating the Three Persons of the Godhead. Jesus Himself, as well as the authors of the New Testament, found profit in speaking of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; we therefore also do well to explore the Scriptures to see how we as Christians should relate to each member of the Godhead.

The danger of conflation is nowhere more apparent than with God the Father. Far too often discussions of “God” only involve understanding the triune nature of the Godhead; Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit get described in greater detail as distinct “personalities” while the Father is neglected. While Christians have good reason to refer to the whole Godhead as God, New Testament authors tend to refer specifically to the Father when they speak of God (e.g. Romans 1:1, 7).

Such conflation is understandable: most of what we imagine regarding God in general is specifically true of God the Father. God the Father is the Creator of heaven and earth, having spoken all things into existence by His Word (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Psalm 33:6-7, John 1:1-3). God the Father has all authority; any authority which exists is empowered by God the Father (Romans 13:1; cf. Matthew 28:18-19). God the Father has communicated His Word to mankind by the Spirit through the prophets and in Jesus (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Furthermore, God the Father is not only spirit but also ineffable and literally inconceivable: as YHWH, the Existent One, no image can be fashioned which looks like Him, because no man has or could see Him as He is (John 4:24; Exodus 20:1-5, John 1:18, 6:46). Thus, whatever image we may have of God the Father in our minds inevitably proves wrong, and as humans, it is hard to identify with something or someone of whom you have difficulty mentally conceiving. And yet we are given assurances that Jesus is the express image of God, the imprint of His character; if we have seen Jesus, we have seen the essential character and nature of God (John 14:6-9, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3). Indeed, Jesus represents the great testimony of God the Father’s love, grace, and mercy: the Father sent the Son into the world to redeem it by His death and resurrection, to do for us what we could not do for ourselves (John 3:16, Romans 5:6-11).

While the Father may seem more remote than the Son or the Spirit, He need not be; the Scriptures have made His desire for relational unity with humanity well-known (John 17:20-23, Acts 17:26-31). The great revelation we obtain from Jesus involves recognizing God as our heavenly Father: a loving parent, not a cantankerous curmudgeon (e.g. Matthew 6:8, 9, 14). God is our Father because we are His offspring, made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27, Acts 17:28). God was under no compulsion to save us or care for us at all, and yet He gives good gifts to all mankind, and especially those who seek His purposes through His Son (Acts 14:17, Romans 8:31-32, James 1:17). God wants to hear from us truly and sincerely, as a parent loves to receive a word from his child (1 Peter 5:7). We are invited to see the Father in the tender portrayal of the father of the prodigal son and his older brother in Luke 15:11-32, full of compassion and mercy, welcoming all those who have grown weary of sin, darkness, and death, and gently (or, at times, not so gently) rebuking those who have considered righteousness their birthright. Having God as our Father ought to elevate our understanding of ourselves as human beings: we are of great value and we ought to act with integrity and dignity, seeking righteousness and holiness as He is righteous and holy (1 Peter 1:15-16).

Yet even as God is our Father, He is also seen as our Master, and we are His servants (Luke 17:7-10). We are the creation; He is our Creator; it is not for us to answer back to Him, but to heed what He says and do it (cf. Romans 9:19-21). God would rather be the kindly Father, but also warns that He will come in judgment against all unrighteousness and iniquity (Romans 1:18-20, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 1 Peter 1:17-20). God is full of love, grace, and mercy; and yet He is also holy, righteous, and just!

We must resist drawing the wrong conclusions from the images of God as Father and God as Master: we are not entitled to salvation as a child would be entitled to his or her inheritance, and God is no oppressive taskmaster or tyrant. Instead, we ought to have the relational intimacy with God as a child does with a parent while proving willing to serve God as a benevolent Master.

From before the beginning until after the end, there is God (Genesis 1:1, Revelation 21:1-22:6). When it is all said and done, God will dwell in the midst of His people forever (Revelation 21:1-11). God the Father made us to love Him as He loves the Son, the Spirit, and us; in this life the Christian is to learn, grow, and mature so as to want God Himself, proving no longer satisfied merely with what God gives. Christians enjoy the great privilege of getting to know God the Father; we will spend eternity in His presence, basking in His light and love. May we draw near to God the Father through the Son and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and God the Father appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Bible Translations, VII: Which Bible Is Best For You?

We began an exploration into the Bible in English by sympathizing with the modern English reader in regards to the alphabet soup of Bible translations and versions which exist today. We have come to a better understanding of why so many different Bible translations and versions exist and what motivated their publication. We are now in a better position to consider the question which confronts every modern English reader of the Bible: which translation or version is best for me?

Having explored the history of Bible translations and versions in English, we can maintain confidence that most Bibles in English do reasonably well at reflecting the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the Old and New Testaments. Discoveries and research over the past couple of hundred years has led to greater understanding of the Biblical text and more accurate translations and versions.

The King James Version and New King James Version (KJV/NKJV) remain very popular Bibles until today, and for good reason: the King James Version was the Bible in English for almost three hundred years. Many continue to appreciate the sound and texture of the Elizabethan English used in its translation. One can certainly gain an understanding of the Gospel from the King James Version; it is not a problematic translation in its own right. There are many who wish to elevate the King James Version to a place it was not given by God, Jesus, or even its translators: it is not uniquely inspired, but represents the best efforts of scholarship as of 1611. Since then we have learned much about the text of the Bible and the cultures represented therein, and we as Christians do well to benefit from that learning and not close ourselves off from it. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe God gives special commendation to anyone for making Bible reading and study a greater challenge by reading from a version using language challenging to understand; to the contrary, God always communicated to the people in the common vernacular of the day.

The revisions of the King James Version in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have produced excellent versions which attempt to faithfully translate the original into understandable English. They maintain the strength of the tradition of the King James Version without the archaic language and take into account the discoveries and insights gained over the past two hundred years. To this end the reader of the Bible in English does well to be at least acquainted with the American Standard Version (ASV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). The NASB and ESV are especially recommended as primary Bibles for reading, studying, preaching, and/or teaching.

The past 50 years have seen a proliferation of dynamic equivalence translations, versions which seek to provide a “thought-for-thought” translation to help the reader understand the author’s primary purpose in the text. Paraphrases represent the extreme of this trend; on the other side, literal versions seek to render the text with as little translation as possible.

