Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Why Am I Not Involved in Politics?

    Why Am I Not Involved in Politics?

    Because, in my chosen way, I am involved.

    I thought I’d answer this question in a post so I’d have something to reference when people ask. Most of those who have asked me this have not done so in an online environment.

    The reason I want to answer it is that some people have gotten the wrong impression. Thus, first, what is not my reason?

    Not My Reason

    It is not that I believe Christians should not be involved in politics. While I believe that the church, as CHURCH, should not be tied to politics, I believe that individual Christians can and should be involved. The extent of their involvement is individual, but I would include voting, advocating for candidates, endorsing candidates, being a candidate, and of course advocating on issues.

    I was registered to vote in the first election after I turned 18. In that election, I was also the precinct captain for a candidate (it was a primary), and also a poll watcher. I advocated for my candidate on my college campus. I have been involved in other campaigns since, though only at the precinct level. I do not regret this activity in any way.

    I fervently hope that all who are eligible, Christian or not, will study the issues and candidates and go to the polls. Right now, beside this computer, I have my sample ballot. There are a number of races on which I have already decided my position. There are a few marked for some further study.

    My particular reason for writing this post is to make this statement. If you fail to see political posts by me on social media, it is not because I consider politics unimportant, too dirty to get involved in, or uninteresting.

    My Uninvolvement [sic]

    So why would I appear so uninvolved at this point that people ask me why? Obviously, nobody asked that while I was stuffing envelopes, making phone calls, and standing outside the polling station in various elections.

    The reason is simple: I believe that each of us have to set priorities. When I was working politically I had the time to be well-educated on the topics and the reasons I advocated for my candidate or issue.

    In particular, I do not believe the volume of political posts one puts out is a good measure of their involvement or their effectiveness.

    What I Do

    At this point I find I have time to advocate effectively (I hope!) on only a few things. I choose to advocate on issues of my faith. I vigorously advocate for dialog. I advocate against demonizing your opponents. I firmly believe in the worth of every person, definitely including those I am tempted to hate.

    What I do not do is publicly advocate on specific proposals or issues, on parties, or on specific candidates.

    I could wish more people would make some choices along these lines. The vast majority of political posts and memes are not actually worthy of viewing or reading. For some reason we often feel we have to have opinions–strong opinions–on a broad range of political issues, often without enough effort to be informed. Those who repeatedly say, “Do your own research,” are often the worst offenders.

    Conclusion

    My level of involvement is decided by these ideas, and yes, as a Christian, I decide this prayerfully. But please, be involved as you can effectively be. Then show up at the polls and vote. It’s a privilege, but I also see it as a duty as a citizen of a republic.

  • The Moral Influence of Jesus’ Death

    The Moral Influence of Jesus’ Death

    In my Sunday School class yesterday we discussed Mark 15. We’re reading this with Allan Bevere’s Keeping Up with Jesus: A Narrative Devotional Commentary on Mark.

    In the thought questions for chapter 15, Allan asks both why Jesus is silent at his trial as depicted in Mark, and what it means that Jesus died for our sins.

    On the first question, there were a number of answers, including simply, “prophecy,” that it was expected. But I want to focus on one note I make myself about this, because it relates to the third question, which is how we understand Jesus dying for our sins. (There are three questions following each chapter in the commentary. I’m focusing on the first and third.)

    In a trial with a foregone conclusion, there is really no point in making a defense, unless you are doing so for someone listening. In this case, I suspect the crowd is well selected for hostility (at least of the moment), and thus not prepared to actually listen to a defense.

    This leads me to what I think is a key point about the death of Jesus. It creates a story of contrast and of black and white confrontation. Nobody is seeing the day in shades of gray. In a book by one of my favorite authors, David Weber, there’s a quote by one of the characters, which I paraphrase from memory here: “Very few days are outlined in black and white, and most of those days have a body count.” I don’t know if that quote is original to Weber, and I can’t locate the correct book, but it’s good.

    The day of the crucifixion was not set out in gray, and it definitely had a body count. It creates the moment of contrast between what good is willing to do and what evil is willing to do. Good dies for others; evil kills what it does not like.

    A portrayal such as this is one that day to day reality can’t really live up to. We don’t have the clear line drawn in the story. We have our struggles both to understand and to do. But that is a critical value of the story: It drives us to higher ground. If we let it.