Dynamic equivalence translations may help a person new to the Bible to better navigate and negotiate the text; they also can challenge the more mature Bible student in how they understand the text. There is a place for dynamic equivalence translations, as well as for literal versions, but they should not become one’s primary way of approaching the Word of God in English. Too many nuances get lost in translation; the inferences a reader would build on the basis of a reading in a dynamic equivalence translation may not be sustainable in light of the specific wording of the original text.

Bible translation remains an art, and not a science, for good reason: every translation must balance two equally important imperatives. The translation must accurately reflect the wording and substance of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; the translation must also convey that wording and substance in a way which the modern English reader can grasp and understand with as little confusion and distortion as possible. Anyone who insists on one imperative without the other is missing an important dimension to the work of communicating the Word of God in the 21st century. Disagreement can, and does, exist regarding specific translation choices and whether to translate a given verse or passage so as to emphasize original wording or primary intended meaning; no one, even translators, are entirely free from confessional or doctrinal bias. Nevertheless, on the whole, to suggest whole Bible versions are Satanically inspired or doctrinally compromised is presumptuous and unwarranted. With the exception of certain versions (the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular), translations of the text are mostly defensible, even if a reader might be uncomfortable with its implications or with inferences a person may draw from them. Accusations of bad faith are generally unwarranted.

Ironically, in the end, the initial question proves somewhat problematic, for there is no one translation or version in English which ought to be considered the best in all respects and which ought to have a corner on the market. Bible students have their favorite versions, and often for good reasons; yet honest Bible students will admit the weaknesses of their favorite version and will have no difficulty commending another version for having a superior reading. At other times it may not even be a matter of superior or inferior: sometimes different versions will translate so as to bring out different nuances or approach the same text in different yet mutually beneficial and enhancing ways.

Bible readers in English do well to learn to appreciate and value the treasure trove of resources at their disposal. They can learn to benefit from all the different ways the text of the Bible have been translated and conveyed into English. They do well to choose a version like the English Standard Version (ESV) or New American Standard Bible (NASB) as primary, but also can benefit from exploring readings in all sorts of versions to come to the best possible understanding of what God has made known in Scripture. Modern Bible software like Accordance, Logos, and e-Sword allow the Bible student immediate access to many versions to this end.

God intends for readers of modern English to come to an understanding of His Word and be saved; most modern English translations and versions can be used to this end in some way or another. May we dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of the truth of God in Christ and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, VII: Which Bible Is Best For You? appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Judgment Redounds upon the Nations

The prophet Joel had forecast a message of doom and despair for Judah and Jerusalem: a terrible plague of locusts of historic proportions (Joel 1:1-2:27). Whether the locusts were actual insects sent to ravage the land or a way of describing the Assyrian host is contested; even if Joel spoke of locusts, we know the Assyrian, and then the Babylonian, would overrun Judah as judgments from YHWH (cf. 2 Kings 18:13-19:37, 25:1-26). In those days Judah and Jerusalem would be brought low; the nations would vaunt against her.

Yet Joel did not leave Judah and Jerusalem destitute: he spoke of a promised day when YHWH would pour out His Spirit upon the remnant which would be saved (Joel 2:28-32). These days would be fully manifest after the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Acts 2:14-39).

Joel continued by extending more hope for the vindication of Israel in Joel 3:1-21. YHWH promised to bring all the nations together into the “Valley of Jehoshaphat,” perhaps better “valley where YHWH judges,” in order to exercise judgment against the nations for scattering the people of God throughout their lands, enslaving others, and selling still more (Joel 3:1-3). Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia received special mention for having taken the resources of Israel and selling Judahite captives to the Greeks in order to depopulate them from the land: YHWH would recompense them on their own heads, and they would be sold into slavery (Joel 3:4-8).

Joel envisioned the judgment scene as it would play out: the nations would be summoned for war. In a reversal of Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3, the nations are called to beat their plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears so as to come and fight (Joel 3:9-10). All the nations would come together for judgment, and YHWH would reap the harvest and tread the winepress of their wickedness (Joel 3:11-13). The sun and moon would be darkened on the day of the valley of decision; the heavens and earth would shake from the roar of YHWH when He would prove a refuge to His people, a stronghold to Israel (Joel 3:14-16).

In this way Israel would recognize YHWH as their God in Zion: Jerusalem would be holy, and no stranger would live there (Joel 3:17). The land would produce wine, milk, and water, while Egypt and Edom will become desolations for what they have done to the Judahites in shedding blood (Joel 3:18-19). Judah and Jerusalem would abide forever, for YHWH would cleanse them, dwelling in Zion (Joel 3:20-21).

The conclusion of Joel’s recorded prophetic message underscored YHWH’s concern for His people. Yes, He would be compelled to judge them; yes, they would be laid low in the endeavor, and for a time, the nations would gloat and exalt over Israel and YHWH. Yet they would not get the last word; they would be gathered for judgment, and they would be held accountable for what they had done. God would vindicate His people. Jerusalem and Judah would be in distress, but only for a time; the day of the valley of decision would draw near. Even though His people often proved faithless and required the sharp blow of His justice, YHWH never abandoned or gave up on them or His purposes for them. There would be a time of restoration.

Images based in Joel 3:1-21 would arise in the Revelation given to John. John would see the one like a Son of Man reap the earth; an angel would then reap the grape harvest, and it would be trodden in the winepress of the wrath of God, and blood would flow for miles (Revelation 14:14-20). John would see the nations gathered for battle against the Lord of lords and King of kings at “Armageddon,” and the Lord Jesus would overcome them with the sword proceeding from His mouth, the Word of God (Revelation 16:12-16, 19:11-21).

If we look to the history books to find some grand judgmental event somewhere in the Levant we will be disappointed. If we thus project this event into the future we would miss the point. The judgment may not have concretely taken place in a particular valley in Jewish territory, but YHWH absolutely judged those who plundered His people. Assyria was overrun in a moment by the Medes and Babylonians, just as Nahum prophesied. Babylon would fall to the Persians and ultimately become a ruin: a backwater of little consequence in the days of Jesus of Nazareth, and completely forgotten until rediscovered by Europeans professing the God of Israel in the 19th century. Edom would be conquered by the Jews under John Hyrcanus and compelled to convert to Judaism. Tyre and Sidon would lose their independence to the Persians, Macedonians, and Romans in turn. Israel would suffer another Day of YHWH and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE; the Romans, after suffering wave after wave of tragedy, would ultimately profess Christ, and their Empire would be no more.