    So what did this have to do with the third question. What does it mean that Jesus died for our sins?

    What I loved about this question was that it called for each person to think: What does that mean to me? It’s easy to be very prescriptive. We like to have one interpretation and get everyone to understand it.

    The Values of Multiple Metaphors

    I would suggest that no single metaphor can possibly do justice to the atonement. It’s a good thing we don’t have only one!

    Moral Influence

    As an undergraduate working on my degree in biblical languages, there was a required course on exegesis of Romans in Greek, to be taken after I completed intermediate Greek. The professor for this class was an advocate of the moral influence theory of the atonement. This theory is often presented simply as Jesus providing an example in his life of how we should live and influencing good behavior in us.

    That’s not the whole story. In that theory, the portrayal of good and evil meeting at the cross becomes a powerful influence, a powerful changemaker.

    I didn’t get that in class. I wanted something other than penal substitutionary atonement, and I hoped that I could accept what this scholar presented. I wanted to read this view in Romans. I tried to do so diligently.

    It never worked.

    It took me some time to realize that there was something here for me to take in and make a part of my understanding. That portrayal, brutal as it was, was a necessary part of the story of salvation. It was easy to miss this in other views. Then I started to see other metaphors for the atonement, and to see how they build a picture.

    Penal Substitutionary Atonement

    In fact, I came back to appreciate the courtroom metaphor presented by penal substitution, which, among other things helps portray completeness, and finality while excluding the idea of us earning the result. I have conservative friends who still think I’m ditching this dominant evangelical view of the atonement and progressive friends who wonder why I don’t just ditch it. To me, however, each of these views is essential. Since this is not my main topic, I’ll leave it at that.

    I turn next to expressions of faith by the Apostle Paul. Paul can be an annoying character. He covers a lot of ground and expects you to keep up.

    About Paul

    I was interviewing author Herold Weiss, author of the book Meditations on the Letters of Paul in a series I did titled “Who Was Paul?” One question I asked was this: Let’s imagine you’re at a conference and you have the duty of introducing Paul as the next speaker. What do you say?

    Herold laughed and said, “I don’t have to answer that. You see, Paul would never have been invited to speak in the first place!”

    He’s likely right. Paul was too much of a disruptor to be invited to church conferences. It was much more likely that conferences would be held to talk about him and what he was doing, such as in Acts 15.

    Paul, Good and Evil, and Crossing the Line

    In many of Pauls’ letters we have what looks like a theological section, which generally talks about salvation and will frequently inform you that it is not of works. Then you move to a section that talks about things you ought to do. Often these sections are presented as distinct, as though Paul had multiple personality. “Not of works, now get to work,” so to speak.

    I think a closer look will allow these to be coordinated, and I think Philippians is an excellent place to do so. The reason is that until chapter 3, which seems to be a kind of side-tirade, Paul is ready to go through the basics quickly.

    By Philippians 1:27 he’s telling his readers/hearers to live in their community in a way that is “worthy of the good news (gospel).” He wants to hear that they are “standing firm,” and “striving together” for the gospel. He continues that God has granted the the privilege not only of believing (a privilege, a gift, not a purchase), but also of suffering for Jesus as well.

    Not of works. Here come the works.

    Well, yes and no. Paul is writing here, I think, on that line drawn between good and evil at his crucifixion. You get a choice. Are you a crucifier or are you crucified?

    Too often Christians have answered that they are with the crucified one while picking up nails and erecting crosses.

    Persecuted or Persecutor

    I was asked once in Sunday School who I thought was right when two groups were fighting over doctrinal points, really fighting, to the extent of killing one another. It has happened way too much in Christian history. I said that anyone who was killing the other one over their beliefs was wrong. Killing people in the name of the one who went to the cross silently and said, “Father forgive them,” is blasphemous.

    Have I departed from Paul and his letter to the Philippians? I think not.

    How to Look at Other People

    Paul now tells the Philippians to make his joy complete (2:2) by being of one mind (sharing viewpoint) and having the same love. Nothing is to come from selfishness or vanity, but they are to regard others as better than themselves (2:3) then also look to the interests of others, rather than their own.

    I think Paul is looking at that line. Are you a crucifier or are you with the crucified?

    Philippians 2:5-11 is a famous passage. Jesus emptied himself, humbled himself, became obedient, and went to the cross. Others called for his blood.

    This was a portrayal of the nature of good and the nature of evil. That is something we should not forget about the crucifixion, if for no other reason that we avoid becoming the persecutors.

    As Paul says it in Galatians: “I have been crucified with Christ. I’m no longer the one living, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19b-20a). That’s the line drawn in morality and in history. Paul has no intention either in Philippians or in Galatians of telling his hearers that this is easy. He doesn’t suggest that everyone will love them after the decision or that they will get a new job, drive a better car, or be suddenly totally free of disease.

    Be crucified with Christ.

    Identifying the Power

    Things start going off the rail again right here. We think that having been crucified with Christ, or at least made the choice of which side of that line we want to be on, we must get on the ball and be better people.

    Indeed, Jesus was exalted after death and given the name above all names. But first he went to that cross, was taken into the tomb, and was raised again by the very power he laid down in the first place.

    Remember where the power comes from.

    Having died, and been buried with him by baptism, you don’t come back and start fixing yourself.

    “So, if anyone is in Christ, there’s new creation. The old stuff is gone. It has all become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:18b)

    You can’t sanctify yourself. You’re dead. You’ve got no stuff at all. It’s all new, and it’s all His.

    Who Works?

    So back to Philippians and one of my favorite passages:

    (12) So, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I’m there, but also when I’m away, with fear and trembling work out your own salvation. (13) For it is God who works in you all, both to will and to accomplish his pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13)

    So how does this work?

    I wonder why it’s so hard to see God at work in us morally when we already know God is at work in us. If you are a believer in God and that God is the creator, then everything, ultimately, is a gift of God. I could paraphrase this physically as “Do your own breathing with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you both to make you want to breathe and also to make you breathe.”

    I don’t think that’s a ridiculous way to put it. I couldn’t type the next letter without God. God makes the various particles move around in a certain way. God brought me into the world. I can’t even make mistakes without God.

    If you try to take over and do your own working, that just makes everything harder. God knows that and has a plan for all that as well. God makes you want. God works in and through you. But ultimately it’s all God.

    If you go try to do it yourself, then it’s like jumping back to the person who just died, forgetting about being buried and raised to new life by divine power, and deciding to do it all just as if none of that every happened.

    Does this mean there’s nothing to do? Actions are still important. Actions have consequences. Paul even says this in Galatians, his strongest book against works of the law. “Don’t be deceived! God is not mocked! Whatever a person sows that person will also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

    The Life Context of Commands

    Again we have to look at context, in this case, life context. Not every command, not every discussion of good and bad, smart and stupid, effective and ineffective is about whether or not you are saved or have eternal life. Deciding someone’s eternal state is not my job and it’s not yours. Let’s say that I am hiking a trail in some beautiful mountains, tremendous beauty all around, and I get careless, lose my step, and fall off a cliff. Gravity (created by God) still works. The ground (created by God) is still hard. My body (created by God) is still not up to a fast encounter with a hard place. I die.

    Are the mountains still beautiful? Yes.

    I also still have eternal life.

    But it would have been a good idea to be more careful.

    The Invitation

    The invitation to salvation is not an invitation to an untroubled life. It’s not an invitation to always make perfect decisions. It’s not an invitation to comfort.

    It’s also, and this is critical, not an invitation to think of yourself as better than other people. It’s not an invitation to be God’s favorite grandchild, spoiled rotten and looking down on all the other children who have somehow failed to earn all that love.

    If you thought going to church was joining the popular kids’ club and becoming one of the important people, you missed the point. If you get a charge out of feeling superior, you’re missing the point.

    “Looking to Jesus, the author and completer[sic] of our faith …” (Hebrews 12:2).

    Completion

    Read Philippians 2:5-11 again. Try to imagine just what it was that Jesus thought was not something to hang onto, what Jesus gave up. That’s where God is taking you. Don’t diminish that by looking sideways or looking back. When your measuring stick is God’s glory and God’s grace, the differences in human beings are literally not measurable.

    And just as Jesus not only went to the cross and the grave, but rose again and ascended, so we now that God will complete what God has started.