The people of God have much to gain from Joel’s prophecies in Joel 3:1-21. Perhaps there are times when God judges His people, or allows His people to suffer tragedy, humiliation, and loss. In those days the enemies of God’s people gloat and exalt, presuming their gods or they by their strength have conquered. Yet God will have the last laugh; whatever they imposed upon the people of God will redound back to them. As they represented the poured out wrath of God, so they will drain the dregs of the cup of the wrath of God. God may have to chastise and judge His people, but He does not give up on them or His purposes in them. May we serve God in Christ to obtain the resurrection, finding cleansing in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Judgment Redounds upon the Nations appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Suicide

The news seems to come at an unrelenting pace: yet another person has taken their own life. Sometimes it is a teenager who would seem to have their whole life in front of them but felt as if he or she could no longer handle the pressures of life. Sometimes it is a celebrity who had fame and fortune but proved haunted by feelings of inadequacy and/or profound pain. Whether old or young, rich or poor, suicide is a terrible tragedy: for some reason or another a person has not found value in this life, and family members and friends are left to grieve and wonder how it all went so horribly wrong.

In modern Western culture, suicide is still seen as a shameful thing, a devaluation of the gift of life; in some religions, and even within “Christendom,” it is reckoned as a “mortal sin.” Suicide is against the law in much of the United States; granted, those who successfully commit the act cannot be prosecuted, but even the attempt is unlawful. For these and many other reasons suicide was one of the unmentionable things; families who suffered the loss of a family member to suicide are further burdened by shame, internally and externally.

One might expect the Bible to provide explicit and thorough condemnation of suicide; it may come as a surprise to find out this is not the case. King Saul of Israel fell on his sword to die once he was injured so that the Philistines could not get the glory of torturing and killing him; his armorbearer did the same once Saul was dead (1 Samuel 31:5-6). The Roman jailer in Philippi, presuming the prisoners all escaped after an earthquake, prepared to kill himself, since it was more honorable for a Roman soldier to take his own life in such a circumstance rather than face corporal punishment (Acts 16:27). These examples reflect ancient attitudes regarding suicide: at times it was a more honorable way of dying than being executed.

And yet, on the other hand, the New Testament presumes a level of self-interest and self-care. Paul would have the Philippian Christians look not only to their own interests, but also to the interests of others (Philippians 2:4). Paul rightly emphasized the need for concern regarding the welfare of others, but we do well to note that he assumed the Philippians will give at least some consideration to their own interest as well. In his instruction to husbands in Ephesians 5:28-30 Paul assumed self-love: a man is to love his wife as his own flesh, since no one hates their own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it. While we might look for the exception to the rule, Paul’s rule does reflect reality: in the absence of some mitigating factor, people automatically take care of their own bodies and its basic needs.

God has not only given us life but has also extended hope of life for eternity in the resurrection; death is the enemy, not a friend (1 Corinthians 15:55-57). Nevertheless, there is no blanket condemnation of those who commit suicide in Scripture; neither is there commendation or justification for it. As Christians we therefore do well to avoid any kind of blanket condemnation or justification of suicide; God, in His holiness, righteousness, love, and mercy, will render judgment (Romans 14:10-12, James 4:11-12). The reasons for suicide, after all, are legion. Some believe they are sacrificing themselves for a greater cause and die as “martyrs” while killing others; others murder people and kill themselves as well in order to avoid earthly consequences for their behavior. Some commit suicide as an attempt to “get back” at or hurt other people; others do so to escape shame or consequences of immoral behavior or personal failures. And then there are some who feel driven to suicide by relentless bullying and harassment by others. Many who feel driven to suicide experience forms of mental illness, especially depression. Few would expect much mercy to be shown to those who commit suicide for the earlier reasons; we hope many of the last find mercy, for they were not in their right mind when they acted as they did, and perhaps will be accounted as those who suffered from physical illnesses. We thus do well to trust in God and His judgment in such matters.

Suicide, no matter the reason or justification for the act, leaves tragedy and suffering in its wake. Family, friends, and other loved ones are left to grapple with the hole left in their lives from the loss of a loved one. Those who have lost family or friends to suicide ought to have our compassion, love, and care. We should grieve and mourn with them. Suicide can be the tragic action of a person not in his or her right mind and yet still a selfish act at the same time. May God comfort, strengthen, and sustain all those who bear the grief of the loss of a loved one by suicide.

We do well to not extend judgmentalism toward others in depressed circumstances but love, compassion, and mercy. People are starved for human contact and kindness; many just want to know someone cares for them. As followers of the Lord Jesus we ought to be that person who shows that love and care!

Perhaps you are contemplating suicide. You may be convinced that no one loves you and there is no reason to continue with life. Please do not listen to those voices inside your head. They are damnable lies. God loves you; He has sent His Son to die for you; He desires for you to spend eternity with Him in the resurrection (John 3:16). We love you as a fellow human being given the gift of life; you are as precious in the sight of God as any one of us (Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 2:4). Please reach out to us so we can talk and be of any service we can without judgment. Please call 1-800-273-8255; they also can help you at this difficult time in your life. May we all find hope in Christ and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Suicide appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Bible Translations, VI: Literal Versions and Paraphrases

The Bible was written between 1,900 and 3,500 years ago in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; in America today we speak and read in modern English. The Bible, therefore, reflects a different time and in many ways a different world than our own. Every Bible translator is confronted with a large task: how to render the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts in such a way as to faithfully represent what was written yet in a way which can be readily understood by the modern English reader. Most translators and revisers have attempted to strike a balance between faithfulness and comprehension; some will tend to favor a bit more faithfulness over comprehension (as in formal equivalence, or “word for word” translations), and others more recently have also begun to favor comprehension a bit over faithfulness (dynamic equivalence, or “thought for thought” translations). Some translators, however, have produced translations and versions which completely privilege one over the other: those who favor faithfulness fully over comprehension have produced literal versions, and those who favor comprehension over faithfulness have produced paraphrases.

The goal of literal versions is to render the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English with the least amount of alteration as possible, so that the reader might get a feel for the original. The American Standard Version at times functions as a literal version; literal versions have been produced by Robert Young (1862), John Darby (1890), and Jay Green (Literal Translation of the Bible, or LITV; 1985). Recently the Modern Literal Version (MLV) has also been completed. All of these editions rely on the Textus Receptus or Majority Text for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament; in the latter the literal format does not lend itself well to variants derived from the translations.

Literal translations have a heritage in much of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), infamous for maintaining Hebrew sentence structure and even idiomatic phraseology in much of the text. Yet it can be argued that Greek translators of the Hebrew text were primarily translating for fellow Israelites who would have maintained some familiarity with Hebrew or Aramaic.