  • Psalm 104:5-9 Short Video

    Psalm 104:5-9 Short Video

    Psalm 104 Translation
  • My Interview on Theodicy

    My Interview on Theodicy

    As a continuation of my series on Theodicy, Steve Kindle interviewed me using the same set of questions I’ve used with all the other participants. This was recorded a year ago, but I just finished the production and posted it yesterday.

    For more information on the series: Theodicy Interview Series.

  • Determinism Anyone?

    Determinism Anyone?

    In a practical sense, I have to agree on this. I’m not sure if that’s the reality behind everything.

  • On Collective and Individual Responsibility

    On Collective and Individual Responsibility

    From the late Jacob Milgrom’s 3 volume Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus, specifically on Leviticus 4:1-35, Purification Offering:

    The Priestly doctrine of collective responsibility yields yet another corollary. The “good” people who perish with the evildoers are not innocent. For allowing the evildoers to flourish, to pollute the sanctuary beyond repair, they share the blame. Indeed, they are the inadvertent sinners who contribute to the pollution of the sanctuary. Let a modern–hence, more vivid–example illustrate the point. World War II would have presented no theological quandary for Israel’s priests of old. They would have rejected with scorn our contemporary theologians who have proclaimed that “God is dead.” Instead of bewailing the silence of God, they would have pointed the accusing finger at the human culprits, the inadvertent sinners, the “silent majority”–the German people who voted the Nazis into power and the peoples of the free world who acquiesced to the annexation of the Saar, Austria, and Sudetenland while barring their own doors to the refugees who managed to escape. A worldwide cataclysm was thus inevitable. Indeed, Israel’s priests would have asked: How long under these circumstances could God have been willing to abide in his earthly sanctuary?

    Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible, p. 261 (emphasis mine)
  • Beastly Attributes

    Beastly Attributes

    I’m following up on my post from yesterday, Making an Image to the Beast. I think these chapters contain quite a lot of useful information that is not primarily prediction, but is definitely prophetic, in the sense of bringing God’s Word to our situations.

    I want to talk a bit more about what kind of image we create through our actions as the Church, but first, I wanted to look at the nature of the dragon and beasts, of whom we finally get an image late in the story.

    Here are some of those attributes and the references:

    1. Tears down others – 12:4, drawing 1/3 of the stars. Beasts and dragons rarely fall alone.
    2. Consumes and destroys – 12:4
    3. Is not the greatest power – 12:8. Note that verses 8 & 9 compile a great deal of what is now Christian belief about the Devil. The imagery hear draws on a number of passages in Hebrew scripture.
    4. Persecuter – 12:13
    5. Sweeps people/things away – 12:15. It’s humorous to note here that there is a single Greek word for “carried away by a river.” There’s got to be some history for that word!
    6. Angry with those not on his side – 12:17.
    7. Speaks blasphemy – 13:1,5.
    8. Though not the geatest power (see #3), operates with great authority – 13:2.
    9. Puts anger into action in war with the “other side” – 13:7.
    10. Wants all the attention and worship – 13:13.
    11. Deceives – 13:14.
    12. Applies force to get worship – 13:16-17

    Now if you’ve read Revelation, you’re probably acquainted with these items, but I thought it useful to compile a list. I didn’t intend it to have 12 items. That’s coincidental.

    If you’re following along, an interesting mental exercise is to ask just what wisdom is involved in counting the number of the beast.

    Almost forgot! The featured image was generated from text on Adobe Express this time. Just trying things out!

  • Making an Image to the Beast

    Making an Image to the Beast

    I’m working on the 2nd edition of my study guide to Revelation, and I’ve been meditating on Revelation 12 & 13, and especially 13:14-15.

    By the miracles it was allowed to perform in the presence of the beast it deluded the inhabitants of the earth, and persuaded them to erect an image in honour of the beast which had been wounded by the sword and yet lived. It was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that it could even speak and cause all who would not worship the image to be put to death.

    Revelation 13:14-15 (REB)

    I don’t want to spend a great deal of time discussing the approach I take to reading and understanding Revelation. I wrote a study guide for that purpose. The short version is simple. I think we miss a great deal of the message of Revelation when we spend our time looking for specific historical referents for the symbols. It’s possible to come up with a plausible scheme. In fact, many sort of plausible schemes have been proposed. But nobody has managed something truly definitive.