Many literal translations do accomplish their purpose: they often render the text in barely translated English. For students of ancient languages these versions can help them work through translation issues; those not familiar with ancient languages can quickly see the types of challenges which translators face.

Nevertheless literal translations are a bit of a misnomer, for most literal translations are not 100% literal. Many idiomatic phrases or grammatical constructions are fully translated and not left as is. Many times a truly “literal” translation would be so incoherent in English as to be barely comprehensible; the translators have been forced to flesh out the text’s meaning to make at least some sense in English. One can use Bible software to compare how the different “literal” versions will render a given verse or passage and can see many differences which exist.

On the other end of the spectrum, the goal of paraphrases is to capture the meaning of the Biblical text into English with less concern regarding the constraints of the wording derived from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The most popular paraphrase of today is Eugene Peterson’s The Message. Many of the “dynamic equivalence” translations reach paraphrase level, like the Bible in Basic English (BBE), Common English Bible (CEB), Today’s English Version (TEV), The Living Bible, and The Voice.

Many cast aspersions on paraphrases and the motivations behind them; any such work of translation, especially done by one author, will manifest certain biases. Nevertheless, paraphrases themselves have a heritage in the medieval world, let alone in the ways that the Word of God is preached and proclaimed to people for their understanding throughout history.

On the whole, paraphrases do accomplish their purpose: the primary meaning of the text is front and center and easily understood by the modern English reader, but anyone who is hearing a paraphrase read while themselves reading a formal equivalence version might wonder at times if a different book is being read! The reader might get a clear understanding of the primary meaning of a passage from a paraphrase, but he or she cannot confidently draw any conclusions or inferences based on how the paraphrase renders the text.

Both literal versions and paraphrases have their place. Literal versions can help a reader piece together information about how the text is constructed in the original; paraphrases can help a reader understand the basic message of a text and can challenge a Bible student’s comfortable framework of looking at certain words, phrases, or passages. One need not always come to agreement with the translator of a paraphrase in order to appreciate the paradigm challenge.

Nevertheless, both literal versions and paraphrases suffer from the same challenge: Bible versions which overemphasize faithfulness over meaning, or meaning over faithfulness, prove unbalanced. Literal versions and paraphrases both distort in their own unique ways: literal versions distort by not providing the reader with enough information to come to a full understanding of the text, and paraphrases by entirely masking the phrasing and words used in the original texts. For good reason most translators have sought to balance the two imperatives. Those who suggest that literal versions are by necessity the most accurate are deceived, confusing their philosophy of translation for the work of translation itself. Those who suggest that meaning is all-important are also deceived, for God has communicated in specific words, and has often taught and made arguments based on precise phrasing (e.g. Matthew 21:31-32, Hebrews 4:1-11).

Literal versions and paraphrases of the Bible, therefore, can certainly enhance the Bible student’s understanding of what God has made known in Scripture, and to that end are useful additions to their repertoire. Yet literal versions and paraphrases should not be one’s primary text or used in preaching and teaching; the work of communicating God’s purposes to mankind requires a balance of faithfulness and meaning, found better in many formal equivalence versions (e.g. ESV, NASB, N/RSV). May we come to a mature understanding of what God has made known in Christ in Scripture and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, VI: Literal Versions and Paraphrases appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and Prayer

People closely identify Christianity and Christians with prayer. And yet, if most Christians were honest, they would admit they do not participate in prayer enough. Yet Christians should be a people at prayer.

In general, prayer involves making one’s petitions before God, a practice thoroughly expected of the Christian (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Ephesians 6:18, 1 Timothy 2:8). The early church was active in prayer (Acts 12:5, 13:3). The Apostles embodied the importance of prayer; Luke took notice of their practice in Acts 4:24-31, 6:4, 16:25. Jesus Himself, even though He embodied the character of God and was God in the flesh, prayed to His Father often (Matthew 14:23, Luke 6:12, 11:1, 22:41-45, John 17:1-26).

Christians have many reasons to pray; these reasons are effectively modeled in the Lord’s prayer (Matthew 6:9-13 / Luke 11:2-4). Christians ought to honor God’s name and revere Him, showing proper respect in prayer conversation, and giving thanks for all the blessings with which God has blessed them in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-23, 1 Peter 2:17). Thanksgiving is important, for it contextualizes the Christian’s present difficulties in light of what God has already done and will do for them, and reinforces our hope (Colossians 3:15, 17, 4:2, 1 Peter 1:3-9). Christians should ask for God to accomplish His purposes through them and for the Kingdom of Jesus to be advanced; by necessity, Christians must seek to align themselves to the will of God in these matters, and they will need His strength to accomplish His work in the world (Ephesians 3:14-21). Christians do well to ask God for their basic necessities: God is not so preoccupied with the major issues so as to neglect our daily needs, and we should always remain cognizant of our dependence on God for all things, including the basics of life (Matthew 6:14-33, 10:29-31). Christians must not shy away from confessing their sins before God (1 John 1:9), “speaking the same thing as” what they have done, admitting wrongdoing and seeking to change their hearts and minds for the better to walk worthily of the Gospel of Christ. Christians ought to pray for strength to resist the temptations and schemes of the Evil One and of the powers and principalities over this present darkness (2 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 6:12, 1 Peter 5:8). Intercession on behalf of others for their welfare, healing, comfort, sustenance, strength, etc. are always appropriate for Christians (Ephesians 6:19, Colossians 4:3, 1 Timothy 2:1-4); we ought to do so individually and collectively (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:14-17).

Christians will pray in different contexts for different reasons. Christians should maintain robust personal prayer lives; ideally, a Christian will orient their lives around prayer, as opposed to the other way around, testifying to their dependence on God for everything (e.g. Acts 3:1, 10:9). In the assembly Christians will pray to edify one another (1 Corinthians 14:14-17, 26). At meals Christians give thanks for the food they have received for its value and nourishment to the body (1 Timothy 4:4-5). In times of decision, grief, stress, or if driven for another reason, a Christian would do well to fast along with prayer, giving extra impetus for the need to pray (Matthew 6:17-18). Some prayer times are full of words; other times are better for more contemplation or meditation.

The Lord Jesus provided many other important exhortations regarding prayer. Christians must always remember what prayer is: communication with God: it must be meaningful; it must reflect the heart; it cannot be rote or empty ritual (Matthew 6:5-8). Anyone who prays to be seen by others has their reward; God will not hear anyone because they have droned on and on (Matthew 6:5-8). We must pray with confidence that God can and will accomplish what we ask; nevertheless, we must never imagine that prayer is a “one and done” experience, for we must persist and persevere in prayer (Luke 18:1-8, John 14:13-14).

Christians must be careful lest they allow their traditions and cultural expectations regarding prayer lead them to reject what may be good and profitable or becoming sterile. There is a time and place for spontaneous, personal prayer; there is also value and wisdom in considering the prayers prayed by people of faith throughout the generations. Praying a message written by another need not be empty of meaning; the one praying must own the meaning for him or herself. For that matter, a Christian can just as easily become guilty of rote, unthinking repetition in their “own” prayer as is possible relying on the words of others. Likewise, just because a Christian happens to pray for similar things in prayer does not mean the prayer is not meaningful; just as we tend to eat similar meals over and over again, and yet still find them nourishing, so it can be with prayer.

Christians do well to offer to pray for other people, individually and collectively, for their benefit (1 Timothy 2:1-4). There is power in prayer; the offering of prayer is not nothing. We are given the impression from Revelation 8:1-5 that the “seven trumpet” judgments are inaugurated on the basis of the prayers of the saints for justice to be done on the earth. We may not always understand how God answers prayer, yet God’s work on the earth is often activated by the prayers of His people.

And yet Christians are called to more than prayer. For Christians to just offer prayer and to believe the work is done is akin to telling a person in need to be “warmed and filled” but provide nothing to relieve their necessity (cf. James 2:15-17). Christians cannot imagine themselves as passive vessels who pray and then wait for God to do whatever He is going to do; Christians are active participants in the work of the Kingdom of God in Christ, and must diligently apply themselves to the practice of the faith while continually praying for God’s direction and empowerment to complete that work (Ephesians 3:14-4:1).

Prayer remains an extremely important aspect of the Christian’s life; we must always be in contact with “headquarters” if we will remain steadfast in the Lord and in His strength (Ephesians 6:10-18). Let us pray continually for the accomplishment of the Lord’s purposes, hastening His return, and living accordingly so as to obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and Prayer appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Spirit for the Remnant

Joel had warned Judah and Jerusalem about a terrible invasion which proved imminent: a horde of “locusts” unlike anything anyone had ever seen would ravage the land, leaving nothing left but mourning and lamentation (Joel 1:1-2:17). They could have been actual locusts; they could be a reference to the marauding Assyrians. Regardless the land would eventually be made desolate; Judah and Jerusalem would be ravaged and then exiled. Joel had extended hope and promise for a future day in which YHWH would restore His blessings upon Judah and Jerusalem and they would obtain all they had lost and then some (Joel 2:18-27). Yet this hope paled in comparison with the promise to come.

After these things, Joel promised, YHWH would pour out His Spirit on all His people: their sons and daughters would prophesy, their old men would have dreams and young men would see visions, and even the servants would have the Spirit of YHWH poured out on them (Joel 2:28-29). Wonders would be seen in heaven and on earth: blood, fire, smoke; the sun would become dark and the moon would be turned to blood before the great and terrible day of YHWH (Joel 2:30-31). All who would call upon YHWH on that day would be delivered; on Zion and in Jerusalem would come those who would escape on the day of trial, the remnant called by YHWH (Joel 2:32).

Joel’s prophecy has generated a lot of interest, excitement, and speculation. Most interest has focused upon the middle section and the spectacular imagery of the sun going dark, the moon turning to blood, fire, smoke, and the like. People have looked to the heavens for the fulfillment of these portrayals, expecting some sort of eclipse or grand astronomical spectacle to herald the coming of the day of YHWH. But is that what Joel’s prophecy is really about?

Joel had already spoken of the sun and moon as being darkened before the coming of the locust horde in Joel 2:10; when given the burden of Babylon, Isaiah envisioned the coming of the day of YHWH against them with the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars (Isaiah 13:9-11). Later on in Joel the image of sun, moon, and stars as darkened on the day of YHWH will reappear (Joel 3:14-15). Jesus would appropriate the imagery as He described the impending day of YHWH against Jerusalem in Matthew 24:29 and Luke 21:25-26.

The darkening of the sun, the moon turning to blood, and the presence of smoke, blood, and fire heralded the Day of YHWH. Ancient people had a tendency to understand eclipses and other astronomical signs as portending calamitous events; YHWH thus spoke of calamitous events in terms of astronomical signs. Joel had already prophesied of a Day of YHWH against Judah and Jerusalem, possibly fulfilled in a terrible pestilence of locusts, possibly fulfilled by the Assyrian horde (Joel 1:1-2:27); many prophets foretold the terrible Day of YHWH against the Northern Kingdom of Israel at the hands of Assyria and the Kingdom of Judah at the hands of Babylon (cf. Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel). They also expected a Day of YHWH against their oppressors: both Assyria and Babylon would experience their own collapse (cf. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum).

Amos was right: no one should look forward to a Day of YHWH; it is quite unpleasant business (Amos 5:18-20). Through pestilence, plague, famine, drought, and sword, thousands would die and many more would be displaced or cast into exile. The Day of YHWH would be YHWH’s judgment on His people or on their oppressors, and most would not remain unscathed. Only a remnant would remain; and so it would be for Israel after the ravages of Assyria and Babylon.

While the middle section of Joel’s prophecy is vivid in its portrayal, it proves consistent with similar messages within Joel’s own message and among the other prophets as well. Ultimately Joel’s promises at the beginning and end of this section prove more unique and powerfully compelling for future generations.

The remnant, those who would escape, would call upon YHWH and find deliverance in Him, finding refuge on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem; upon all of these YHWH would pour out His Spirit. Throughout the covenant between God and Israel the Spirit of YHWH had come upon only select people, generally the prophets. The situation regarding Eldad and Medad is instructive (Numbers 11:26-30): Eldad and Medad began prophesying in the camp, and when Moses was told of it, Joshua wanted Moses to forbid them, yet Moses wished that all of YHWH’s people were prophets, and YHWH would put His Spirit upon all of them. Joshua wished to uphold the status quo among the people of God; Moses yearned for all Israel to receive the Spirit of YHWH.

Through Joel YHWH gave hope; one day Moses’ desire would come to pass, and all the people of God would receive His Spirit, and find deliverance in Him. As Christians we have complete confidence regarding the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: God accomplished it on the day of Pentecost in 33 CE, when Peter solemnly testified before Israel that the outpouring of the Spirit on the Apostles of Jesus is what Joel had prophesied (Acts 2:16-21).