    I lean closest to the allegorical approach, but more precisely I believe that through imagery that is worked into a tapestry Revelation presents us we a number of principles which are very broadly applicable. I describe this in terms of a theme park in my study guide. It’s not a sequential story; rather, it’s an interacting set of scenes.

    In this passage we can work with a number of questions, such as who is the dragon and the beast that comes up out of the earth. Those questions are good, but I’m skipping over them to this one: Why does the beast that rises up out of the earth want to make this image? The beast is performing miracles, and through this miraculous power, he creates an image, which in turn does other things.

    Let’s take the simple answer: If you’re a beast, you want an image.

    We tend to think of the image as a statue or some other sort of representation of what a person or thing is. But an image can also be something deceptive, something that helps you think more favorably of what that image represents. The image of the beast is less beastly than the beast itself. That is its value.

    In an age of political operatives and media manipulation, we should be able to feel this one in our bones. A politician has his or her own personality, but then through political operatives he or she can also have an image. Polish up the image but leave the reality tarnished. Or for the reverse, one’s opponents or enemies can create a false negative image. In either case, the “beast” doesn’t look like its “image” and vice versa.

    So what image do we display through our churches? When someone looks at the reality, is the beast behind the image, or the lamb?

    How’s that for jumping the rails?

    I think it’s a valid jump. Paul tells us that we are the body of Christ. Jesus told the disciples that they would be known as His disciples by their love for one another.

    Many people are going to form their opinion of who Jesus is by viewing Him in us. There can be a lamb behind the image just as well as there can be a best. An image can be transparent, letting people see the reality, just as it can conceal the beast that’s behind it.

    If you read Revelation 12 & 13 you’ll get some good ideas about what beast-like behavior is, and why this 2nd beast needs an image to do its will.

    The question is whether we will allow Christ to be seen through us and through the way we “do church.”

    I think I’ll follow this up with a post on ways in which our churches can take on the image of the world around, to the detriment of our witness.

    Featured image AI generated via Jetpack

  • On Listening to One Another

    On Listening to One Another

    On the various Energion Publications web sites, we have been emphasizing listening in commemoration of Pentecost. This Sunday is Pentecost Sunday, but we’re going to continue the topic for a few weeks into what’s called “ordinary time” in the church calendar. It’s precisely in ordinary time that you need to remember the lessons of receiving and listening to the Spirit.

    We need to continue listening even when we can’t see the flames of fire or hear God’s voice, or detect other signs of God speaking. God speaks in many ways, sometimes yes with thunder and lightning, but at other times God speaks through those who are around us.

    Hearing God in Others

    One element of listening that we often neglect is listening as the Spirit speaks to us through other people.

    This was a lesson I started to learn in Guyana, South America, where I lived as a teenager. My parents went there as missionaries with my father assigned as Medical Director of Davis Memorial Hospital in Georgetown. Thus I spent a good portion of my teen years among people of a different culture.

    I would often get rides to various places with the hospital’s driver, Brother Carr. (Note that when I was growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist, I was taught to address my elders as “brother.” That was so ingrained that I can’t actually remember his first name.) There was another gentleman who worked security and also some other functions around the hospital, and was occasionally a backup driver.

    I recall discussing world events with these two men. Different country, different race, different culture, different perspective on just about everything. Those conversations have stuck with me. One day one of these men took me to the seawall which keeps the Atlantic Ocean from flooding Georgetown. After explaining the history, starting with settlement by the Dutch, we turned to current events, which at the time involved Mainland China replacing Taiwan in holding China’s permanent seat on the security council of the United Nations. Elements of that conversation have stuck with me.

    Why do I bring up all of this now?

    Very simply, there are good reasons to not only read books, watch videos, and listen to sermons/lectures on a variety of subjects. It’s important to learn about these things from more than one perspective. This can involve expanding your circle of friends. Intentionally expanding your circle so that you meet more people who are not exactly like you.

    Difference can include:

    1. Differences of faith, including those with a secular or humanist view as well as those of other religious groups
    2. Differences of race, even beyond those we talk about most
    3. Differences of nationality, to include people from countries that are less like our own
    4. Differences of theology within our own faith tradition, such as Reformed, Wesleyan, or Open/relational or progressive, moderate, and conservative
    5. Differences in levels of wealth and privilege (While some object to the term “privilege,” I openly confess to being privileged. It was a foregone conclusion I would go to college and if I wanted, to graduate school. I have never feared starvation. My life is filled with reasons for thanksgiving!)
    6. Differences in geography, such as living in an urban, suburban, or rural area

    There are certainly many more, but these are some of the many things that I think many of us don’t interact with enough. For example, I sometimes give money to someone who is homeless, but it’s much harder to get me to say hello. (I publish two books, The Vicar of Tent Town and The Fringe, both of which challenge stereotypes of what it means to be homeless.)