The Day of YHWH would come upon Jerusalem forty years later, but its fate was sealed with Jesus’ and then Peter’s proclamation. The great transition had taken place; God had established a new covenant with Israel, and ultimately all mankind, through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22-36, Hebrews 7:1-9:28). Jesus had set all men free from the curse of the Law and gave life in this new covenant (Romans 7:1-4, Galatians 3:10-14). Now, all who heard the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, put their trust in Him, confessed that faith, and repented of their sin could now call upon the name of the Lord in baptism and receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16). In so doing they would find refuge on Zion and in Jerusalem; not the physical places in Israel, but the spiritual reality in Jesus’ Kingdom (Hebrews 12:22-24). All who were baptized into Christ were baptized into the one Spirit of God, and received the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38-39, 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Joel’s famous prophecy became reality; Moses’ great desire had come to pass. The Spirit of YHWH would not fall only on a select few; all believers would have access to God in His Spirit, the down payment and earnest of their salvation, something denied to most Israelites (2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14, 2:18-22). Thus, in Christ, all come before God with equal standing and value; all could be priests to God in Christ, all maintaining equal citizenship in His Kingdom (Galatians 3:28, Philippians 3:21, Colossians 3:11, 1 Peter 2:3-9). The old covenant was in stone; the new covenant is in the Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 3:1-18). May we all come to God in Christ, find salvation by calling on His name, and live in the Spirit of our God so as to obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Spirit for the Remnant appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Rules, People, and Judgmentalism

Ever since the beginning of mankind there have been rules. For the vast majority of time people have broken those rules. How people view the rules, people who break the rules, and their own violation of the rules looms large in religious discourse today as it always has. The New Testament gives Christians three different models: the Pharisees, the Gnostics, and Jesus.

The Pharisees are famous for their high valuation of the Law God gave to Moses; they were very much fans of the rules (Matthew 23:1-2). They sought to add a hedge around God’s laws, the Torah, to make it even more difficult to violate the rules; they sought to observe many rules with exact precision (Matthew 23:23). Yet in their zeal for the Law they set God’s people at naught. They condemned masses of people as unwashed sinners inferior to them in standing before God, since they had come to learn of the rules of holiness and sanctity (cf. John 9:34). They had difficulties separating out the rules from their interpretation and understanding of how the rules should work, and in the process condemned good, right, and holy deeds as somehow contrary to God’s purposes (e.g. Luke 13:10-17). They proved blind to their own hypocrisy: they commanded others to do mighty things they themselves would not do, violated commands on account of all the traditions and “hedges” they had built, and in their emphasis on little things missed the weightier matters of justice, faithfulness, and mercy (Matthew 15:1-9, 23:1-3, 23-24).

The Pharisees proved extremely zealous for God’s rules; in the process, however, they prioritized God’s rules over God’s people, and missed His important exhortation: God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6). A major aspect of God’s rules involved loving one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18). Beyond all this, what if God privileged His rules over His people? All of His people would be condemned as transgressors (Romans 3:1-20)! Jesus rightly chastised and condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and judgmentalism (Matthew 23:1-36).

Towards the end of the New Testament period a heresy developed that would later be known as Gnosticism. Gnostics tended to cast aspersions on the goodness of the creation, suggesting it was really a cosmic mistake, and envisioned salvation as freedom from the constraints and corruptions of the physical realm. Gnostics thus aspired to develop and cultivate the pure soul: some were moved to asceticism, denying all bodily desires (cf. Colossians 2:20-23), while others, believing the works of the flesh had nothing to do with the soul, committed whatever sensual acts they desired. John, Peter, and Jude have explicit condemnation for these latter types who would turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, acting as if sin was not really a thing or at least was not a thing that affected the select few (cf. 1 John 1:7-10, 3:1-4:6, 2 Peter 2:1-22, Jude 1:3-16). These Gnostics, therefore, were quite the opposite of the Pharisees: to them there was no real sin, no real law. They could do what they want without consequences. And the Apostles, in the name of Jesus, condemned them for such ungodliness and lasciviousness, affirming that Jesus did indeed live in the body and died to save us from sin, and anyone who would deny they had sin was self-deceived (1 John 1:7-10).

To this day there are some who wish to minimize or subvert God’s rules in order to justify sinful and ungodly behaviors; many others either tolerate or even enable them in these pursuits. The Apostles rightly sounded the alarm regarding such people: Christians are called to faithfulness in Jesus, avoiding sin and manifesting righteousness, and the ways of the flesh need no justification or rationalization (cf. 1 John 2:1-17). The Gnostics and their ilk were rightly condemned for their lawlessness, attempting to use Christian liberty to justify feelings and behaviors which ultimately prove unhealthy and damaging to people and are rightly condemned by God in Christ.

Jesus of Nazareth embodied God’s valuations of rules, people, and judgment. Jesus continually upheld and embodied the Law in His life, death, and resurrection (Matthew 4:1-11, 5:17-20, Luke 24:44). Yet Jesus married the letter of the Law with its spirit in purpose as established by God: God’s rules were made for and given to His people, not the other way around (cf. Mark 2:27). Rules came about because people proved sinful and needed guidelines; Jesus came as the ultimate display of God’s love, grace, and mercy, and through Him everyone has the opportunity to obtain forgiveness of sin and standing before God (Romans 3:23-27, Galatians 3:1-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 1 John 4:7-21).

Contrary to the opinion of many, Jesus did affirm the impending judgment of God on account of sin, declaring the condemnation of Jerusalem and warning regarding the final judgment of everyone (Matthew 23:37-25:46). Everyone will be judged by what Jesus has said (John 12:48). And yet Jesus did not come to condemn sinful man, but to save him (Matthew 9:13): Jesus entrusted God with judgment and went about doing good for sinners (1 Peter 2:18-25). In all of time no one has been as righteous or as holy as Jesus of Nazareth (Hebrews 4:15, 5:7-8), and that very Jesus proved willing to eat and drink with sinners, to be touched by the unclean, and to extend hope for salvation to everyone, rich and poor, male and female, master and slave (Matthew 11:19, Mark 5:28-34, Luke 7:36-50, 19:1-10). Jesus’ love for sinners did not involve justifying their sin or enabling them to continue to wallow in transgression; He interacted with them to draw them near to Him and to the work of God accomplished in Him (Matthew 21:28-32).

Christians are called to follow the way of Jesus and avoid the temptations of the ways of the Pharisees and the Gnostics. Christians are called upon to uphold the integrity of what God has made known in Christ and in Scripture, and to contend for the faith delivered to them (1 Peter 3:15-16, Jude 1:3); Christians must strive to follow Jesus and live as He lived (1 John 2:3-6). And yet Christians must display love, grace, and mercy toward one another and their fellow man, recognizing the image of God in everyone, always cognizant of how their standing before God is not deserved but itself a free gift of grace and mercy from God (Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 2:1-10, 4:1-5:21, Titus 3:3-8). Christians must entrust themselves to a faithful Creator while doing good, knowing God will judge on the final day (1 Corinthians 5:13, James 4:11-12, 1 Peter 4:19). Christians thus recognize their fellow man as deceived by the Evil One and the powers and principalities over this present darkness, and thus strive to see him or her as human beings made in God’s image, corrupted by sin, but able to find redemption in Jesus (Ephesians 6:12, 1 Timothy 1:12-17). Christians must love people as God loves people; Christians must uphold God’s standards while confessing their own transgression and sinfulness; Christians must give space for God to render final judgment, and in the meantime find ways to try to save people and not condemn them. May we embody Jesus’ character in terms of God’s rules, people, and judgment, and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Rules, People, and Judgmentalism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and Justice

Lord YHWH of Hosts, the Creator of heaven and earth, founded the creation in justice and is enthroned on justice (Psalms 33:5, 97:2, 111:7). He is indeed the God of justice (Isaiah 30:18, Malachi 2:17). Justice involves the commendation of right conduct and punishment of wrong conduct. Injustice, by contrast, justifies and perpetuates wrong conduct to the expense of right conduct. In His wisdom, God has established the creation in justice: right conduct and a healthy concern for justice leads to the thriving of the creation and humanity its stewards; greed for unjust gain perpetuates oppression, misery, and the degradation of the creation (e.g. Hosea 4:1-4). Throughout time God has sought to uphold justice in His creation (e.g. Genesis 18:19, Jeremiah 4:2, Amos 5:24, Matthew 23:23). Man, as made in God’s image, maintains the capacity to live justly; unfortunately, man has also been corrupted by sin, and has a tendency to commit injustice and oppression when given the opportunity to advance his or her own interests (Genesis 1:27-28, Romans 5:12-21, James 5:1-6).

The Scriptures testify of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the promised King of Israel, who is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). The prophets expected the Christ to reign in justice and righteousness (Isaiah 9:7, Jeremiah 33:15). In His life Jesus embodied God’s standard of justice, proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom of God to the poor and oppressed and chastising the religious authorities for their injustice (Matthew 11:1-6, 23:1-36). In His death Jesus suffered the penalty for sin and transgression, satisfying the standard of justice and overcoming evil and sin (1 Peter 2:18-25). Jesus has been given all authority; God vindicated Jesus in His resurrection, ascension, and the fulfillment of all He spoke regarding Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70; Jesus will return and all will stand in judgment before Him based on what He has made known (Matthew 24:1-25:46, John 12:48, Acts 17:30-31).

As the embodiment of God’s character and the fullness of God in bodily form, Jesus ought to be the Christian’s model in all things, including the pursuit of justice (John 14:6-8, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15-2:12). To this end Christians ought not take their own vengeance, but should give space for God to render justice; they must embody the pursuit of justice in their lives and interactions with others; they must not perpetuate, justify, or prove indifferent to injustice; and they must recognize the role of the state in establishing and maintaining justice, while proving willing to expose and critique whenever the state tolerates or perpetuates injustice and oppression.

The Apostle Peter insisted Christians follow the example of their Lord: as Jesus did not revile or threaten when He suffered and was reviled, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly, so Christians must entrust themselves to a faithful Creator while doing good (1 Peter 2:23, 4:19). Paul encouraged Christians to a similar end in Romans 12:19-21. The impulse to be vindicated when wronged or oppressed is built into humanity, and it is good and will receive its satisfaction at the appropriate time; nevertheless, Christians are not to take justice into their own hands, but give space for the wrath of God. Christians are not to violently resist the evil person but can certainly take every opportunity to participate in creative nonviolent resistance to expose the injustices and oppression perpetrated on them and others on the earth (cf. Matthew 5:38-42).

Christians must resist all injustice and oppression, just as their Lord did. Christians primarily resist injustice in their personal lives and interactions with others. James encouraged visitation of widows and orphans in their distress because they had otherwise been neglected in society (James 1:27), reflecting Jesus’ concern for care for the least of those among them (Matthew 25:31-46). Christian observance of the life embodied in Jesus and displayed in various exhortations and household codes would lead to better treatment of humanity (Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:1-6:9, Colossians 3:1-4:7). Christians do well to stand up and support those whom society has forgotten, neglected, or marginalized, while providing the example and words of Christ to all.

Likewise, Christians must be on guard lest they justify, prove indifferent to, or actively participate in forms of injustice and oppression. James warned Christians against showing partiality based on social class and standing (James 2:1-10); Paul condemned the Corinthian observance of the Lord’s Supper on similar grounds (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). The earliest Christians tended to be poor and more likely to suffer injustice rather than perpetrate it; as Christians have gained wealth and social standing, great care must be exercised lest we find ourselves on the wrong end of God’s judgment against injustice. History is now littered with too many examples of people who simultaneously professed Christ while perpetrating systems which caused great abuse and suffering to others in order to gain profit and wealth. We should be ashamed of such hypocrisy and flee from it, lest the condemnation of James 5:1-6 becomes our own.

God has authorized earthly rulers and their agents to maintain justice on the earth (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18). If an earthly ruler desired to know what justice in the sight of God looks like, he or she would do well to consider Isaiah 1:17, Jeremiah 7:5-6, 22:3: show concern for the oppressed and marginalized, judge fairly, eschew bribery, and avoid shedding innocent blood. All states feature human rulers; all humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; all states thus fall short of upholding God’s justice (Romans 3:23; cf. Revelation 13:1-7). It is not the Christian’s job to judge the state; God judges in His good time. But the Christian must expose and critique the darkness in the state, pointing out where injustice is perpetrated and justified, how the wealthy use their influence to craft policy to benefit and advance their purposes to the harm of others, and to unmask the often less than sanctified justifications given for aggression against other states (Ephesians 5:11-13, Revelation 13:1-18, 17:1-18). Christians must prove as willing to challenge those who would ally with them as much as those who stand against them in these matters.