    Some Books

    And now for a short commercial … well, not really. Some thoughts!

    I was thinking about four books that I publish, all by African-American authors. I’m writing about them here, rather than on my company blog because these thoughts are my own, apart from any marketing plan. (No, I don’t deny wanting to sell the books, but if I was writing marketing text, I’d do it in “company” space!)

    I want to recommend these four books for specific things in which they can give you a different perspective. In the case of three of the books, the reason I’m listing them here is not the central reason the author wrote the book, nor the reason I published it.

    Let’s start first with Dr. Terrell Carter’s book I Have to Live with Them?: Understanding How Black and Brown Christians Navigate Their Relationships with White Christians in the American Church. This is the one book of the four that is precisely intended to help readers understand the dynamic of race relations in the church. It’s written by an African-American pastor who pastors a predominantly white congregation. This one is in the Energion Publications Topical Line Drives series, which means it’s short and to the point. It’s not meant to break major new ground. It’s meant to get you to the starting gate. Dr. Carter has two other titles with Energion as well, which you can find on his author page.

    The second book in this list is not written to address any of the issues I’m discussing here, but it does. It’s The Seven: Taking a Closer Look at What It Means to Be a Deacon by Dr. Lonnie Davis Wesley, III. This is, unsurprisingly, a book about the ministry of deacons in the church, and it’s written by someone who pastors a large Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Greater Little Rock Baptist Church. As an aside, if you live in the Pensacola area, visit this church. I strongly commend it.

    The reaons I’m talking about the book here, however, is because of the background it gives you about the black church in America. It will teach you things about deacons in the church. It will develop your understanding of the early church and what led to their being deacons. If you’re dealing with problems of church polity, you will find scriptural ideas in here that just might help. But it will also help you look at all these things with new vision.

    The third is Grant Me Justice: A Mother’s Journey from Murder and Mourning to Mercy and Dancing. This book deals with grief, anger, and the search for justice, but it also tells an important story, the story of a mother and what gave her perspective on what was happening. It’s a story also of grace. And it’s a story that will help many see things from a very different perspective.

    An important lesson to learn in reading this book is that hearing the stories of others can provide so much help to each of us in understanding our own journey of faith. God’s grace is high and wide, and its sufficient. God doesn’t have a perspective problem. Stepping into the shoes of a grieving parent as you peruse the pages of this book can change you in many wonderful ways.

    Last, but not least (these books are in no order of precedence), I have a children’s book. The book is What Color Am I? It’s the 8th book in the Kamden Faith Journey series. This entire series is about a grandmother helping her grandson in his faith journey. It provides an opportunity for parents to read with the children and discuss important topics with them. In this book Kamden sees a Black Lives Matter protest and asks his Nana for an explanation. What are they doing? Why are they angry?

    The response is gentle, faithful, and powerful. I wonder if you, reader, have looked at these various issues from the perspective in this book. It brought tears to my eyes as I created the book layout.

    Conclusion

    Whether it’s with these books or others and whatever the subject or your situation, try to find an opportunity to listen to someone whose perspective differs greatly from your own. It may benefit them, but it will definitely benefit you.

    Note: Featured image for this post was generated using Jetpack AI as a test.

  • The Passion Translation: Content Review

    The Passion Translation: Content Review

    The Passion Translation has received considerable negative publicity while being supported in an equally passionate way, especially in the charismatic movement. You can find my overview on MyBibleVersion.com, and I presented an overview of criticism and of my review methods in a previous post.

    How I Rate Translations

    Follow the links above to see my rating of The Passion Translation, which also provides an example of how I do such a rating. I do not designate Bible translations as “good,” “bad,” “ordinary,” or some other generic designation without regard to context. I prefer to rate a translation for strengths and weakness in different areas.

    The chart provided shows numeric ratings. Many of these are themselves subjective. I use word counts to determine how formal or functional a translation is. By functional, I don’t mean that the translation works, but rather that it translates in order to provide equivalent impact on the target audience to the original. A formal translation attempts to match specific words or phrases to source words in the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text.

    But having done a word count in a specific passage (I start from Hebrews 1:1-4, which tends to force some rewording), I also look at other passages to see if that number works. Thus the numbers provided should be considered a personal opinion on each item.

    Specific Notes on TPT Ratings

    In the case of The Passion Translation, my own key takeaway was that the overall impact of a translation may be badly skewed by either its critics or its proponents. In the majority of cases, I found that passages were precisely what I would expect of a missionary translator. This doesn’t mean that the translator’s theology has no impact. Everyone’s translator’s theology has an impact. One cannot translate without interpreting, and one’s interpretation and theology will be tied together. What surprised me, after first having heard the hype, was how expected the renderings were.

    Of course, ratings such as whether a translation is by a committee or an individual were fairly clear–this is an individual translation. In addition, it’s clear that the translator is in the charismatic movement, and specific related to the New Apostolic Reformation. Nonetheless, as I’ve stated before, when you have the translated work in front of you, the proper approach is to examine that work.

    In terms of formal vs functional, I found that TPT was closer to formal and less free in rewording than I would have expected from the criticisms. It definitely reflects a willingness to reword and rework passages for the target language and audience. Yet I found it less likely to do so than The Message.

    My initial word counts from Hebrews 1:1-4 actually indicated considerably less rewording than I expected, and after reading a number of other passages, I edged the ratings a point higher on the “functional” scale and a point lower on “formal.” One might describe this as a dynamic or functional translation with some significant deviations.

    Specific Renderings

    Ephesians 5:22

    In my previous post regarding the hype about this translation I included a video. In that video, the translator claims to have received a new translation from God (discussion starts about minute 20:00). I won’t go into this in detail, but on linguistic grounds, I would have to reject his suggested translation.

    Why? First, I would not accept his claim that Jesus and the apostles worked entirely in Aramaic, and certainly not that the book of Ephesians was written in Aramaic. There is no evidence to support the latter at all, and I find any evidence regarding the gospels to be quite weak. Second, the Peshitta, which is the closest thing we have to an Aramaic version, reads very much as the Greek does.

    Note that I would not list this as an error. It’s a strong difference of opinion. I wouldn’t mind if the text read the way TPT reads. I’d be very comfortable with that. But I can’t support that linguistically.

    Because of the intensity of criticism, however, I need to note here that I disagree with most Bible translations at some point. Practically anyone who reads the Bible in the original languages will disagree with any translation at some point or another. Disagreement is different than rejection.

    (For those interested, my friends Elgin and Hanna Hushbeck have written a book in the Topical Line Drives series from Energion Publications, To Love and Cherish, which goes into this passage in depth, based on the Greek text.)

    Psalm 110:1

    Yahweh said to my Lord, the Messiah:
    “Sit with me as enthroned ruler
    while I subdue your every enemy.
    They will bow low before you
    as I make them a footstool for your feet.”

    Psalm 110:1 (TPT)

    There are a few interesting points here compared to the Hebrew, and they’re worth noting in understanding the nature of the functional approach to translation, along with some “transculturation.”

    The use of “Yahweh” has not been traditional in English translations, but here it literally reflects the source text. The traditional approach has been to use LORD for “YHWH” and “Lord” for the Hebrew word “adonay” while using lord for the same word with reference to a human ruler. (Note: I use loose transliteration of the Hebrew to make it easier for readers who don’t know Hebrew. In this case, however, it’s worth noting that “adonay” is “my Lord” with a plural of majesty, while “adon” is just “lord” and “adoniy” is a singular “my lord.”)

    Thus in traditional translations the first line of this verse comes to something like “The LORD said to my L/lord,” with the capitalization of the second “lord” depending on how the translators interpret the verse. Read Messianically, it would generally be capitalized. Read as a blessing on an earlier Israelite king, it would not. I can testify from teaching experience that the LORD/Lord/lord difference can cause some confusion.

    Thus in the first line, TPT makes an interpretation quite clear. The translator is conveying a Messianic interpretation, and clarifying the difference in the terms for English readers. In case the capitalization is insufficient on “Lord,” he adds “the Messiah.”