God remains the God of justice; He is also a God abundantly full of love, grace, and mercy, and stands willing to pardon, but continues to uphold righteousness and justice. As Christians we do well to embody God’s purposes for justice in Christ. We do well to uphold justice and righteousness while remaining humble, entrusting judgment to God, and seeking to find any means possible to show love, grace, and mercy to others so they would repent and be saved. We must resist all the extremes: we must not spend so much time concerned about injustice on earth that we forget about promoting the Gospel and guiding people to salvation, but we cannot sincerely love anyone’s soul if we prove utterly indifferent to (or, God forbid, actively perpetuate) the injustice or oppression they may suffer. We cannot focus on one particular form of injustice to the neglect of all others; we must never become affiliated or identified with any party or cause which embodies only a part of God’s purposes in Jesus while justifying a host of other forms of injustice. May we follow the Lord Jesus and seek to embody justice and righteousness in our lives!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and Justice appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Bible Translations, V: Dynamic Equivalence Versions

People have translated the Bible, in part or in whole, into other languages for over 2,000 years; throughout most of that time, “formal equivalence” has been the primary philosophy of Bible translation. Formal equivalence in translation comes about when a translator seeks to communicate the Bible into another language on a word for word basis. All of the earliest translations of the Bible into English followed formal equivalence standards; 19th and 20th century revisions to the King James Version maintained formal equivalence in translation.

Beginning in the second half of the twentieth century many translators began using a different philosophy of translation: dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence in translation comes about when translators seek to communicate the Bible into another language on a thought for thought (or sense for sense) basis. Dynamic equivalence translations thus prove a bit freer in how they render individual words in an attempt to make the primary meaning of the text clearer for the English reader.

Much has been made about this distinction; many believe there is a firm and strong distinction between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. In reality, Bible translations fall on a spectrum between hyper-literalism (formal equivalence to the extreme) and free paraphrase (dynamic equivalence to the extreme). Most formal equivalence translations or versions of the Bible give some thought to rendering the text in a way to be understood; many dynamic equivalence translations still seek to communicate the text according to the words found in the original.

The most popular Bible in modern English is a dynamic equivalence translation: the New International Version (NIV), completed in 1978 and revised in 1984 and 2011. An “easy to read” version written at a third grade level, the New International Reader’s Version (NIrV), was published in 1996; another revision, Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was published in 2005.

The New International Version was hardly the first dynamic equivalent translation to be published. In 1966 English Roman Catholics developed an English translation based on a 1956 French translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the result is the Jerusalem Bible (JB); in 1985 the Jerusalem Bible was completely revised, disassociating entirely from the French and reliant only on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), still in use among Roman Catholics today. In 1970 British Protestants developed a revision of the English Revised Version (RV) as the New English Bible (NEB); it was thoroughly revised in 1989 as the Revised English Bible (REB). In 1971 The Living Bible (TLB) was published as a paraphrase of the American Standard Version (ASV); a group of translators were later brought together to revise The Living Bible but ultimately came up with an entirely new version, the New Living Translation (NLT), in 1996. In 1976 the full translation of the Good News Bible (GNB) was completed; this translation is also known as the Good News Translation (GNT), Good News for Modern Man, and Today’s English Version (TEV). Other popular dynamic equivalence translations include the Contemporary English Version (CEV; 1995) and God’s Word (GW; 1995).

Dynamic equivalent translations, therefore, have proliferated since 1970, and have markedly contributed to the often confusing alphabet soup of Bible versions and translations available in English. Furthermore, not all dynamic equivalence translations are exactly the same: some, such as the NIV and NLT, maintain some allegiance to the formal equivalence philosophy; others, such as the GNT, CEV, and GW, are thoroughly dynamic equivalent in philosophy; and still others, such as the TLB, move toward paraphrase.

In general, dynamic equivalence translations can provide value in assisting the modern English reader in understanding the primary meaning and referent of a passage. Dynamic equivalence translations tend to be written at a lower grade reading level and are therefore more accessible to a wider swath of English speakers. For people who have little to no understanding of the Bible and the events described within it, for those for whom English is a second language, and for those who have challenges with reading comprehension, dynamic equivalence versions may provide assistance in understanding the meaning of the Bible. For those with greater understanding of the Bible and its message, dynamic equivalence translations can challenge presuppositions, forcing the reader to consider alternative ways of framing or translating the text. The reader may ultimately disagree with the translator’s decisions, but in the process may gain insight or appreciation he or she would otherwise have no opportunity to experience.

Many are incensed at the existence of dynamic equivalence translations, considering them as corrupt and motivated by a desire to advance false doctrines. The NIV, for instance, has been commonly reviled on account of its use of dynamic equivalence in translation (called the “Non Inspired Version” pejoratively by some). A common criticism involves the translation of Greek sarx, normally “flesh,” as “sinful nature,” and thus an allegation of Calvinistic influence (e.g. Romans 7:25). And yet “sinful nature” is what Paul is attempting to communicate with his use of sarx in many such passages; we can affirm that without affirming Calvinism, and it comes with the added benefit of not casting aspersions on the good creation which God has made. Most of the translation decisions made in the NIV and other dynamic equivalence translations can be defended according to the standards of dynamic equivalence even if they may not make the Bible reader or student the most comfortable.

Nevertheless, any reader of a dynamic equivalence translation must take great care with how they handle those versions and not put too much stock in how they read in any given passage since meaning is emphasized over specific form. Over-reliance on the wording of a dynamic equivalent translation may lead the reader toward fallacious reasoning not supported by the original text of Scripture, especially as it relates to inference. As an example, the CEV in 1 Timothy 3:2 speaks of officials as “faithful in marriage”; the original Greek reads “one woman man,” and so the ASV would have the bishop be the “husband of one wife.” To be the husband of one wife means to be faithful in marriage; yet the implications of being the husband of one wife go beyond mere faithfulness in marriage.

Dynamic equivalence translations are here to stay. If Christians are better able to understand the meaning of what God has made known in Scripture through dynamic equivalence translations, well and good. Christians may find it beneficial to explore dynamic equivalence translations and versions in order to have the Biblical text illuminated in ways they might not otherwise notice in formal equivalence translations. To these ends, dynamic equivalence translations may be good for personal reading, but not recommended for preaching and teaching. The reader does well to consult major formal equivalence translations (KJV, ASV, N/RSV, NASB, ESV) in any given reading or passage before drawing inferences or conclusions from any dynamic equivalent translation. May we all seek to come to a better understanding of what God has made known in Scripture to His glory and honor!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, V: Dynamic Equivalence Versions appeared first on de Verbo vitae.