    One might complain that a reading that is non-Messianic would now not be possible, yet at the same time, the clarification of the fact that the two instances of “lord” (however capitalized) represent different words makes another aspect of the verse much clearer. Translators regularly make this kind of choice for readers. There’s no avoiding it. You can’t convey all the potential meanings.

    So in the second line with have “Sit with me as an enthroned ruler.” This is a more equivocal kind of clarification, a case in which the translation is clearer than the source. Formally, the first part of the Hebrew reads “Sit at my right hand.” This would indicate a position of trust and authority. Some might regard “as enthroned ruler” as an overstatement. James and John as to be seated at Jesus’ right and left hand. This would have meant that they were the first and second rank below Jesus in His kingdom.

    In either a messianic or a royal enthronement context, however, “enthroned” doesn’t miss the point.

    The remainder of the verse is quite valuable in indicating the nature of this translation. Formally, I would translate the Hebrew text as:

    Until I place your enemies as a footstool for your feet.

    Psalm 110:1b, formally translated

    And the TPT:

    … while I subdue your every enemy.
    They will bow low before you
    as I make them a footstool for your feet.

    Psalm 110:1b (TPT)

    So what’s going on here with all the extra words?

    The translator is trying to present you with imagery that will help you understand the meaning of making enemies a footstool. The imagery would likely have been well-understood by ancient Hebrew readers, but words like “subdue” and “bow low” help create a picture.

    You can argue that this is “technically” not correct, though I would ask simply what it is that should be translated when there is poetry that contains rather vivid imagery. What does a translator convey, and how? Both The Message and The Passion Translation often choose to substitute imagery or expand on the original imagery in order to evoke a relevant picture for the readers.

    If you find this disturbing, there are a multitude of much more formal translations with which you would be more comfortable.

    Galatians

    To get a broad feel for this translation I listed to Galatians via Audible. I did this while walking and all in one session. There were only two issues that I noticed.

    The first is quite minor. I would definitely nuance Paul’s use of the term “law” in Galatians differently. This is definitely not an error, but rather a difference in presentation. I think it’s important to be clear that while the specific example of law that is the primary issue in the churches of Galatia is the Jewish law, Torah, Paul is making general points about the function of law. I found this eclipsed to some extent.

    The second is one that I have noted about many paraphrases. Challenging, in-your-face statements are sometimes weakened. One such statement is Galatians 5:12:

    12 I wish that the ones who are disturbing you would also castrate themselves[c]!

    Galatians 5:12 (LEB)

    Now try The Living Bible:

    12 I only wish these teachers who want you to cut yourselves by being circumcised would cut themselves off from you and leave you alone![a]

    Galatians 5:12 (TLB)

    Slightly less in-your-face, isn’t it? Note here that The Message keeps the cutting-edge on this, so to speak!

    Now try The Passion Translation:

    I wish they would go even further and cut off their legalistic influence from your lives.

    Galatians 5:12 (TPT)

    It is important to note, however, that TPT has a footnote indicating the alternate translation. I’ve made comments on this elsewhere. A footnote is a good option when there are viable alternatives or when it’s impossible or just clumsy to get all the meaning packed into one translation.

    Conclusions

    I could go over many other passages, but not that much would be gained for purposes of a review.

    My negatives regarding this Bible translation are that it is done by an individual, that it is very definitely fixed in the charismatic tradition stream, and that some of the hype tends to be distracting. While this doesn’t mean that the translation isn’t valuable, it does mean that it is not well-suited to discussions between traditions.

    The hype, unfortunately, tends to center on God’s call to the translator to produce the translation. (I ignore here the standard complaints that amount to “the translator didn’t translate my favorite verses the way I prefer.”) I personally think that this translator, as well as many others, have been called by God. That call is not the guarantee of their translation work. Solid linguistic work makes a translation good.

    Contrary to my expectations based on what I had heard and read, however, I do not have major problems with the translation itself. One should always take into account the biases of the translator(s). These biases are made clear. That’s all one should expect. There are no sneaky surprises.

    If you are studying, I would recommend comparing more than one English version. For example, using The Passion Translation alongside a Bible with interfaith participation in the committee, such as the Revised English Bible, and perhaps a more evangelical formal translation, such as the ESV, would help you be sure you’re hearing God’s Word in the text.